I am used to practicing in front of a camera, and it is comfortable for me because I can mess up and start over again. I have never done theater before, but that is really all they have in my area and I am SO nervous about getting involved in it. If you forget your lines, you don't have an out, and you better know ALL of your lines too!
I'm wondering though, is it REALLY what I think it is? Also, is professional acting on a real set as stressful as theater sounds (especially for someone with nerves?....)

Hi watermellon seed:
Be aware that there are plenty of professional actors that do primarily or solely theatre. I don't want you to accidentally offend anyone. You sound as if you think theatre is not professional, and I am sure you don't mean that.
As to your questions, if you are interested in acting you should absolutely engage in theatre. And take a class with a good teacher (as opposed to watching yourself on tape).
And yes, professional acting is a very stressful challenging business.

on camera acting is quite different than theatre. On camera is "smaller" in a sense. Its more intimate. Theatre is alive and energetic, whereas film is more (imho) internal energy. I KNOW I'm using the wrong words here. Those who do theatre have a true passion for their work that I don't see much in film actors. Both are extremely dedicated, dont get me wrong. I think the theatre is more physical and more exhausting than film work is. Both take a great deal of concentration! Professional acting is not just memorizing your lines and gettin up there and winging it. Take acting classes in your area, get comfortable with public performance, and learn the techniques that helps you express your creativity the strongest. I think anyone who can make it in theatre can make it in film. Im not very impressed when I see the opposite happen. I think film actors bring their energy inward, where theatrical actors emit their energy outwards. Am I being waay off here, or does anyone else share my thoughts>?

I've done theatre for 23 years and the move into film was strange for me as well. They have their similarities but acting isn't just acting when it comes to these two forms.
It's like painting with watercolors and oils. There will be parts that are easier for some and harder in the other but it takes the same skill set.
If you aren't used to memorizing lines, you will have to work on it and ad libbing skills can be very important. Not to mention the basic skill of projection. I've worked in large theatres with no mike set up and you need to be able to get that voice all the way into the back row.
However, if you have a true passion for acting you will be able to do this. Just remember to be willing to listen to the critiques you get and never say "But when I was acting on film"

quote:

Originally posted by watermellon seed:
I am used to practicing in front of a camera, and it is comfortable for me because I can mess up and start over again. I have never done theater before, but that is really all they have in my area and I am SO nervous about getting involved in it. If you forget your lines, you don't have an out, and you better know ALL of your lines too!
I'm wondering though, is it REALLY what I think it is? Also, is professional acting on a real set as stressful as theater sounds (especially for someone with nerves?....)

I like to think of film acting as, "Theatre acting with the volume turned down."

Theatre is the mother of all acting, and therefore the best place to learn the craft. That being said, there are those with limited access to the stage who have enjoyed stellar film careers. They're usually referred to as, "Movie Stars." Often lacking the emotional depth and techique of a typical stage actor however, they often fall as flat as a day-old souffle when it comes to bona fide theatre work. Julia Robert's recent celebrity turn on Broadway is just a small example.

Having done both, I'd say that both are equally "stressful," with the very real knowledge that in your words, you can "mess up and start over again" on film. Thank God for re-takes.

You get re-takes as long as the director/producer/budget man lets you vs just firing you. The interesting thing about both types of acting is that it's really a team effort, and hopefully both types of teams will be generous and support you. And as Jackie said, practicing in front of a camera is not the same as being on a set; I would say it's even more stressful than theatre acting just because of the huge dollar amounts that can be involved in film or TV acting.

quote:

Originally posted by Robert Kim Photography:
I like to think of film acting as, "Theatre acting with the volume turned down."

Having done both film and theatre, I really have to disagree with this. Film is much more intimate and realistic, and requires entirely different staging than live theatre. Of course, your voice level is much lower, but there's a lot more to it than that .....

I understand the concept. My one-sentence reply was meant to be taken in the figurative, not the literal.

quote:

Originally posted by CSilvera:
You get re-takes as long as the director/producer/budget man lets you vs just firing you. The interesting thing about both types of acting is that it's really a team effort, and hopefully both types of teams will be generous and support you. And as Jackie said, practicing in front of a camera is not the same as being on a set; I would say it's even more stressful than theatre acting just because of the huge dollar amounts that can be involved in film or TV acting.

First of all CSilvera, are you speaking from personal knowledge as an actor, or just what you've read or pre-supposed?

Actors NEVER get fired because of re-takes. They get fired because they're either not equipped to play the role, or for being complete a******s. A perfect example of the latter is when Rachel Welch was fired before film completion on "Cannery Row." Her on-set attitude simply wasn't worth the money that Universal had to pay her -- a cool eleven million (that was back in the 80's. What would that fetch on today's market?).

And I do not agree that doing film work is MORE stressful than theatre acting simply because of the money involved. When an actor's reputation is on the line -- whether in film or theatre -- do you really believe that they're more interested in what the budget was than in their own, personal performance? If you do, you've just answered my first question.

