Download Theatre vs screen articles

The 3 Major Differences Between Stage and Screen Acting
By David Patrick Green | Posted Sept. 12, 2013, 3 p.m.
I recently did a career consultation for a classically trained Shakespearean stage actor with 24 years of experience.
He could easily act circles around me but although television production was exploding in his area and he
desperately wanted to transition into that market, he was having very little success doing so. I helped him realize
that there are several key differences between a stage- and camera-oriented career. He was so impressed with
what I had to say that he offered to create an event where I could share this information with actors from all over
Georgia. I was flattered, but all it took was a simple explanation of how performing and promoting stage and
screen acting were different and the changes he needed to make because of these differences. This week we will
examine the main differences between in performing on stage and performing on screen
1. Audience Location. The biggest difference between performing on stage and performing for the camera is the
location of your audience. On stage, the audience can easily be 100 feet or more from the performers. Since the
audience must see and hear a performance to enjoy it, stage performers must act for the back row. The result is a
larger than life performance since the other actors are only a fraction of that distance from you.
Since the camera can always see you and the microphone can always hear you, you only have to move and speak
so the person or people in the scene can see and hear you in television and film acting. If someone is three feet
away, speak as though they are three feet away. If they are 50 yards away, speak to them in that manner. Reality
is less enhanced when a camera and microphone become involved. In fact, due to camera-work, score, lighting,
and other effects, it is sometimes better to do less than you would in real life because so many things are
augmenting your performance. So the main responsibility of television and film actors is that they behave
naturally. No exaggerated sound or movement is required.
2. Material. The second major difference between stage and camera acting is the familiarity of the material.
Theater is by its very nature repetitive and therefore familiar. When a play takes hold and becomes popular, it is
put on by company after company, night after night, all over the world. That repetition creates an iconoclastic
image of the story. When people think they know the material, they want to hear it exactly the way it was written
and they know when it is changed because it is so familiar to them. The words of the play become iconic and any
errors of dialogue will sound like fingernails on a chalkboard. Imagine if Richard III chose instead to say, "A horse,
a horse...or maybe a camel?"
Television and film is different because the audience has never seen the writing. It is fresh and largely written on
the fly. Words are being changed right up until shoot times in many cases. Therefore, at a TV/film audition, an
actor can make mistakes or small changes without consequence. An original and believable performance is king.
3. Characters. The third difference between stage and TV/Film is the iconic nature of the characters and
celebrated performances of those characters. The audience and critics will compare you to past versions of the
same show. Because many stage characters have been played over and over, there is only so much leeway an
audience will accept before they start to complain. People often go to the theater to see something familiar so
you better give them what they want or the rotten fruit will start flying.
In TV/film, you will almost certainly be the only person to ever play any given character so what the producers are
looking for is some version you. They are looking for the person who fits the world they are creating. No one has
played it before so there is no reference point. It is up to you to show them what your part of the story looks like,
and if they agree with you, you will get the part. So there is generally far more leeway in developing (or not
developing) a TV/Film character than there is in the performance of an iconic stage character.
These are the three main differences in performing on stage versus doing on-camera work. Next time we will look
at the differences in promoting and preparing one's self for TV/film roles.
Arts & Entertainment
Stage Acting v. Screen Acting: Worlds Apart?
Aug 24, 2009 • By Brian Timoney •
If you speak to fellow actors, you will know that people enter acting with different aspirations. You may have a
burning desire to excel in a particular field of acting. The prospect of becoming an international film or TV star
may be what appeals to you. Alternatively you may be driven by a deep love of the magic of theatre.
As an aspiring actor you may wish to specialise in the medium you feel most passionate about. The reality is that
most people who have completed acting courses won't have the luxury of choice, and of turning down stage roles
for screen roles or vice versa. It's a tough world and, as a new graduate from acting school, you will need to
embrace all opportunities. That means cultivating the versatility to perform both on stage and in front of the
camera. To do this, all actors need a thorough grasp of how different stage and screen acting are.
