Theater vs film acting

Re: Theater vs film acting

[quote author=rsbush link=board=Directing;num=1090038353;start=15#20 date=07/22/04 at 04:10:30]Here it is from a master. Tarkovsky On Acting: Theater vs. Film http://www.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghia.com/TheTopics/On_Acting.html[/quote]

I think we have too many masters in this world.

In the Tibetan sense, experts on acting and directing know both everything and nothing. While they may have come to a complex understanding of the process and preparation of the actor, by nature that understanding must change slightly with each new actor that is encountered.

Acting is always an individual experience that is influenced by the material, the situation, the context, the actor, the times, and the director. I believe that any knowledge of directing hinges on a transitory understanding of the actor, and because the acting exists only though the complex construct of a human being with all the associated history and emotion, there can never be a universal understanding of the process.

The scholarly approach to acting has been always to develop a magic bullet that endows teachers and directors the ability to turn any person with desire into a vessel for a character, but that drive to conquer a nebulous art resulted in an arrogant approach of certainty.

Konstantin Stanislavsky’s teachings influenced Lee Strasberg to create his infamous method, developed largely at the Group Theater with Meisner and Adler, but when Strasberg dared to say that Stanislavsky was wrong and he was right, Meisner and Adler developed their own competing variations. All three were dubbed “masters”, all three were rigidly certain in their approach, and all three were just variations on Stanislavsky.

I think people approach the dramatic arts from a point of view that is too scientific. As a sculptor can be said to be a “master”, their mastery of sculpture extends only as far as their chisel. Singularly focused on their work, they learn all they can think to explore during their lifetime, but what results from their work isn’t a better understanding of sculpture as a whole...it’s a better understanding of each individual rock they’ve laid a hammer to.

Acting is exactly the same. While a lifetime of directing and teaching can earn you the title of “master”, the end result is that your understanding of the craft only extends as far as the individual actors you’ve taught or worked with.

The message for young directors out there is to understand that your approach must be constantly evolving to fit the situation and the person before you. You can read a million books about acting and directing, but your abilities will only be born of the marriage between your confidence and your experience with individually diverse people.


Sorry...I got off on a tangent there...
 
Re: Theater vs film acting

It's true the term "master" is too often tossed about but I will say that there is something more ephemeral to understanding a craft than the just your past experience with the particulars of that craft, be they medium or situation.  The truest sense of master implies an understanding that every eventuality whether encountered or not is already past fathoming and is inherently intrinsic to your understanding.  In that way it cannot just be defined as your past experience up to that point or you would have no concept of moment and all it's possiblities.  There are very few masters alive in this world in any craft (especially the craft of living) but there are plenty of hard-line Stanislavskys out there so it's true one should always be careful saying this is the "right way" to act or direct or do anything for that matter.

That being said there are lessons to be learned from anyone elses experiences.
 
Re: Theater vs film acting

[quote author=J_Barnes link=board=Directing;num=1090038353;start=15#21 date=07/22/04 at 06:52:21]

I think we have too many masters in this world.

[/quote]
You may think we have too many masters but most people interested in this topic would be far better served taking advice from some of these "so called masters" (whose work they can view and then make assesments about their proccess) than listening to the rest of us try to sort it out.                                                                        
Tarkovsky was not a scholar he was a director, one who did the work not only talked about it. And he is universally considered a master of his art.
And by the way master does not connotate "sole authority". There are many masters with different approaches in any artform. And this is where reading what THEY say may be valuable to you. First you read what they say, then you look at their results, then you evaluate if it was working for them and if it might work for you. Then you go out and apply what you've gleaned.
 
Re: Theater vs film acting

[quote author=David Jimerson link=board=Directing;num=1090038353;start=15#16 date=07/20/04 at 20:33:50]That much is true.  Stage actors try to be off book by the second or third read-through.[/quote]
For the stage actor, the book doesn't change minutes prior to the performance.  How often does that happen in film? Answer: next to never.  It could be that many film actors tend not to memorize well because they know this.  The opinion, though, that film actors can't memorize is total bollocks in my experience.

On the other side, I've seen stage actors have real struggles with the flexibility of a film setting.  As has been stated, good acting is good acting; and when moving between mediums actors (indeed all) have to adjust.
 
Re: Theater vs film acting

[quote author=rsbush link=board=Directing;num=1090038353;start=15#24 date=07/23/04 at 05:21:18]
You may think we have too many masters but most people interested in this topic would be far better served taking advice from some of these "so called masters" (whose work they can view and then make assesments about their proccess) than listening to the rest of us try to sort it out. [/quote]

First off, I feel it necessary to state that by offering my opinions I did not intend to get into a pissing contest with anyone. As this forum is in its basic form a method of discussion, what we’re trading is essentially opinion. There is room for dissention of all sorts, and sometimes that dissention is taken personally where it was not intended to have that effect. If you review my post, I think you’ll find that what I am saying does not conflict with what you are saying, and if you feel that I was “calling you out” or anything like that, I apologize.

