Why do many actors prefer stage to cinema?
It seems many accomplished film and television actors, when asked, say they prefer theatre or being on the stage to acting in movies/tv. Some even say the stage is their first love.
I have a few hypotheses:
Perhaps, when acting on stage you feel you are truly acting because you are playing to a live audience. Maybe it feels more true to the art form? There would also be an added note of more ready instant gratification with claps and standing ovations as opposed to waiting for movie ratings.
Perhaps they feel the stage is where it all began, and so, in that way, they are upholding traditions.
On the other side, movies allow you to appeal to a much wider audience and provide a great deal more monetary wise.
My guess would be that there would seem to be more of an exchange with stage acting.
What do you think?
Comments
Part of it is pure elitism. There's a lot of that in the arts. I deal all the time as a musician with people telling me that my guitar playing is good, but it's a shame I can't do it on a "real guitar" (meaning acoustic instead of electric). These people tend to be idiots who can't back up statements like that, but they act like the old way is naturally the only way to do it. You know, before there were microphones, most singers outside of opera (meaning jazz/blues/etc.) had to basically bellow to be heard throughout auditoriums, which meant they would hit maybe ten notes per song. When good microphones became available and you got people like Bing Crosby who'd go out there and sing complex melodies because they didn't have to scream, a lot of the established singers would laugh at those little "nancy boys" who needed a microphone to be heard. The same way, a lot of people say that acting on television or in movies isn't really acting because it's not as traditional. Not as artsy. That's totally wrong, but whatever. If it makes them happy.
Also, the feedback is definitely more immediate. You're right about that, no doubt. It's the same reason I prefer playing guitar live to recording. You can see what people like and don't like and adjust to fit that, and then you can feel the audience's instant response. And in a comedic role, if you've got skilled enough actors working with you, you can even fool around with the fourth wall a little and see the laughs. It's very gratifying.
(By not as artsy, earlier, I meant it has to focus more on realism. In television acting you're expected to behave like your character would if they were a real person. On the stage you don't do that. You overexaggerate things and don't bother with facial expressions or inflections and generally don't have to be as...you know, as perfect.)
There's also the common (and true) perception that theatre is an actor's medium, and film is a director's medium. In other words, actors have more control in theatre: the story being told depends on the performance of the actors to be successful. In film, everything the actor does is secondary to the director's vision: it's the director (and editors) who decide how the story is told--the actor still performs, but the director chooses what pieces of that performance to use and how to use them. Both forms have their acting challenges. Yes, theatre is live before a live audience, demands that the actor always be in character, and requires that the actor repeat the performance night after night while always keeping the performance looking new. Film may allow for more breaks in the shooting, but films are regularly shot out-of-order (so the actor has to know where he is in the story and doesn't get to "build" to emotional scenes), and can require multiple takes (so the actor must maintain intense emotional states, possibly for hours, while lights are reset and scenes shot again from another angle). In my experience, there's also a lot more nurturing of the actors in theatre. Theatre directors know that the success of the play rides on the actors for the whole run, and they tend to make sure the actors are taken care of (even if it's for selfish reasons). To film directors, actors are another tool that help them create the pictures they want to see, and actor comfort is less important than getting the shot. This may not be a completely fair evaluation of film directors, but it's consistent with my limited experience. I also imagine that, as a process, theatre is just more fun for actors. Rehearsals are for a longer period with less pressure, and you get to hang out with everyone involved. Actors can easily be "in a movie" with other actors, but never meet them, and film sets always seem more concerned with scheduling and the financial bottom line at all times (and rightly so). And yeah, the instant gratification--actor's love instant gratification; if actors were better at looking ahead, they wouldn't be as good at acting, which is all about playing the moment.
Um... I would guess you have NEVER been ON A STAGE or IN A MOVIE or ON TV because you would know the answer to your quetion if you had.
There is something special about the ALL TAKES AND NO MYSTAKES of being on stage... whatever happens... just HAPPENS and it's never knowing when something IS going to happen that keeps life interesting.
In the movies or on TV. the phrase you hear more than any other is "SCREW IT.. WE'LL FIX IT IN POST".. so that special report with the audience or viewer is lost.
When I first started out, THERE WAS NO VIDEO TAPE.. everything that was done on TV was DONE LIVE and it had that same sense of immediancy as live theatre.. Video tape ruined all that.
In theatre you have more time to rehearse, perfect your character, try things out, different acting techniques. You have more director input and once you are on the stage, you can't back out or say "cut" and start again, instead you have to actually be a good actor, there is no fancy editing to help you. Film is more wam-bam-thank-mam. More effect and less acting skill. Also for film your looks are more important and the theatre you just need to know how to act.
Definitely more exchange on a stage. There is something very true about it.
All of your ideas are right. Really there is not one answer to this questions, it depends on the actor. Both the stage and film have benefits and drawbacks- it totally is about your preference.
live audience and the direct appreciation/feedback for their performance