acting question

[badkarma719]

Posted: 9/9/04 at 5:01am

I was out with some friends tonight and we got into a discussion about actors.

would you consider movie stars actors
or is live theatre acting

I think live theatre is acting bc you dont get to stop in the middle of a scene and say "I'm sorry can we please do that over I messed up"

HOWEVER there are some movie stars I would think that some cross over actors are as in the one that start on b-way and go to film or do both.

just wondering what do u think?
sorry if its been posted before, I just was wondering

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 9/9/04 at 10:25am

Of course both are acting...they require different choices to be made. Clearly, you need to make more physical choices on stage then in front of a camera.

BUt, I'd have to agree that it is a harder job for an actor to do a stage show than a film...mainly because you have no ability to mess up. It's scary on stage, and behind a camera, while you probably should not mess up ever...if you do, you will be ok.

Both can be realistic or not, and both require technique. Both are acting...I'd just say one is riskier than the other.

[luvWICKED416]

Posted: 9/9/04 at 10:36am

Theatre acting, is REAL acting. No cuts, no do-overs, it's the real deal. Theatre acting is so personal, and beautiful. Screen acting is all digital and planned out.
There is an element of excitement in live theatre that movie or TV acting can never have.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 9/9/04 at 8:29pm

Both are acting. One requires a slightly different set of skills than the other and stage actors have to adjust to make everything 'smaller' when working on film or TV. Daniel Davis had some great comments about that aspect of adjusting to TV in his recent interview.

In the reverse, TV and screen actors have to adjust to make everything LARGER and play to the back of the house when they are on stage.

There is also a very different work process involved, in terms of rehearsal. Those are just two of the differences. But both are acting.

[NoDayButToday2]

Posted: 9/9/04 at 10:30pm

The advantage to acting in a movie is the set and costumes can be more elaborate. Almost anyone can see that movie for a decent price instead of having to travel to select cities and pay for expensive tickets. In theatre there are no do-overs, but it is nice to see the talent first-hand.

[Adoannie925]

Posted: 9/9/04 at 11:37pm

They're both acting...

Acting is the ability to live truthfully under the given imaginary circumstances.

However, acting in film contrasts from acting in theatre, but they both have their challenges. I find that with film, it's harder to stay in the moment because you don't always have a person you're reacting off of, but then with theatre, there are more physical actions and stage presence is pretty important. In my opinion, they're both equally as difficult, but totally different. So, to conclude, both film and theatre are acting, they're just completely different from each other, and they both have their difficulties.

[Plum]

Posted: 9/9/04 at 11:42pm

I agree, AdoAnnie- both film and theater have their own sets of difficulties. In theater, obviously, there's the fact that you're on every night doing the same show, and you have to keep it fresh and stay "present," often for months at a time. And, as you've all pointed out, there's no do-overs, unless you want to look horribly unprofessional.

There are difficulties unique to film work, as well. The workdays are very, very long and often involve a lot of waiting around. It's hard to concentrate and get in character for multiple takes and for many scenes over the course of the day. Scenes are filmed out of sequence, which means you have to go back and forth in the character's development arc. And that's not even taking into account the modern difficulties of acting with blue screens.