Thank you for your replies. I really didn't mean to undermine theater in any way and I hope I didn't offend anyone. I was trying to express how much more difficult I thought theater would be, and I have a lot of respect for someone who can get up and perform an entire show live like that.

Hopefully WS, you'll be doing both soon! you've received some good advice on the board as to where to start--good luck!

Robert Kim Photography: Perhaps actors are not often fired for re-takes (because it would cost even more to replace then and re-film). But what absolutely does happen on TV is that they will not be back for future episodes if they are a possible re-occurring character, of they will be given fewer lines.

I have a friend was a guest star on a lawyer show, and they gave him a new closing argument five minutes before they shot... and it was not an easy speech, lots of names and what-not. He is a very good actor, so he did well, but he did mess up on a few little things. The script supervisor wrote a note o the script: "Fewer lines". As it turns out, he was never back on the show; weather or not that had to do with the note he didn’t know. Some shows are very strict that every work is as written, some are not… this one was.

Bottom line, yes, having your lines down on film is also important, especially if you are the guest star.

I don't know iceman, that sounds a little harsh. When I was shooting the wire, there were times when actors had to re-take 30 times or more. If someone was being a dick to your friend, thats an isolated incident. Im not saying it never happens, but its not the norm. There are pressures in both fields of acting. I think the main difference is whats going on with your physiology. In film, the work is more internal (as far as technique goes). Someone stated above that film acting in "quiet theatre acting" and I like that, but its a very generalized view. I get what he/she is saying though. I think the pressure in film is a little more political than in theatre. In film, time is money, so there's no wasting time when it comes to the shot; however, the acting takes a backseat to the pictoral focus of the scene. If the shot "looks" good, and not 100% acted well, it'll still print. Whereas in theatre, the focus is really put on the rehearsing so that by the time its ready to open, the show will be at a level of discipline where the actors are "on".

"Robert Kim Photography: Perhaps actors are not often fired for re-takes (because it would cost even more to replace then and re-film). But what absolutely does happen on TV is that they will not be back for future episodes if they are a possible re-occurring character, of they will be given fewer lines." -Iceman.


There are re-takes and there are re-takes.

The re-takes I was referring to consist of three categories -- the first caused by the occasional actor's bobble, the second due to a technical glitch on the set, and the third the director simply desiring another take. NONE of them are considered grounds for early termination from any project. Major studio productions have far greater latitude with re-takes because of correspondingly larger budgets. Independent filmmakers unfortunately, are hamstrung from lack of same. Film stock and lab costs being what they are, this is the universal dilemma suffered by all independents.

The second type of re-takes are the ones you describe, where the actor is simply not behaving in a professional manner -- like coming to the set without having learned his lines and totally unprepared to deliver on his professional obligations. I made this distinction clearly when I described this type of actor as "not equipped to play the role," above. But there's a world of difference between an actor who's having temporary difficulties remembering his lines and an actor who can't remember them because of his cocaine abuse.

There's a basic legal concept that alludes many... ANYTIME YOU FAIL TO HONOR ANY SINGLE ASPECT OF A CONTRACTURAL OBLIGATION, YOU WILL BE HELD IN ACCOUNT. In this business or any other. Whether it's failing to memorize a script or failing to appear on a DUI, unprofessional actors usually meet with unhappy consequences.

I don't know if much is to be gained by trying to decide which is more stressful. Individuals have very different reactions to stress and some might be more anxious at being in front of a crowd of people while others worry that they'll waste expensive set time.

My own comparison between theatre and on-camera is that it's like the difference between playing classical and electric guitar, or harpsichord and organ. In each case, you need some basic musical chops to play either, but you work the dynamics very differently, and all kinds of subtle differences in material result as well - the kind of single note lead that soars on an electric would just plunk on an acoustic classical, and the kind of multi-layered counterpoint that makes some classical pieces so rich would be overwhelming on a "hot" electric.

And so subtle moments that work on camera can be wasted on stage, and the kind of energy and volume that works on stage can look hammy on camera. And different material tends to work better in each medium as well.

As for which to do, or want to do... For a long time, the conventional wisdom was that "real" actors developed good stage chops, no matter what else they did. The fact is, more and more excellent actors start on-camera and mainly stay there. Some may succeed on-stage, some may not. But the question is pretty academic, given the relative audiences for on-camera vs. those for stage.

To put it another way: does anyone really care if Eric Clapton or Mark Knopfler can play classical guitar? Yet once that was the measure of a "good" guitarist.

There's a lot to be said for performing on-stage - for many of us, it's energizing in an immediate way that doing multiple takes of a few lines is not - but the days when one could judge an actor's seriousness or skill by what they did there are, I think, fading.