Successful actors choose their acting training carefully, plan their careers and capitalise on their strengths. It has
been traditional in the UK for actors to learn their craft with acting training geared to stage performance. That's
no longer always essential. For example, a new trend is standup comedians crossing over into stage and screen
acting (think of Ricky Gervais, Eddie Izzard and Matt Lucas). What is vital is for you to appreciate where your
talents lie, and to assess which medium ultimately offers you the best opportunity to shine.
Physicality
The key difference between stage and screen acting is the way in which meaning is expressed and conveyed. The
stage play relies strongly on language and verbal delivery. First, that means that the stage actor needs a voice that
can be heard in a large auditorium. Second, in stage work the voice is central to expressiveness and
communicating emotion. Third, timing of delivery, and using the voice to create and sustain dramatic tension, are
crucial, since they can't be tweaked in the editing suite.
Movies create meaning very differently. Montage - essentially the juxtapositioning of shots - is central. A
character has received terrible news. Film can convey his or her reaction in several ways, suitably tuned to the
narrative: by cutting to a stormy sky; a flashback to a car crash; a close-up of a dropped phone dangling. In a play,
it is voice and physical movement that you must rely on for conveying emotion.
Gesture, movement and physicality are also vital on stage. Whereas tiny gestures can be magnified in close-up
film shots, as a stage actor you will use your body very differently. You will need to communicate a physical
energy and develop a 'stage presence'. The film close-up permits subtleties of facial expression and movement
that don't work on the stage.
Camera work and editing achieve effects that the stage actor must create largely by using the body. In film, props
and settings are also used extensively to convey meaning and atmosphere. As a stage actor, the onus is on you to
do that work.
The Experience of Stage and Screen
As a theatre actor you may find yourself, quite literally, centre stage: significantly in control and in receipt of
constant feedback from audiences. In moviemaking, the director's whim is paramount and editing powerfully
shapes the product that (eventually) appears.
Temperamentally, you may discover that you are best suited to performing in one medium or another. You may
realise that you are one of the many actors who struggle with the lack of continuity associated with shooting
isolated scenes, the process of endless retakes and the absence of audience reaction. Three months on location in
Borneo might not be your cup of tea either.
Whatever your preference, the ability to cross over and perform on stage as well as film and TV has clear career
benefits. Variety can be the spice of life and mastering the different skills needed can help add texture and depth
to your performances.
Method Acting: Bridging Media
Acting for stage and screen demands different acting styles and appreciating that fact should be a consideration
for you when you are starting out in acting training and deciding which acting courses to take. Method acting
gives actors a firm foundation for work in any medium. Creative expressiveness underlies good performances
both on stage and before the camera, even though you will use different devices and strategies to convey it. For
stage work, method acting will help you to create the emotional depth and intensity that stage performance
demands. In film acting, it will help you to get into character on cue - no mean feat.
Because the stage demands a particular style of acting, some theatre-trained actors find making the transition to
the screen difficult. Method acting will help you to bring a naturalism and authenticity to every one of your
performances, regardless of whether it is for stage or screen.
As well as honing your ability, a spread of acting courses will illuminate the avenues that you can pursue as an
actor and the skills you need to get work in different media. This insight you gain into the world of acting, along
with self-knowledge, may lead you in directions other than those you initially planned to follow. Appreciating the
different media, and the demands of each, will help you extend your range, depth and versatility as an actor.
1
Stage vs. Screen: What’s the Big Difference?
By N. Eugene Posted on August 14, 2015
Laurence Olivier, Meryl Streep, Daniel Day-Lewis, Marlon Brando, Judi Dench, Paul Newman…
The list of actors goes on and on, but what do they all have in common? Each of them started as a stage actor but
is better known for being an Academy Award-winning film actor. Clearly, using these actors as examples leads to
the conclusion that the acting skills learned in the theatre can translate to film. Put another way, acting is acting,
whether you are on stage or in front of a camera.
However, there are key differences between the stage and the screen that need to be understood. Moving
between theatre and film can be equated to a painter who moves between acrylics and watercolors. The painter
is still a painter, but the medium has changed and, therefore, the process will change.
For an actor, knowledge of the difference in the environment, venue, and script between theatre and film is
crucial to becoming a double-threat.
Environment: The Theatre and the Film Set
Theatre is a nurturing art form. The best of theatre productions have adequate rehearsal time, cast bonding, and
time to experiment with the director before opening night. Stage actors become familiar with their roles slowly
and by the time they perform publicly, they have practiced dozens of times.