Tarkovsky was not a scholar he was a director, one who did the work not only talked about it. And he is universally considered a master of his art.
Click to expand...

Again, I didn’t mean to imply Tarkovsky is a scholar, and I am well aware of who Tarkovsky is. While my post began with your statement of Tarkovsky being a master, I was intending to offer my opinion about the concept of “mastery” as it applies to teaching and approaches to acting in the dramatic arts. (both of which, I feel are intrinsically linked to the craft of directing actors)

If you’ll review my post, I never mention Tarkovsky beyond application of the term “master”, and instead my opinions related to the development of the “method” and the scholarly approach to acting, neither of which I feel applies specifically to Tarkovsky as a director, or as a source of knowledge about acting.

I was speaking of a scholarly approach as it relates to the major acting methods, movements and schools of the 20th century, given as examples of how there is no magic bullet approach to acting, actors, or directing. Thus still feel that the term “master” is still applied a bit too liberally.

Tarkovsky may indeed be universally considered a “master of his art”, but it is my assertion that his “art” concerns far more then simply directing actors. The modern film director’s hands are in music, sound, pacing, lighting, framing, editing, writing, design, costuming, AND directing actors. I don’t feel that a mastery of all those individual aspects in within the context of a film lends itself to a specific mastery of each outside of the film.

That does not discount his opinions and theories, it simply means that within the context of this discussion (theater vs. film acting), I don’t feel that his opinions carry more weight simply because he is a great film director.

Even the greatest film director has had limited exposure to the world of the dramatic arts, it is simply the nature of the industry’s demands. The most active directors would struggle to complete two full-length features in a year’s time. Each film could harbor a cast of perhaps 10 to 20 people at most that the director might have close interaction with for a duration of three to six weeks on average. That results in maybe ten to twelve weeks of directing between 10 and 40 people in a very productive year. Those numbers simply do not afford the average director a lot of varied exposure to actors.

I could even argue further that the cultural isolation of a director working in a specific country (any country) further limits their exposure to actors and the different ways they access their emotions, thus limiting their global understanding of the craft.

While a lot of directors have an innate talent for working with actors, I don’t feel like that talent alone affords them a mastery of that specific aspect of the art. A director might create 30 stunningly perfect films in his lifetime and still not gain a comfortable understanding of the acting process. I’m not saying that any director’s experience should be discounted, what I’m saying again is that the term of “master” is applied too often in an art form that is so nebulous.

Even the greatest acting teachers the world has ever produced were still altering their teachings up until the day they died. My post was intended to profess the idea that directing is a craft that is constantly learned.

A master has no more to learn.

And by the way master does not connotate "sole authority". There are many masters with different approaches in any artform. And this is where reading what THEY say may be valuable to you. First you read what they say, then you look at their results, then you evaluate if it was working for them and if it might work for you. Then you go out and apply what you've gleaned.
Click to expand...

My post ended with a statement that you might have passed over:

The message for young directors out there is to understand that your approach must be constantly evolving to fit the situation and the person before you. You can read a million books about acting and directing, but your abilities will only be born of the marriage between your confidence and your experience with individually diverse people.
Click to expand...

Again, I don’t believe our statements disagree here, it is just my belief that the learning does not actually begin until “you go out and apply what you’ve gleaned”.

I feel that all the reading and studying we do, scouring all the books and resources about directing and acting, that all serves only as preparation for the journey. The true understanding does not begin until the application meets with the results. Your experience will build confidence, and that confidence allows a beginning director the freedom to explore and build upon his experience.

Reading what a director says and watching their films for the results does not give any sort of accurate picture for the collaborative process that happens on set. That does not mean it is not valuable, but again, it is my assertion that those sorts of things are only the preparation that precedes the education one gains in doing.

…most people interested in this topic would be far better served taking advice from some of these "so called masters" (whose work they can view and then make assesments about their proccess) than listening to the rest of us try to sort it out.
Click to expand...

If you feel confident that you can accurately make “assessments” about any director’s process, then you are far more insightful then I am. In watching any motion picture, I don’t tend to see the conversations between the star and the director, I don’t tend to see the long discussions about backstory and motivation, I don’t tend to see the substitutions and endowments suggested.

If I do see those things, then I know I’m seeing both bad acting and bad directing.

What I mean is that a director’s work is typically transparent on screen. Beyond any specific visual styling, the actual acting work that ends up on screen shouldn’t bear the “stamp” of a specific director, usually it transparently showcases the work of the actor. I don’t mean to suggest that I think the spirit of what you’re saying is wrong, I just mean that there’s only so much we can learn about directing actors from watching a film. When it’s done properly, all the director’s adjustments become embodied in the actor’s work, and how can a viewer accurately separate the two without being intimately involved in that process?

