Improvisation can lead the way to great moments in cinema. I’m not talking so much about comedy improvisation, but rather dramatic. Comedic improvisation can lead to some great laughs, but it can also at times be a way around having a great script. Just hire some funny people and let them fill in all the jokes.

When I’m talking about improvisation in a dramatic context, I’m talking about talented actors deeply engrossed in their characters, living truthfully in the moment. A well-known example is the scene in‘ Django Unchained‘ where Leonardo DiCaprio accidentally cuts his hand and incorporates his own blood into the scene.

Going back further you can look to the quirky llama moment from ‘Twin Peaks‘ or Dustin Hoffman’s headshake from ‘Kramer VS. Kramer’.

Oftentimes people tend to have a misconception that improvisation needs to happen right on set while the cameras are rolling, but that’s not true. Ideas can be formulated on set before shooting, in the green room, or where the best improvisation often arises; during rehearsals, long before ever stepping foot on set.

‘Twin Peaks’ – The Llama Staredown

The Twin Peaks llama moment was improvised on animal hospital set when David Lynch found himself captivated by a llama that was initially meant for background work only. But the llama didn’t just happen to walk straight through the frame and stare longingly into the eyes of Dale Cooper. After the idea came up on set, the shot was framed to best capture the action, and Kyle Maclachlan had something in his mouth that attracted the llama to ensure the fuzzy animal stopped to look right at him.

David Lynch is a master of this kind of improvisation. oftentimes his ideas come from the environments that he submerges himself into. Many iconic Twin Peaks moments are things that he came up with on set, including primary Twin Peaks antagonist Bob who was played by Frank Silva, a set dresser whose reflection happened to get caught in a mirror. His look struck Lynch and he became a pivotal part of the entire Twin Peaks mythology.

I think that this kind of spontaneous idea generation is an integral element of the filmmaking process for Lynch. It was actually one of the grievances that he had with ‘Twin Peaks: The Return’ where he wasn’t given enough time to soak in the worlds he was creating.

‘Kramer vs. Kramer’ – Subtlety

The moment highlighted from ‘Kramer vs Kramer‘ arose from Dustin Hoffman being in character, but offscreen, for Meryl Streep’s performance. She’s in the middle of her big courtroom scene when she looks over to Hoffman who is providing her eye line. He did a simple in-character gesture that was so perfect for the moment, so true to both characters, that it generated a heartbreaking reaction in Meryl Streep, and director Robert Benton knew it needed to be incorporated. They re-shot Hoffman’s coverage to include the gesture he made. Hoffman’s gesture was just a little shake of his head, subtle, restrained, but it means so much to the other character, and the audience knows that. This moment between these two actors is what makes this entire climactic scene.

There are other improvised moments in the film as well, such as in the restaurant argument scene. Smashing the glass was planned onset between Benton and Hoffman, but Streep was unaware. You can tell this moment was improv’d, not just from the genuine surprise on Streep’s face, but also by the way she covers her face afterward, and the way Hoffman awkwardly moves the glass back and forth in the preparation of breaking it. I even think the little look off-camera he does might be a glance toward the director for confirmation that they’re going ahead with it.

If you listen to interviews and commentary, they actually regretted doing the scene this way and wouldn’t do it this way again if given a mulligan. It still makes for a good moment, but it’s not nearly as effective, as the more character-based head shake.

‘Little Odessa’ – In the Moment

Let’s look at a different film to zero in on a director giving their lead freedom in the moment. James Gray’s debut feature ‘Little Odessa‘ isn’t a perfect film, but it has a lot going for it, and some incredibly strong scenes. The story isn’t all that original and the film overall is a little rough around the edges due to budgetary constraints, there’s a scene where you can see the boom mic and another where you can see a piece of lighting equipment… but the performances are strong and make up for these shortcomings, particularly the performances of Tim Roth and Maximillian Schell. The two only have a couple of scenes together, but whenever they share the screen, it’s electric.

The best scene in the film happens sort of early on. Tim Roth is essentially a hitman who is re-visiting Little Odessa where he grew up, and where his estranged family still lives. He loves his mom and little brother and hates his dad, and the scene where they see each other again for the first time in years finds them coming to blows, Roth with his fists and Schell with his belt.

The general premise is similar to scenes in other films, but Little Odessa pushes it further. The way the scene is shot makes it feel like it is about to end, but then it keeps going. After the initial punch, there isn’t any coverage for the father, just the one shot that holds on Tim Roth. The father spends the action either entirely out of frame or just barely in frame with his back to the camera. Roth is shouting past the camera, punching past the camera, it feels so in the moment, unstaged, unblocked as it continues on. It feels like these two actors got caught up in the intensity and naturally extended the scene to wonderful effect.

The second punch that Roth throws and the others he almost does, the snapping of the belt, there’s a real sense of danger. A natural place for the scene to end would be right here right after the first punch… But the scene keeps going, not much longer, but since we as audience members feel as though the natural conclusion has already passed, we have no idea what to expect, or where things could go from here. The fact that we aren’t cutting back and forth between the two makes us feel like the scene has already reached its ending, so every little bit of action and dialogue that happens after that point has an extra raw-ness that catches the viewer off guard.

‘Vera Drake’ – Total Improvisation

Let’s take a look at a film that was built entirely upon improvisation and actor input. ‘Vera Drake‘ from director Mike Leigh gives actors just about as much freedom as possible. The film had no script, though it was ironically nominated for best original screenplay at the Oscars. In place of a script was an outline. The scenes were intensely rehearsed and the lines were ironed out through this rehearsal process.