For what it's worth, I've done both professionally and here's what I think (well, it's paraphrasing acting coach/teacher):

There are major differences. But the differences are primarily technical that are dictated by the limitations of each medium.

Film/tv is limited by the frame of the camera (audience sees what the camera wants you to see); it's an editor's medium so it's non-linear (a scene is a collection of multiple takes spliced together - usually a combo of close up shot, two-shot/medium shot, and master shot).

Theater is limited by artifice of a stage and the fact that every audience member sees a slightly different performance (depending on where they're sitting). There is no "framing" because it's an open stage, live.

In other words, the "camera" as audience and the "house" as audience means that technical things like blocking, eye lines, vocal projection, physicality, and so forth are where the biggest differences. These technical issues can impact the actual "artistic" aspect of acting performance, but for the most part, the fundamental aspects of what makes a great performance -- focusing on your objective, being in the moment, honoring the spirit of the story, reacting truthfully to what's around you (scene partner, environment), and creating a strong character arc in every scene or from beat to beat - all these things are necessary for both theater and film. It's how you translate these aspects to fit the medium that differ.

For example, blocking on film can be more technical and often more precise. The reason is twofold. First, the camera is slower than human eyes. Quick movements come across as more abrupt and jarring on camera than they do live even if the camera is still (not to mention that the camera may not pan, zoom, track, etc. as quickly and smoothly as human eyes can). However, the camera is more sensitive to light than human eyes. It picks up EVERY shadow and gradation (not to mention that editors are piecing together different takes - master, two-shot and close up) so the lighting from one take to another has to be as consistent as possible. For example, little things like where your hands go can really screw up shadows and light on your face.

Film gravitates towards the eyes and face, whereas theater gravitates towards the body (and voice). Think of every great film performance, and it's either a close up or two-shot where you see the actor from the shoulder up - it's all in the eyes and face. In theater, the voice has the added technical requirement of projecting (whereas in film, the mic picks up everything). However, you still need to be connected to your voice in either medium (anyone who does voice class knows what I mean). Same parallels with the eyes - your eyes/face need to be connected to your body in both theater and film, but in film, the camera gravitates towards your face and eyes, so the technical aspect to make sure your eyes are seen (!!) are absolutely essential. Moreover, there's a technical issue as well since your eye lines become so important (they will be shooting multiple closeups - closeups of you, closeups of your partner, a medium shot, etc. and where your eyes place your partner needs to be shot in a way where it doesn't look sloppy (for the camera).

Also, how you block a scene is also dictated by the camera as well, you can't cross camera in a certain way without breaking the axis (you disappear from one side and reappear on the other side in a way that just looks weird).

Another thing is that in theater, the performance is linear - as actors, you "perform" the story in one sitting for the audience, and in the order that the script tells you. In film, the performances are non-linear - you are "performing" the story in little bits over a few months, and also out of sequence.

As such, film is a series of "moments", whereas theater is a series of long arcs - they're even written that way; film scenes are typically 1 - 3 pages, whereas theater scenes are 10 - 15 pages. This requires different kind of preparation. In theater, you need the discipline and stamina to play through a long complex arc of a scene, whereas in film, "the moment before" becomes essential since it's a series of moments - moments that may be part of a larger arc played over a series of scenes - which you don't have the palette to play in sequence.

I always cringe when folks use the word "small" and "internal" to describe how film differs from theater -- it's just as physical and big, but it's conveyed in different ways.

I also cringe when folks claim one is harder than the other -- they're both difficult in different ways.

Well I must admit I agree stongly with everyone and must say that I saw nothing about Improvisational Acting. If stage acting or film acting, I strongly suggest taking a class on improv. Especially for stage acting as the truest test, I believe, of a stage actor is his/her ability to improvise and keep the show moving when a fellow cast mate or something technical goes awry. Many times I have seen actors forget lines in a show and everyone sit there for a moment, blank. It truly is scary but a true stage performer would see that this moment is happening and fix it with a blink of an eye. So this whole rant is really just saying, whether doing stage or film, try an Improv class.

Also, if you do attempt stage, please take my advice. Try at least once working as a crew member for a small production. It sounds strange but the experience gives you a whole new knowledge of how a show runs and opens your eyes to things you never would pay attention to that suddenly will improve your acting. I know this sounds crazy, but give it a try.

Hi there,

I see all good replies here. Let me add some practical terms from an acting point of view:

*) a wide shot is like playing in front of 100 people or more
*) a medium shot is like playing in front of 50 people
*) a close-up shot is like playing in front of 30 people or less

the numbers are arbitrary, but I hope you understand what I meant

I took one on camera audition class and it was very different than just doing scene work. I see it important to learn scene work first then the varios techniqwues for stage, TV & film.

Lots of good advice here from everyone. If I were you, I'd re-read the first paragraph of what Jim Chevallier wrote on Mar. 2; then re-read what Andrew Behrens said about working on a stage crew. Those two pieces of advice are right on target.