Defining a Good Actor: Cinema To Theatre

[esparza 333]

Posted: 2/14/09 at 6:27pm

Many film actors come to broadway and seem totally lost and never return. Then there are some who easily transition and deliver excellent performances. Some people believe that acclaimed cinematic actors are where they are due to editing. When some bomb on the stage some people think they are not good actors. They think that the can't get emotions raw and on the spot. Many people thing this is due to stage actors brilliant technique to get it right on the spot. I am wondering if you think stage acting defines a truly good actor. Your Thoughts?

[CSonBroadway]

Posted: 2/14/09 at 7:11pm

In my opinion, I think stage actors are more talented. It seems in Hollywood a lot of the actors are there for the fame and not for the craft. I'm not saying EVERY film actor is like that, but a lot of the stars are. Sometimes with all the media crap, you forget those people are actors.

[snarkywannabedreamer]

Posted: 2/14/09 at 7:29pm

I don't think there are any absolutes. Yes, there are a lot of actors in Hollywood who have no craft and get by just on being cute. And film is very forgiving (multiple takes, ADR, etc...) However, it also requires a subtly (when done masterfully) that creates some of the finest acting around. You can't fake anything on film. That is why those really crappy actors you reference are so transparently crappy. And as far as your comment about film actors coming to Bway and bombing... The same is true for broadway actors who have gone to the west coast with hopes of parleying their success on stage into a film or TV career. Lots of stage actors have bombed in those mediums too... possibly in greater numbers than film actors bombing on bway.

Conversely, I don't think ALL theater makes you a better actor. I've seen lots of crappy performances on Broadway. In fact, i think musicals in particular can sometimes develop lots of bad acting habits (mugging, milking a laugh, "performing" a character rather than being invested in their truth, etc..).

However, I think the real difference, and where stage actors really are superior, is their work ethic. The training and the daily grind of doing a show... the work they dedicate is extraordinary. Far better than film actors. But as far as shear talent, I don't think you can really say which is more talented.

[esparza 333]

Posted: 2/14/09 at 7:32pm

I agree work ethic is much stronger in theatre.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 2/15/09 at 1:41am

It takes a different kind of work ethic to do 8 shows a week. Although, being on a movie set for 6-8 months can be grueling as well.

They're just two different beasts. "Method Acting" doesn't work for the theater. If you tried to "become" the person and were doing eight shows a week, it just wouldn't work. You'd drive yourself insane. (I don't think it's a commendable method of acting either).

And sure, it's tough to "get it right" eight shows a week, but film acting is quite tedious. You have to stand in a certain spot, hold your head a certain way, hold the prop a certain way and speak a line the same way take after take all while trying to deliver a great performance and stay in character.

I think each genre has its own breed of badness. Musicals are sort of the romantic comedies of Broadway. They don't require too much "hardcore" acting, and you can pretty much just be yourself and waltz by on your pretty voice and charm. (I know that's not true for a lot of musicals, but things like Cry-Baby, Hairspray, Wicked, etc).

[dramamama611]

Posted: 2/15/09 at 5:55am

.

BTW: Don't tell Mandy Patinkin that Method doesn't work on stage!