The basic outline of the story was planned and Mike Leigh worked with the actors to figure out the rest. Parts of the story, including the real meat of the drama, were kept a mystery from the cast. Only the lead actress knew what the film was really about from the beginning. Vera Drake is a working-class family woman who provides young desperate women with abortions in a time where the entire procedure was heavily illegal.

Her family has no idea that she does this, and neither do any of the actors playing her family members, until the moment the police interrupt their dinner. The actors in this heavily improvised film are finding out what Vera Drake does in this moment, and instead of Mike Leigh telling them how to react, he allows them to decide in the moment; how they feel their characters would respond, how they would feel about this issue, how their opinion of their mother, their wife, their sister, would change with the arrival of this news. This is true reacting in its purest form from great actors thoroughly engrossed is fully formed characters.

Not even including Imelda Staunton, who plays Vera Drake, knew that this would be the scene where her secret was revealed. None of the family members were told about the arrival of the police ahead of time, and the police had no clue what sort of reaction the family members would have ahead of time because they didn’t know themselves.

Shooting like this opens up such a wide range of possibilities and Mike Leigh’s directing style allows for absolute actor freedom and character truth.

Their Own Devices vs. Rehearsing

Not all directors rehearse extensively with their actors, sometimes for budgetary reasons, or scheduling reasons… or sometimes they just choose not to. Directors like Clint Eastwood and Ridley Scott have reputations as “assembly line directors”, at least nowadays. They rarely do more than a couple of takes and the actors are often left to figure out the performances on their own.

Leaving an actor to their own devices might sound like it allows them a lot of freedom to explore, but the opposite is actually true. If you know your director is likely only going to do a couple of takes, maybe only a single take, and you haven’t worked out the scene together ahead of time, then you have essentially no room at all in which to experiment and explore the character and situation. You’re forced to stick to what you know will work for sure, the straightforward approach. Good performances from good actors can arise from this, but I think it’s hard to get a great one this way.

Extensive rehearsals might sound as though they would limit an actor’s freedom, but again, the opposite is true. Mike Leigh spent six months rehearsing with his actors, developing their characters and finding the truth in these fictional people. He worked with the actors to craft their biography from their birth til the beginning of the film. Before rehearsing as a group, Mike Leigh met with each of the actors individually to flesh out all of their personal nuances and make them as real as possible. The actors didn’t start working with one another until their characters met.

By spending so long rehearsing, you aren’t hammering in lines said in a specific way, you’re allowing ultimate uninhibited freedom within that period of time. The actors are free to try anything, to experiment, to play within their character’s headspace to understand them more fully. It’s a collaborative process as they work with Mike Leigh to craft the character.

Another director who rehearses in this way is Sidney Lumet. He’s the man behind some of the best films ever made, 12 Angry Men, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico, Network, and many others.

Let’s focus in on ‘Dog Day Afternoon’, the film that I will fight to the death has Al Pacino’s best performance. It’s him at his most manic, his most vulnerable, his most real. By the way, if you ever spot me in real life shouting “Attica”, this is why.

Dog Day Afternoon is based on a true story. It’s not an adaptation of a book but was instead inspired by an article covering a real-life bank robbery. There was a screenplay written by Frank Pierson, which actually ended up winning the Oscar, but Sidney Lumet only followed the script’s structure. He disregarded almost all of the dialogue and instead worked with Al Pacino and the rest of the cast to discover the lines through improvisation during rehearsals.

The improvisation continued onto the set and this freeform style of character work, especially from a hardcore method acting Al Pacino, is the main reason why the film has such incomparable energy to it. Pacino barely slept during filming and he let his body fall apart to maintain the strung-out energy of his character for the duration of the shoot. He even had to be hospitalized and take a break from film work after they wrapped production.

The lengthy phone call scene was also entirely improvised and shot in just a single take. They spent an entire day on this one scene, no air conditioning to further add to the realism of Pacino’s sweaty live-wire performance. After finishing a perfect take, Lumet had him go again from the beginning straight away, to capture the authentic fatigue Pacino was feeling in that moment, which matched his character’s.

Dog Day Afternoon feels so real, because so much of it was real, lived in the moment within character, even the famous Attica shouting scene was improvised. Incredible things can happen when you pair a top of his game actor with a world-class director who knows exactly how to give him the kind of freedom he needs to experiment while creating an environment to bring out his best and organizing the filming in an unobtrusive way to best allow for this kind of performing. Lumet would use multiple cameras at different angles to catch genuine reactions without forcing his actors to stick to pre-planned blocking, he would have backup cameras ready from matching angles to record extremely lengthy takes, this was back when film cameras could really only shoot for 10 minutes at a time.

Lumet used the situations from the script as a starting point to explore with his cast their way through the emotions and actions from the headspace of their fully developed characters. Lumet transcribed the lines established through rehearsal into what ended up becoming the screenplay submitted to the Academy.

In his book simply titled ‘Making Movies‘, Sidney Lumet goes into great detail about his rehearsal process. Rehearsals would go on for long periods of time, always starting early in the morning and going through the day. He is responsible for bringing out some of the best performances in American cinema and hearing insights into his process is a great resource.

A mantra within the Meisner technique is “acting is living truthfully within imaginary circumstances.” When great actors are given the freedom to experiment and explore within character, great results can arise. Extensive rehearsals can be freeing rather than limiting and can help both directors and actors get to the heart of the truth that everyone involved is attempting to portray.