what do you think of acting in movies vs. theater?

Question

whats the difference in talent?
which is looked at more highly upon movies or theater?
thanks;
simone.

Answer 1

Oh, man. I think that basically, it is the same, however there is a reason Hollywood agents and casting Director's look highly upon the theatre credit section of an actor's resume.

In a nutshell, I think that stage actors tend to be more talented (this is an across the board statement - obviously there are some very talented film actors like Sean Penn, Robert De Niro, Marlon Brando, Meryl Streep, Lauren Bacall, etc) , HOWEVER that is because having a successful career in theatre requires a great deal of talent. Every successful, working stage actor HAS to have a high level of acting ability. You can't B.S. in front of a live audience. It's obvious if you can't act and if you can't act, you won't get hired.

Not so for movies...

A great movie doesn't always require a great actor. A good script, lighting, effects, cinematography and editing can all create an entertaining movie without having a lead with a great deal of acting ability or range. Just look at The Matrix - great movie, but I doubt Keanu Reeves will be winning any Oscar's or Tony's in his lifetime.

If you have a good actor though, I think they should be able to do both stage and film successfully because you're just applying the same principles and techniques to different mediums. A good actor knows how to adjust (either minimizing or maximizing) their movements and blocking while still retaining their character and moving/speaking with purpose.

Answer 2

I've done both and I can tell you from experience that there is nothing more fun than working a live crowd. It is a skill that is an intrinsic part of the actors craft or the musician or dancer or any performer for that matter. A great man once told me that there is no play without the con creative activity of an audience. Each member of the audience is having a unique experience. One can only take from an experience in relation to what one brings to it. I do have a great deal of respect for the actor in the film media however. It is a different skill. You may shoot the climax of a scene one day and two days later the set up. This to me would be like a musician playing the chorus today and verse two days later. How can you find the rhythm and the soul of the character that way. This is why I have a great deal of respect for film actors because the good ones can do this. I do not have more respect for one than the other. Each requires a different set of skills.

Answer 3

When I studied with the Russian actress/teacher Mira Rostova, people were always asking her this question because of her connection with Montgomery Clift and the fact that she came from the Moscow Art Theatre, and she had this standard reply: In one you speak louder.
We have all seen many stage actors act in film, and some of us have seen 'film actors' act in the theatre. Some are able to do both, some film only and not the stage, and vice versa. I have to agree with Ms Rostova, acting is acting. There are different skill sets, but if you're not honest and truthful in either, you'll not succeed. The theatre is considered to be more disciplined, but then you have actors like the great Jack Lemmon who could turn it on and off like water. It comes down to each individual actor - there is an as varied array of talents and skills as there are actors. I remember what a teacher once told me: remember that there will always be actors who are better than you are, just as there will be those who are worse. We do our best in any given job.

Answer 4

Well, people in film also often look crap onstage. It works both ways.

Essentially, a stage actor will have to use their entire body to express what a film actor does in much smaller movements, much more concentrated on the face. A stage actor needs more attention to the body and to the vocal training; a film actor needs more training in stillness and working with a camera. Both are working with the same kind of emotional material, I think, but they're expressing it differently. That's why it's relatively easy for a theatre actor to train to work in film, and for a film actor to train to work on stage... but each will have to learn a couple new skills if they want to make the switch.

There's no difference in "talent," which as far as I'm concerned is a meaningless term anyway. What does that mean, really? That you have a natural ability to do something? Forget that--art is work, no matter if you're in film or stage.

And as for which one's got more glamour, it really depends who you talk to. The theatre world and the film world are both very proud (and rightly so) of good work, and I don't think any good actors from either camp would really debase the other. If you're talking about your teachers, peers, or some random person on the street, of course they have a personal preference. I love both theatre and film, so why bother trying to find out which one is better? That's like comparing ice cream and chocolate cake...

Answer 5

Movies you can do take after take after take until it is right.
Theatre you only get one shot to get it right. You are performing live, you have to have all of your lines memorized. If you screw up a line you have to be able to fix it and get back on track.

Most actors get their start in the theatre. All actors who can truly bring a character to life either on the screen or on stage and make it believable are talented.

In my opinion theatre is more highly regarded than movies. Not to take anything away from the movies, but the theatres have existed much longer than films. Of course going by today's ticket prices the movies have reached a broader spectrum and made it affordable entertainment....with the exception of the snack bar of course.

I don't think any true actor would disregard either form as a lesser talent. Like I said any actor who successfully brings a character to life and makes you believe that they are this person is brilliant and talented.

Answer 6

think of of it this way. enable's think of 30 workers all artwork as a team and build 50 residences and financial enterprise $a hundred,000 each it fairly is 3 million for the employees. Then the residences sell for 450,000 + each X 50 is unquestionably greater effective than 3 million action picture stars on the different hand make video clips that are watched international, by using human beings paying everywhere from 8-15 money a cost tag + there are dvd sales and excursions and interviews. Even after the action picture is previous and bee outta of the theatre for a while, money continues to be being made. the assumption is do it as quickly as, do it vast, gets a commission perpetually. seem at Elvis how plenty do you think of he made final 3 hundred and sixty 5 days, documents are nonetheless advertising

Answer 7

Well stage acting is harder because if you mess up the director can't just yell cut and do the scene over lol :) It would confuse the hell out of the audience. If anything goes wrong during a stage performance then u have to work around it. in movies they can just re shoot.

Answer 8

Actors do the same thing if they are effective whether they are in movies or on stage. There is no difference in talent.
While there are a lot of theatre snobs who think the stage is somehow superior to film, they are equal in esteem.

Answer 9

people in theater sometimes can't always get roles in movies
there motions and actions are always bigger because they are on a stage
ppl in movies the camera catches everything so no need to make big emotions and takl really loud with lots of expressions
thats the dif

Answer 10

theater is considered higher art

most actors cross over a lot