Stage vs Screen
3,000 years vs 120 years
What is the big difference between stage acting and screen acting? From an audition perspective, is a monologue that you've seen work so well on stage adjustable or even applicable to the screen? If so, how? How does an actor adjust their technique for the two different worlds? Is it all a question of "size" or is there something else that I'm missing?
I could write a book about this but will try to keep this short:
Acting to camera is a VERY different skill from acting on stage. This is because stage and screen are two very different media.
On stage, you need to be seen by " the cheap seats" and you are also some distance from even the nearest audience member. So, in short, actors have to "wear" their performances or they just won't be seen or even heard.
Meanwhile, in comparison, the camera is a mute, passive and intimate observer of inter-personal interaction - it's the third person in the room during a dialogue between two people.
In life, Behavioural Scientists say that up to 80% of what we understand is not what is coming out of someone's mouth but is instead the non-verbal communication, little micro-expressions that dance across our faces as we talk and can only be seen when the person we are talking with is close to us. This is why if you're in a foreign country and don't speak a word of the local language, you can still make yourself understood if you have any communication skills. We think about what we are trying to communicate and the words just sort of come. Sometimes we have a prepared speech we want to say to someone but often we're just talking. And yet somehow we still communicate. You have to thank the micro-expressions for that and it's this desire to communicate something that comes from both our sub-conscious as well as our conscious mind. It's the sub-conscious mind that is driving the micro-expressions and the conscious mind that is driving the narrative. In addition, some of us are better at thinking before we open our mouths (controlling the conscious mind) but many of us are still trying to practice that skill! And some of us are "born listeners" (again the conscious mind) but again, some of us are not... However, some of us are really, really good at lying and in doing so can dictate to the sub-conscious how to manage those pesky little micro-expressions that can give away what we're really thinking, or in the case of bad acting, not thinking but "acting, darling, acting our little socks off" as someone I used to know liked to say.
Consequently, at its best, screen acting is internal and not just "a smaller version of stage acting". If someone says "do you what you do on stage, but just make it smaller" then they are an idiot and don't understand the massive difference between the two worlds. And if someone says "you can't be big on camera", go show them Al Pacino and tell them from me that they are an idiot too!
Remember, the skills of stage acting date back over 3,000 years to Ancient Greece and even today, we are prone to use phrases that were born in that time ("deus ex machina" for example). Whereas the screen is at best 120 years old and modern filmmaking techniques date back perhaps to the mid 1970's when cameras became more mobile. In fact, digital technology has only been around since the mid 1990's and so the whole way of filmmaking is constantly evolving and will continue to do so...It's got a long, long way to go to catch up on stage acting techniques so go easy on yourself if you find screen acting hard. It is and it is evolving at a great speed.
Look at the work of Buster Keaton - perhaps the biggest movie star of his time. Would you say his approach to screen acting is the same as Daniel Day Lewis or Kevin Spacey or Meryl Streep? Of course not. Would you be able to replace Kevin Spacey with Buster Keaton in Se7en as John Doe and still be as moved? And don't say "well, Buster Keaton was a comic" take it from me, comedy is hard! And besides, Kevin Spacey can be extremely comedic if he wants to be and has even done Stand-Up.
What I am trying to say is that it's the approach the effective screen actor has to the lens that has evolved over the last 120 years because the technique of image capture has evolved so very much too.
But the stage is still the same stage it was 3000 years ago and there's been a LOT more time for study.
This means that there are a multitude of stage acting techniques, dating back to the days of Ancient Greece and even beyond, that we can call upon, all have different strengths and weaknesses but a drama student can learn so much from so many different techniques and in time, cobble together their own process. I've been a professional director for nearly 30 years now and in truth, no two actors I've ever worked with have the identical self-same process. That's part of the joy of my job.
And yet actors just "adjust" their process for the screen, some to great success but some not so... This doesn't surprise me. Actors don't get that much access to skilled filmmakers when they are training and for good reason...we experienced filmmakers make a lot more money-making film than teaching screen acting as a guest lecturer somewhere!
And that's before we start the conversation that on stage, the actor is in control of the timeline. How and when they deliver their lines, how and when they control and demand the attention of the audience is completely within their own hands. The play starts at the start, goes through the middle bit then ends, usually with a curtain call and hopefully applause. The stage is an actors' medium.
In contrast, a screen actors will rock up on set, shoot scenes completely out of sequence from the narrative, spend hours and hours hanging around waiting to be called and then have moments in front of the lens where it all has to come together at once. Then, often with no chance for retakes, the film/TV moves on to the next setup and that actor is left wondering "was that OK?" Of course, that actor is completely oblivious as to what happens next, NEVER gets to sit next to the Editor as the film is being edited and probably doesn't hear anything at all until the film or TV programme is broadcast. Directors like to think the screen is a Director's medium and sometimes it is. But often it is also the Editor's medium and ALWAYS it's the Producer's medium because the Producer is the money and filmmaking is a ruinously expensive undertaking.
Remember, we have words like "stage craft" that are in the Oxford English Dictionary but the word "screen craft" has yet to make an appearance.
Also, consider how different the audience are in the two worlds of stage vs screen. How many of us settle down in front of the TV and graze Netflix, Amazon or Hulu trying to find something worth watching? How many Studios pack the opening of a film with as much as possible so that Act 1 is usually over by the end of the opening titles and we're off into Act 2A within minutes of the film starting? "Channel-hopping" is a massive issue for programme providers and they spend a huge amount of time and money coming up with strategies to try to limit this. However, in the theatre, have you ever seen someone get up from their seat, leave the theatre and go to the one next door the moment the curtain goes up, just because the play next door may be more worth their attention?
The audiences of stage are VERY different from the audiences of screen, especially the small screen and with the evolution of big screen TVs, well the small screen is getting bigger and bigger all the time.
So of course stage and screen are two different worlds.
Consequently, next time you settle down in front of a camera to perform something, be it a monologue or a self-tape or even something on a set, try to switch off the natural instinct to "act" and instead, focus on "believing". Focus on internalising the thoughts, just THINK IT and let your body take care of itself. Then watch your performance back with the sound turned down and ask yourself "do you believe?" You may be surprised as how "stagey" you look, how your acting your little socks off and not really communicating anything believable.