In contrast, film sets are chaotic places packed with specialized, high-paid artists. For an actor, this presents
several challenges. For one, you will receive very little, if any, rehearsal time. For another, depending on the size
of the role, you may not receive any direction. Films hire actors under the assumption that they will come to set
performance-ready.
Preparation is vital in both theatre and film, but the process of preparation is vastly different. In addition, the pace
of filming pressures actors to hit their performance quickly. Theatre actors, especially, may find the pace of a film
set to be jarring, so be extra prepared and flexible when new to film.
Venue: Where’s the Actor? Where’s the Audience?
The literal difference in physical location between theatre and film is one of the greatest obstacles for actors who
are transitioning into a different medium. It is often said that theatre actors are “big” and film actors are
“natural.” This is a result of the venues in which the actors perform.
In a theatre, actors and audience are separated by a distance ranging from a few feet in a small black box to
hundreds of feet in a large auditorium. Everyone in the audience needs to see the action and hear the dialogue on
stage, so theatre actors must exaggerate their movements and speak loudly to bridge the gap.
Films, on the other hand, use a camera to eliminate the distance between performer and observer. The presence
of the camera, lights, microphones, special effects, and music all serve to enhance a film actor’s performance, so
no embellishment is needed. Cameras pick up every twitch, infliction, and subtle pause that an actor has and on
film, the actor’s goal is to replicate reality. Speak to the other actors as you normally would and gesture as you
normally would.
Script: Shakespeare Doesn’t Write Movies
When audiences attend a play, they know what to expect because plays are performed repeatedly and scripts are
publicly available to read. Think about how many times Romeo and Juliet has been performed around the world;
thousands upon thousands of times, to the point that the story is a cultural icon. Such knowledge creates an
expectation in the audience. They want to see and hear the story that they are familiar with and they will tolerate
very little change.
The beauty (and difficulty) of film and television is that the scripts are being produced for the first time. There are
no past performances to be compared to and the audience has no preconceived notion of what the characters
should look and sound like. This gives film actors more freedom in performance. No one knows if you flub a line or
forget some blocking. The only thing that matters on camera is a realistic performance.
Many of the best actors started in the theatre and made the switch to film and television later in their careers.
The techniques, skills, and experiences garnered as an actor in one medium can translate nicely into the other.
However, understanding the unique characteristics that distinguish the stage from the screen is necessary to
guarantee an actor is prepared.
Acting in Film Vs. Acting on Stage
Posted by Maison Kelly on Monday, April 7, 2014 ·
While some people may expect little difference between performing in front of a camera and performing
in front of an audience, a lot of actors find the transition extremely difficult. But what is the main thing
that makes the two mediums so different? Let’s talk about some of those distinctions you might not have
realized.
First, the most obvious difference is the audience. On stage, everything is slightly altered to be best
presented and understood by the live audience. Stage actors work to express themselves in a way that the
audience can clearly understand. From a technical standpoint, stage actors must never face away from the
audience or speak in a way where they cannot be heard. They must take into account the barrier that even
basic distance creates in perception. On film, viewer perception can be controlled much more easily. The
camera can be manipulated to show the viewer angles that allow the actors to worry less about making up
for a communication gap.
But outside of mechanics, the audience (or lack thereof) really changes the style of the work itself. The
camera sees everything, and is better suited to focusing directly on the internal life of a character. While
both fields obviously have their protagonists, film typically follows one character more closely and puts
the viewers in that character’s point of view. A camera can more intimately follow the character’s
changing emotional state.
In the theater, however, gestures and emotions must be bigger for the audience to detect. This is why
theater focuses more on situations than the internal thoughts of a character. The audience only sees what
behavior the character presents to whomever is around them in the scene. In turn, the audience serves
almost as another character in the performance and knows their public persona more than their thoughts.
Despite this, an intelligent audience can detect a character’s true goals by observing how they present
themselves. Upon realizing the characters goals, then the audience can detect what goes on within a
character. It isn’t as straight-forward as film, but the characterization element is certainly there.
