Frankly it mystifies when stunts like this are celebrated as great (or worse, "genius") direction. It's not. This is Ashton Kutcher directing Natalie Portman in an episode of "Punk'd."

It's nonsense. Actors aren't pets or toys to play pranks on when the cameras are secretly rolling. Natalie Portman wasn't acting, and Aronofsky wasn't directing. Again, this was a (very short) episode of "Punk'd" on the set of an art film.

When directors resort to this type of thing it's an indication of failure (and ultimately is quite disrespectful towards the actor). It's odd to me anyone would celebrate this as brilliant directing.

Hm. Why do you say that?

@SuperSned

It's quick, it's dirty, but when the director's job is to help the actor find and express the emotional core of the character from within herself -- what better shortcut than to provoke the emotion in the actor at the moment you need it?

The technique's not classy or philosophically deep; it may not have 'art', but it does have some craft to it. All you see in the movie is the footage the director chose to use, and 20 unusable takes of the actor not 'getting it' won't make the cut. But if those 15s of genuine emotional reaction work -- more power to them, I say.

All directors are puppetmasters to a greater or lesser extent.

Definitely disagree with SuperSned.

The first time I became aware that such a move could be beneficial in getting the take right was when an Acting Teacher instructed me to do something similar to one of his fellow actors.

If the Acting Teacher saw it as an opportunity to get the scene right, to push his actor, then I wasn't going to argue. He knows actors better than me.

And in case you're wondering if this guy was a hack, he wasn't. He did a similar thing to the actors in Glory. I don't think I have to defend the performances in that film.

@ David & Carlos -- good points guys. Directing (esp. on a large-scale feature) is definitely a down and dirty job done under severe restraints -- not always the time and possibilities to let the ideal process run its course.

I guess my problem is that you hear these types of on-set stories a lot, and implicit in most of them is that the unorthodox and brilliant director was able to overcome the failings of an actor. The fact (even likelihood) that the director's own failings are causing the problem to start with usually are not part of the story by the time it hits the grapevine (old days) or the interwebs (nowadays).

Interesting discussion. One of the reasons I've never thought too seriously about directing is because I think I'm just too gosh darned nice. Perhaps that's just me working from the stereotype of director-as-autocrat.

Actually the most typical directing I've seen on set can pretty much be summed up with these:

* Okay, let's do it again, but this time a little slower.

* Okay, let's try it again, but this time a little faster.

* Okay, let's do it again, but this time, give me a bit more.

* Okay, let's try it again, but this time, give me a bit less.