Finally, again I suggest that everything I’m saying here is part experience and part opinion, both of which you are fully welcome to discount.

I’m sorry if you feel harmed by “listening to the rest of us try to sort it out”.
 
Re: Theater vs film acting

[quote author=J_Barnes link=board=Directing;num=1090038353;start=15#26 date=07/23/04 at 08:15:01]

I’m sorry if you feel harmed by “listening to the rest of us try to sort it out”.  
[/quote]

It's kinda hard to tell if you're really intending to get in a pissing contest or not. This statement alone makes me suspect you are. There are some here who have heard what you're saying before and may want to hear another voice on the topic. I offered a link to what I consider to be an illuminating exploration by one considered to be a master. If you feel threatened by that, that's up to you. And I can and do make assessments (assign value) of a director's process, how accurate I am is neither here nor there. Maybe I am more insightful than you, maybe not. But I for one don't need another little lecture on all the disciplines involved in filmmaking.
 
Re: Theater vs film acting

[quote author=rsbush link=board=Directing;num=1090038353;start=15#27 date=07/23/04 at 09:17:59]
Maybe I am more insightful than you, maybe not. But I for one don't need another little lecture on all the disciplines involved in filmmaking.

[/quote]

dude, pick your fights somewhere else.

if you don't want to hear "another little lecture on all the disciplines involved iin filmmaking" then don't spend your time on a filmmaking website.

Either that, or just ignore what bothers you.

let's be grownups here guys. :)
 
Re: Theater vs film acting

Oh god, I hated doing theater stuff because it just isn't ... natural, ive always been much more into acting on camera.

For some reason I've always enjoyed it alot more than performing in front of 700+ people in a auditorium... its just nice to not have to overact (pacino)

jk jk...
 
Re: Theater vs film acting

and what about casting professional actors with non-professional actors. Is there a danger of put-downs, conflict, or mayhem?
Your thoughts... and experiences?
 
Re: Theater vs film acting

You shouldn't really have problems with that. All professionals started off as amateurs at one point so they usually have pretty good respect for people trying to get started. That being said, if they're acting together and an amateur is bad, the professional is going to get irritated at that. If the amateur is incapable of getting takes and such it wastes everyone's time.

Otherwise you shouldn't have problems unless the people themselves don't like each other.
 
Re: Theater vs film acting

Otherwise you shouldn't have problems unless the people themselves don't like each other.
Click to expand...

Which of course can happen with a team filled with professionals OR amateurs...
 
Re: Theater vs film acting

Some more thoughts:

You must love people; you must love the actors. If they feel that you do, they'll work hard for you.

There are theater actors that will never be good film actors and there are film actors that will never be good theater actors.

You must take acting lessons yourself.

Look for introverts. I find that introverted actor, and these are less comon in the US, will look a lot more natural on film, if he is not trained enough in acting, than an extrovert would. The introvert will normally play an extroverted role fine. The extroverted actor will offen be a ham.

Most extroverts are actually introverts retrained by life into extroverts. This type of actor is your better bet for a not too well trained film acor. He will look more natural in film. he palys an extrovert in his normal life and can go from introvert to extrovert and back at any time, go from underacting to overacting in film.

The first film I made was acted by me and my friend. I was in a film school. i never had any acting classes yet. My friend had AA in stage acting. He overacted everything. I came out totally natural. Everyone noticed. He of course claimed that I was more natural because I had a better director, by whom he meant himself. Actually i was the director.

it is not easy to get most stage actors to look natural on film. They are extremely likely to overact everything for film, at least on film it will look overacted.

You must totally understand acting and the role to be able to coach your talent.

Knowing filmmaking and not knowing how to direct actors will get you nowhere, or at least not into the optimum art.

Spielberg does not direct/coach actors. He trusts them. Why? because he has a serious gap there. He can however afford the best actors and they will save him.

Anothe rexample: Look at the awful performance of the young lead in the last Star Wars. It just destroys the whole film. Lucas understands cinema but when it comes to acting, he's not the greatest.

One of the problems with many American film schools is their failure to teach the director sufficiently to direct actors.

In short. Learn the method, from the best directors. That way you will learn both acting, and directing actors.

In some European countries there is another guy, a dramaturg that helps the director on the way to create a dramatically correct film. He understands the drama theory, structure, acting and so forth. In America all this is the director's responsibility.

Then you often get $100 million budget films with poor acting. The use of a dramaturg would correct all this.

Try to get help of someone who has a complete understanding of the drama theory and acting. Give him his credit. It should be a group effort. It's OK to do it the unconventional way.
 
Re: Theater vs film acting

the best directors are the ones who can direct both film and stage. Get two degrees, one in film directing and another one in theater directing. That will make you a lot better film director.

Bergman, Copola, Menzl ... all these direct both stage and film. Their film actors excel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top