While both styles of performance are so different from each other, it’s hard to say if one could be the most
truthful or ‘pure,’ as some claim. While some actors are fiercely loyal to one style, most agree that there is
truth to be found in both fields. We love actors like Neil Patrick Harris, Laura Benanti, Lea Michele or
Hugh Jackman who seem to have mastered the switch between screen and stage. This distinction between
acting styles also makes it interesting to think about those movie stars who make their Broadway debuts
in new works– will their talent transfer to a totally new medium? All of these questions are interesting to
consider, especially if you’re thinking of pursuing a career as a performer. Which style do you prefer?
Directing: The Similarities and Differences between Film and Theatre
By Lenore DeKoven
The general misconception held by most laypeople and some professionals seems to be that there must be a difference
between the crafts of directing and acting in theatre and those in film. The belief is that there are stage actors and screen
actors, film directors and theatre directors. I don’t agree with this. It is true that some actors and directors have more
experience in one or the other form and thus have to make adjustments or add to their awareness of certain elements in
crossing over. But it is my contention that the basics of the crafts remain the same. However, it is true that the skilled
actor does not necessarily automatically become the skilled director nor should one assume that the skilled director can
also act.
THE LANGUAGE: A SIMILARITY
What is certainly the same, at least in my approach, is the language of communication. Although the director’s work calls
for an overview of the material and an awareness of the throughline and outlines for each character as opposed to the
actor who simply has to focus on his/her own role, the means of communication by which the actor and director
collaborate to lift the words off the page and breathe life into them can be the same. My workshops, which always include
actors, directors, and yes also writers, all work together with the same approach. The results are testament to the fact that
this can be done successfully.
The realities of economic survival demand that both actors and directors be capable of moving with ease from theatre to
film or television if they have the desire for a roof over their heads and food on their tables. It is well known among
members of our industry that working in the theatre is a luxury ill-afforded if it means taking time from the much more
lucrative remuneration offered by film and television. There is frequent mourning by the theatre community over the
apparent loss of talented playwrights who have opted for the good life by writing screenplays and who have seemingly
deserted the theatre. In the days of what is lovingly called the “golden age” of theatre (the forties, fifties, and sixties), the
motion picture industry derived much of its material and talent from the theatre. Plays were purchased from successful
runs on Broadway and adapted into films. Actors were discovered in Off-Broadway plays and quickly became stars, As I
write this book, it seems the worm is turning: Work initiated in film is adapted for the stage. Actors known entirely for their
film work are appearing for the first time on the boards and even directors, some of whom began in the theatre, are either
returning to the fold or trying on the experience of directing theatre for the first time. And this is all happening with varying
degrees of success or failure.
SIZE: A DIFFERENCE
There are some differences that must be taken into consideration and addressed in the course of the work. The first and
most obvious of these is the question of size. We’ve examined the issue of size of screen in the chapter about the actor
and the camera, particularly in the use of close-ups, but here I am referring to another aspect that is almost the opposite
concern. It is that in theatre, the presence of a proscenium, or whatever separates the live audience from the actors,
demands a certain level of projection. It is not only necessary to be seen and to project the actions and activities clearly,
the actors must also be heard and understood in the upper reaches of the balcony. The actors’ training therefore must
include the ability to retain the truth of their characters while finding a level, often slightly larger than life, that will project
that reality to the large watching audience. The camera, conversely, is like a microscope, examining the actor’s every
move, the slightest twitch. But the quick wink of an eye, so telling on the screen, might be lost to an audience of more
than 25 in a theatre environment.
In the previous chapter I’ve referred to the case where, when working with talented trained actors who have had
extensive background in theatre but little or no film experience, my film students have, on viewing their dailies, had a rude
surprise. What seemed so right in the protected intimacy of the rehearsal hall suddenly leaps from the screen seeming
pushed or indicated. What happens is that the actor goes into performance mode in front of the camera and reflexively
projects in the manner customary to the theatrical experience. Without realizing the effect that this seemingly slight
change might have on the balance between actors, the choice of actions, and so on, the team presses blithely on. It is a
sad moment in the editing room when the director realizes that the lack of attention to even the most subtle of changes in
the actor’s performance might make it necessary to reshoot or, even worse, to settle for something less than desirable.