ACTING FOR THE CAMERA VERSUS STAGE ACTING - ANY DIFFERENCE?

[Cheryl Whitney]

Use this thread to discuss the acting for a live audience versus acting for the camera.

Are you a stage and screen actor? What are your experiences, tips, tricks and advice for those who want to live the dual life? Do you perfer one type of acting over the other? If so, why?

If you're a director for stage and or screen, what are your observations about actors who cross from one medium to the other? Any advice you can share?

If you're the guy behind the camera, what do you observe when a stage actor crosses over?

[Rick Padden]

Well there's that one huge difference: no do-overs in stage acting. You have one shot to get it right. That's not to say that stage acting is better than acting for the camera, but it's certainly the distinguishing factor that gives me the most pleasure. Unfortunately, since you can't do multiple takes and get it perfect, I also tend not to want to see DVDs of stage shows I've been in. Well, plus the sound on such recorders is always terrible.

Then of course there's the sound level, or projection required on stage that isn't necessary with film. It can limit your range when you have to project a hundred feet or more out to an audience, and the filmmaking process can be appealing for its flexibility (although larger theaters do mic the actors nowadays). It can be tough for a stage actor to make the jump to film and hold his/her voice back.

The other side of that coin is that some film stars don't use their voices much at all anymore. It seems the bigger the star the quieter the voice. They start whispering in nearly every scene and it drives me nuts.

The other big difference, at least for me, is that I need immediate gratification. Stage is so in the present -- even the rehearsals -- and as an actor you get to take back immediately. I've done some small films, and find it frustrating to perform for the camera and not see the results for months (sometimes never).

[Leigh Ann Otte]

Hee! Now that's a great, provocative title. Couldn't resist giving you kudos. As you may know, I have lots of opinions on this but unfortunately (or fortunately, for you guys) no time to write them right now. Look forward to a fun discussion in the future, though!

Leigh Ann Hubbard

[Cheryl Whitney]

...and we look forward to seeing what provocative comments you'll volley back (lol). Can't wait.

[Rick Padden]

Yes, please provoke, invoke, stoke -- whatever.

[Roe Moore]

Beside the stated above, y'know, it dawned on me at class last week as to what the main difference between the stage acting and the camera acting as far as the challenges to me...

-Camera Acting: I'm more relaxed and open when I know the camera is rolling. I am able to calm the "Watcher" (the outside visual where you can sometimes see yourself) as I know i'll be able to watch my performance over and over and over to perfect it.

-Stage Acting: I get very uptight and paranoid when on stage because if i do something grand, I want to see it myself. In effect, I psyche myself out anticipating that something great will happen and when i get everything right and it goes well--I panic last minute and suck the great performance right back inside instead of allowing the audience to see it.

I know this is pretty much all psychological, but has anybody else noticed this?

[Rick Padden]

Interesting. It's the opposite for me. I get so much energy from having an audience that they suck the great performance right out of me.

Rick

[Darlene Cypser]

We have worked with a number of actors who started in the theater and then moved to film. There are a number of differences.

Projection: Mikey mentioned one important one: Projection. In theater you have to be heard by the deaf lady in the 20th row. If you used that voice for film you would blow the mikes.

Focus: In theater your focus is on the audience. In film your audience is the camera which may be a foot from your face. This can change performance and staging.

Subtlety: Because the camera can and does come in so much closer, film can capture nuances of expression which are lost on stage. A stage actor needs to exaggerate movements and expressions to get them across but must tone those down for the camera.

I don't totally agree that it is the actor's job alone to maintain the sense of the flow of the story in film because it is shot out of sequence. A lot of that is the responsibility of the director.

[Darla Rae]

This is a great topic.I'm sure it will create some amazing comversations.
Me personally it doesn't matter working with both.Becasue I came from a stage background as did a lot of us, I find it easy to get the performance that I want to see as a director.I think the approach to a charcater is the same.
The delivery is different but ultimately how you breakdown a character and do your analysis, and work with the director
is all the same or at least should be.It should be fluid regardless of the medium.
Once an actor has settled in to the character and the actor is gone and nothing but the character exists,then a director should be able to get what they want ,wheter it be stage or film, or digital video!

[Darla Rae]

I guess it all depends on the director,because I had one director, who was also a brilliant actress,who about beat me and two lines into submission in front of the entire company until I got it delivered the way she wanted it.

Your performance must be on regardless whether your in front of the camera or on a stage.

As a director I've had actors be upset because they were use to stage and having an audience respond right away.
However if its great I will say great job,and move on to get my next shot.But each of us actors all have a certain way in which we like to receive feedback.Sometimes it's just so complicated.Other actors have said to me,don't talk to me unless it was bad or not what you wanted, because I'm in character.It's such a fun creative process,which everyone attacks differently.

I agree with Darlene regarding the camera lense capturing the nuances, otherwise missed by a live audience.
I also agree that it is up to the director to maintain the flow of the story.When I'm directing I try to set it up in a way that maintains the flow as much as possible for the actor,unless scheduling conflicts can't be helped.

I do so appreciate when actors know their lines and don't wait until were ready to shoot to look at them,instead of taking our crew set up time to get up to speed.

I would like to hear from more actors of what they like on the set and why,or on stage.

[Kathryn Gould]

I prefer to have some feedback, even just a "that was great" before moving on. But I've gotten used to getting little to none and assuming that if we're moving on then the director got what they wanted. On stage, I actually like a little more direction. If the director has a certain direction or feel they're going for, please communicate. Otherwise I'll just keep experimenting till I hear something positive or negative.

In film, what I REALLY appreciate in terms of keeping the story flowing is a little set-up from the director reminding me what the scene before was and what they're looking for in this scene. And if there's some movement that I need to repeat exactly, at least tell me in the first shot that I'm going to have to repeat that movement so that I know what I'm supposed to remember for the next one. I'm really pretty good at doing the same movements repeatedly and keeping it fresh, but I can't always remember every detail, especially if there's a lot of time between shots. I'm not a filmmaker or director, so I don't always realize what's going to be cut together and how it's all going to fit smoothly. And especially if I'm going back a month later to reshoot something, please spend some time setting up the scene in my mind. Even after looking over the script again, I may have forgotten something.

Kathy

[Rick Padden]

Feedback for Kathryn: You're great.

[Leigh Ann Otte]

I always appreciate feedback from the director and sometimes am frustrated if I don't get it because I don't know what that means: Did it work? Was it so bad that you can't think of anything to say? Were you just not watching--maybe paying more attention to the technicals or something--and therefore I should go pout in the corner because I am not the center of your universe? That's interesting about some actors not wanting it because they're in character.

I do hate, though, getting constructive criticism or coaching during shooting from people who aren't the director. I find it disconcerting. Of course, if you want to mention how well I'm doing, well, now, that's a different story ....

Leigh Ann Hubbard