From: lexfridman
The world of acting encompasses two primary domains: theater and film. While both are art forms dedicated to bringing characters and stories to life, they require distinct techniques, energies, and approaches from the performers. This article explores the key differences between acting for the stage and the screen as highlighted by discussions and anecdotes from accomplished actors.
The Nature of the Performance
Performance in theater demands a consistent energy and presence that is sustained throughout a live show. The actor must be “on” from the moment the curtain rises to the final bow without the luxury of retakes. This continuous flow of the performance aligns more closely with the flow of a live sporting event:
“You watch a tennis game, you watch basketball, you watch football. Yeah, the rules are the same, but it’s a different game every time you’re out on that court or on that field. It’s no different in theater.” [30:25]
In film, by contrast, acting is often done out of sequence, and the actor may repeat scenes multiple times until the desired take is achieved. This allows for refinement and precision, but it freezes the performance in time:
“No matter how good someone might think you are in a movie, you’ll never be any better, it’s frozen. Whereas I can be better tomorrow night than I was tonight.” [36:02]
Audience Interaction
One of the defining features of theater is the immediate, tangible connection with the audience. Actors can feel the audience’s energy and adjust their performances in real-time, contributing to each show’s unique atmosphere. This is highlighted by the shared moment between actor and audience in a live setting:
“It’s a living, breathing, shifting, changing, growing thing every single day.” [31:50]
In contrast, film actors perform for a camera, often in solitude or with limited crew presence. The audience’s response is delayed until the film’s release, which poses a different challenge for actors to gauge their impact without direct feedback:
“In film, a camera’s right here, you know that your front row is also your back row. You don’t have to do so much.” [35:59]
Method and Technique
Technique in theater often involves a more pronounced use of one’s voice and body to reach the back of the house, while film acting requires subtlety and precision. The subtleties needed in film acting were well-articulated:
“He [David Fincher] just wants you to stop adding all that crap and just say the words and say them quickly and mean them.” [12:12]
Actors must adapt their methods to fit the medium. For instance, in theater, an actor might employ a more embellished style to convey emotions and actions to a large audience, whereas in film, the camera captures every minute detail, allowing for more nuanced performances.
Preparedness and Spontaneity
Improvisation can be a valuable tool in theater rehearsals to explore character dynamics and scene directions. However, once the performance begins, the script must be closely adhered to, paths of spontaneity being much more limited compared to rehearsals:
“Improvisation could be a wonderful device… but in any situation where you want to try and see where could a scene go.” [28:48]
In film, there is more room for improvisation, especially during repeated takes, as directors may encourage variations to capture moments of genuine spontaneity:
“The trying to make it fresh and trying to make it new is really a reference to theater.” [30:12]
Conclusion
Both theater and film acting demand high levels of skill, dedication, and adaptability from performers. While theater offers a dynamic and immediate exchange with audiences, film provides an opportunity for close-up, introspective character exploration. Successful actors often find ways to navigate and respect the unique demands of both mediums, contributing to their versatility and longevity in the craft.
For further exploration into the nuances of performance, see related topics such as Kevin Spacey’s Acting Career and Film Roles and how they manifest in various forms of media.