Acting for Film vs.Acting for Theatre

This conversation originally took place between Ed Hooks and myself via email. It ended up being interesting, so I decided to reprint it here. It started with a USENET post I made which I unfortunately don't have, but my basic theory on this is included in my essay about being an actress.

For clarity, Ed's thoughts are in blue,and mine are in black.

Conversation begins on 4/6/97

My response to Ed (quotes his full initial letter)

>Good post about film acting, Caryn. I agree with most of what you >say. I think a film actor still has to be aware of the audience, >though.

I'm not saying that a film actor can be unaware of the camera... but it's a type of awareness only in so far as you are aware when you see what's in your peripheral vision when you are looking straight ahead--your eyes are not focusing there at all as you go about living--yet in a fraction of an instant--you could pay attention to what's in the periphery. That's about the distance a camera is at from a film actor--a good film actor is ALWAYS aware of the camera--yet it is almost on an instinctive level--a learned reaction of the body that the mind doesn't need to bother with, because every ounce of intention of the mind and psyche must go into the performance and to dilute it with outward thought would show as a lie I think. I think that when a camera "loves" someone, as in all realationships it takes two to tango.

The theatrical transaction between actor and audience is >still the same, even on film.

I totally don't think that's true. In film, the audience is looking through a peephole into the lives of people who lead interesting lives and you have the audience as a type of voyeur. Theatre does not invite the audience into it in the same way--theatre acknowledges the audience-even if that acknowledgement is ever so subtle-it still renders the experience of a different kind. Films that take the theatrical approach are actually quite unusual and require a different kind of acting from either the usual film acting or regular stage acting--because you need to both acknowledge the audience and maintain the level of subtlety required by film. That's why stuff like Kenneth Brannagh's Hamlet is interesting--at least to me--it's almost like a hybrid genre. I suspect if she were alive today we'd find Eleanora Duse, in her quest for purity of expression and elimination of self, heading the pack, but then, there is no question she was a woman ahead of her time.

The difference is that the camera is in >the middle in a very intimate way. In a sense, the actor has to trust >the camera the way he/she would a lover. Indeed, I think Michael >Caine made just that reference somewhere.....

I do agree with that...only as I said I think it's more like you have to trust the camera to be on top of you than you being on top of it! :) (How's that for a double entendre?!)

>The biggest mistake I see stage actors make when they come to film is >when they try to act "little". They wind up lowering the stakes, >making the scene unimportant.

It seems the mistake is "trying to act". Film will show you "trying" in a second. Besides as Yoda said. There is no try. Only do or do not.

I believe acting should be of >Shakespearean importance, even if it is whispered for the benefit of >an extreme close-up.<g> Juliette Binoche is, again, the best example >I can site. The cares desperately about the circumstances in all of >her scenes. The stakes are very high. And yet, she is the definition >of intimate.

The belief/motivation is deep within. The longer I hold onto it--the stronger it grows. The harder I struggle against being overpowered by whatever emotion is the result of that belief, the more the audience is going to want to see what the result will be and they will root for me the harder I fight and go with me when I go. My only reality in a scene is not about the trip that I or the audience will take. It is a moment by moment discovery of feeling of how little events react with my belief system. I don't know that anyone is watching my discovery--and I allow total truth in my private moments--which of coure are what are watched by everyone. Butat those moments, my commitment is not to the audience--is is to what is inside of me and directly around me in the scene--and if I serve those sources of interaction well, than I am also serving the best interests of the audience. They don't expect to be reached out to at all-or even noticed-they come into the film, and if the ride is good, they will go deep into it--hang on every turn and stay with it until credits roll...

>Elia Kazan says that film has usurped the stage when it comes to >Stanislavskian reality-based, psychologically truthful acting. Film >is the best medium. He contends that live theatre will have to >re-define itself, probably along the lines of a circus. Peter Brook >goes down this philosophical road, too. >

And I wholeheartedly agree with them. Glad to see my opinions have such good company. Thanks for writing! What a great letter! You are truly an e-mail/newsgroup quote bandit! I love it!! Keep the quotes coming in your responses--they're always interesting!

4/7/97 Ed's letter to Me

>The theatrical transaction between actor and audience is >>still the same, even on film. >

>I totally don't think that's true. In film, the audience is looking >through a peephole into the lives of people who lead interesting lives and >you have the audience as a type of voyeur. Theatre does not invite the >audience into it in the same way--theatre acknowledges the audience-even if >that acknowledgement is ever so subtle-it still renders the experience of a >different kind.... I suspect if she were alive today we'd find >Eleanora Duse, in her quest for purity of expression and elimination of >self, heading the pack, but then, there is no question she was a woman >ahead of her time.

