If there's one thing actors are good at, it's acting. Pardon me for stating the obvious, but the men and women of Tinseltown and beyond don't just take up this craft because they want something to do on a Saturday. They've dedicated their lives to their art, taken small speaking jobs they didn't necessarily want, done nude shots they perhaps weren't comfortable with and traveled to far-flung corners of the globe just to get their next paycheck. So, as a rule, they tend to be pretty good at what they do. Don't think I'm glorifying actors, because I'm not. All I'm saying is that they've got a job, and through time, practice and taking in new experiences they're more suited to that job than the rest of us. However, the same could equally be said about nurses, carpenters or even dustbin men. If you have a job, you tend to have more expertise in it than your average person might. However, unlike most professions, actors have to deal with directors the people whose job it is to actually make the film. Directors are multiple and varied in their approaches, with most choosing to stay on hand to offer helpful pointers, facilitating the actors into giving the best possible performances. However, there are other directors who believe actors are idiots, incapable of actually acting to the exact standards they want. They believe acting must be as realistic as possible, and go to terrible, devious lengths to put their exact vision onscreen, even if it means fooling their cast. This article is dedicated to those obsessives the ones who would shoot an actor for a realistic death scene, if only there wasn't a union to stop that sort of thing happening. These are the directors who believe that the best performances happen when the actors are deceived, shocked or worse, often resulting in nigh-on torture for those on set. This article will go through some of their cons, chronicling the most infamous instances where directors have willingly pulled the wool over their actors eyes for the sake of a good scene.