Hollywood Vs "The Stage"

My mother and I were having an interesting conversation over lunch today about the differences between Hollywood and what she calls "The Stage". It was a long and VERY interesting conversation.

So, in turn, I wanted to ask the forum: What differences stand out the most for you? It can be within the two industries as a whole, or just the differences between the men and women of Hollywood and the Theatre posse. In what ways do you think they're similar?

---

There is the immediate reaction of the audience when you on The Stage, as opposed to waiting months (or sometimes years) for a movie to first reach a paying audience. Rehearsal periods tend to be longer for The Stage.
And I agree, the community seems to be much more supportive on The Stage than in the movie community.

---

Venn diagrams are cool.

---

Well they often shoot films out of order, so its hard for an actor to fully live out a character's journey if they shoot the ending first, then the beginning, then the middle or whatever combination.

My mom was saying that she read that some famous actor had said that "the stage is an actor's medium, film is the director's medium, and television is the writer's medium." Its obviously not that black and white but i think there's a lot of truth in that. Its interesting, nonetheless.

---

For me, most film musicals based on Broadway musicals are inferior to their Broadway counterparts. Most importantly, seeing a Broadway musical it is easier to maintain a suspension of disbelief to the dancing and singing that takes place. Also, the dubbing of capable singing to the lip synching of the Hollywood actors is very annoying to me. The Hollywood film of GYPSY with Rosalind Russell is particularly hard to take--I saw it once and vowed never to see it again. UGH! But even superior films like WEST SIDE STORY don't work for me. Again, it is the lip synching and the street dancing that is harder to accept in the film. Seeing a musical live we get to go along with the continuous acting, singing, and dancing before us, knowing that it really IS going on in front of us. The excitement of live entertainment just can't be matched by watching a film.

The only two film musicals that I think highly of are CABARET and CHICAGO, and a lot of that has to do with the fact that I have never seen a stage production of either of those shows, as hard to believe as that may be for someone who has been going to the theatre since 1951. I look forward to the eventual revival of CABARET so I can finally see it on stage. I'm not so eager to see CHICAGO, especially in its minimalist form.

---

Updated On: 8/25/07 at 04:27 PM

Several differences come to mind right away...

...starting with the old cliche that Theatre is LIVE. It's happening right there in front of you, so there is an immediacy and visceral connection to it that you can't get from something filmed or prerecorded.

Theatre is an actor's and writer's medium.

Film is a director's medium.

What I mean is that with a stage play we seem to regard the writers as the creative "Gods" of the piece. The are the source from whom all other creative elements flow, including the directorial vision and the intent and shape of the characters in the piece.

But once the lights go down, the performers are out there alone doing their thing. Yes, they've been rehearsed and choreographed to present the piece a certain way, but at that point the show rests firmly on the shoulders of the people running the actual play (actors, musicians, a musical director, stage manager, technicians and other crew).

The director's job is completely over for that performance, once the lights go down. There isn't a damn thing that can be done to shape anything or fix anything from that position.

Film, on the other hand, is a director's medium. He (or she!) calls the shots (literally) before, during and AFTER the rest of the artistic elements have been created. He can decide in the editing room which "takes" he wants to use, and shape a performance in any number of potential ways. He can remove scenes, shots, words, moments that can completely change the intent and the meaning of an actor or writer. He can tighten or lengthen pacing and change POVs. In other words, the director is "god" in this medium.

---

Would anyone say, on the whole, that people who do mostly stage-work are more talented in general?

A terrible bore of a theatre snob might.

---

the one big difrence that comes to me is that nothing is live
and the actors ofter have there voices doctored up a bit

Would anyone say, on the whole, that people who do mostly stage-work are more talented in general?

I don't think that they're more talented, but I do think it is easier for them to go from stage to film than for film actors to go from film to stage. There are countless actors who got their start on the New York stage that now have very succesful careers in Hollywood, where as the numbers of actors who started in Hollywood, then came to have succesful careers on stage, are far less. Stage actors are used to long rehersal periods and not being able to forget lines. They have experiance manuvering through mishaps during a live show. I think stage actors also have to be bigger. Not over acting but filling bigger facial expressions and movements with real truthful emotions. Rather than just having empty movements and facial expressions. (I don't know if that made any sense) If a stage actor goes on to do film it's easier to become subtle then go bigger and still remain truthful.