Honesty is not enough, even in movies. People are honest at the 7-11, and that's not drama. Theatrical reality is not the same as regular reality. It is heightened, enriched, more oxygenated if you will. If the camera is, as you say, merely lurking on a scene, then we have something that is no more theatrical than whatever is going on at the next table in the coffee shop.

You have to go back to Aristotle and the Poetics to define drama. Start there and move forward toward film. The mechanical invention of film did NOT alter the basic theatrical transaction between actors and audience. It intrudes on the transaction, to be sure, and directs it in ways that cannot be done in the live theatre, but the transaction is the same. An audience still needs to empathize, and an actor still needs to strive to make tfrom Aristotle's Poetics: "..., hat happen.

You like quotes? Try this one, from Aristotle's Poetics: "...the end for which we live is a certain kind of activity, not a quality. Character gives us qualities, but it is in our actions -- what we do -- that we are happy or the reverse. In a play accordingly they do not act in order to portray the characters; they include the characters for the sake of the action."

4/8/97 My letter to Ed

>Honesty is not enough, even in movies. People are honest at the 7-11, and >that's not drama. Theatrical reality is not the same as regular reality. >It is heightened, enriched, more oxygenated if you will. If the camera is, >as you say, merely lurking on a scene, then we have something that is no >more theatrical than whatever is going on at the next table in the coffee >shop.

I agree with this, and with what you said about Aristotle, but don't you think that maybe it is the level of commitment in a scene that is NOT normal in real life--where we DO allow ourselves to be distracted by little things that don't matter? In film, we pick and choose our distractions and words carefully, but maybe it is the consciousness that we have that choice that's the difference in the end. I still think though that a medium does alter the transaction---human transaction in real life will be altered in the coming years as the Internet grows in importance. The One World of MCI is getting closer than ever because of a new way to get across an old message. So yes, a transaction still must take place in both film and theatre, but I believe that the film actor has a covenant with the audience to carry off his/her end of the deal with autonomy, whereas the feedback of a live audience by the nature of theatre must always be factored into a live performance. Even in real life when people are alone--they go into heightened reality--lip sychiing in front of the mirror etc. --it's the isolation that allows people to act with wild abandon and truly let go. Actors just know how to get there while people are around--and direct the flow of where the psyche goes--but the place is still the same. I'm not sure we really disagree--I think we're just defining what constitutes the transaction differently.

>You like quotes? Try this one, from Aristotle's Poetics: "...the end for >which we live is a certain kind of activity, not a quality. Character >gives us qualities, but it is in our actions -- what we do -- that we are >happy or the reverse. In a play accordingly they do not act in order to >portray the characters; they include the characters for the sake of the >action."

And you need an action to motivate a reaction. There is also no conflict without action, and without conflict there is no drama. And, as you said at the start-- honesty by itself is pretty boring... :)

4/8/97 Ed's letter to me

> but don't you >think that maybe it is the level of commitment in a scene that is NOT >normal in real life--where we DO allow ourselves to be distracted by little >things that don't matter?

The level of commitment? Yes. Acting is INTERPRETIVE and in pursuit of a conscious objective. In life, we frequently flail around.

Acting has its roots in religion. I've always been struck by the appropriateness of Stella Adler's advice that "actors should think of the stage as a pulpit." The audience is waiting to be led on a journey of some kind. Actors are in charge. And in the case of movies, the un-seen director is contolling much of what the audience gets from the actors.

> I still think though that a medium does >alter the transaction---human transaction in real life will be altered in >the coming years as the Internet grows in importance.

<GG>> Oh, I don't know about that. Babies will still get made the same way. Maybe people will E-Mail with one another for a couple of months first, but they'll get together on down the road.

> So yes, a transaction still must take place in both film and >theatre, but I believe that the film actor has a covenant with the audience >to carry off his/her end of the deal with autonomy, whereas the feedback of >a live audience by the nature of theatre must always be factored into a >live performance. ,,

And I believe that the film actor carries with him/her a SENSE of his audience. The performance is still purposeful, still in pursuit of the theatrical contract. Some film actors say that they play for "an audience of one -- the camera." Maybe that's it. Juliette Binoche, who I have mentioned a couple of times, has a lot to say about how actors should attempt to "touch"(I think that is her term) the audience.

>And you need an action to motivate a reaction. There is also no conflict >without action, and without conflict there is no drama. And, as you said >at the start-- honesty by itself is pretty boring... :)

Yup.

Anyone who has any questions can feel free to email me or Ed, and if you would like to continue this discussion with others, you can do so either in the Caryn.com Threads newsgroup or the Caryn.com Film/Theatre newsgroup on this site--both accessible from most browsers (except for AOL users)

Back to Thoughts