Poll: Emotion in acting - Film or Stage?

[Korolev]

I think a film makes you more invested (although in reality, there isn't that much difference). With a film, it's like you are looking into their world. With a play, the actors are right there, and you know they can see you, and they have to act on a more-or-less 2-D plane, whereas a film can have the actors walk around more. Plus, in a theatre, I can't help but notice how the environment of the stage blends in with the theatre. When I see a stage in real life, it just constantly reminds me of how I'm watching a performance.

But with film - the environments look totally different (usually) to the cinema or my lounge living room. It allows me to distance myself from the performance. Also, plays often use props, which, no matter how well made, still look pretty fake and unrealistic. Whereas a film can have very realistic environments.

I will go with film. I've seen more than my share of plays. It's not the actual acting - a good actor will be good regardless of the performance. What pulls me out of a play is the ability to see the stage connected with the theatre I'm sitting in, to see the lights shining down, to see the props being wheeled into position.

 

[Ubermetalhed]

Theatre actors are exponentially more talented than film actors. Film actors only work the face for the most part as that is where the camera usually focuses, theatre actors have to use everything, every part of them is on show. So if you want the most emotive acting it is in theatre hands down. Film actors have it easy.

If it is just which medium draws you in emotionally you're after then both can do it as equally well as each other. Film again has the easier job with its use of editing, camera angles, effects etc. If you can't find theatre as equally believable due to use of props and scene changes you either saw a bad play or you have no imagination and have gotten too used to films showing you absolutely everything clearly and in a realistic manner.

 

[Ziel]

Music/Books

Film/theatre have rarely managed to get me to the same places that music and books can.

 

[Trivun]

I think a film makes you more invested (although in reality, there isn't that much difference). With a film, it's like you are looking into their world. With a play, the actors are right there, and you know they can see you, and they have to act on a more-or-less 2-D plane, whereas a film can have the actors walk around more. Plus, in a theatre, I can't help but notice how the environment of the stage blends in with the theatre. When I see a stage in real life, it just constantly reminds me of how I'm watching a performance.

But with film - the environments look totally different (usually) to the cinema or my lounge living room. It allows me to distance myself from the performance. Also, plays often use props, which, no matter how well made, still look pretty fake and unrealistic. Whereas a film can have very realistic environments.

I will go with film. I've seen more than my share of plays. It's not the actual acting - a good actor will be good regardless of the performance. What pulls me out of a play is the ability to see the stage connected with the theatre I'm sitting in, to see the lights shining down, to see the props being wheeled into position.

Regarding that blend, it's interesting you say that, as during my first year at university I had a bit part in an original play called The Ferryman, coincidentally with one of the guys who appeared in Closer last night. This production was kind of unique, as it was a retelling of the Greek myth of Orpheus, but set in a bar in Twenties Chicago. Just one bar, for every scene. And we performed it in an actual bar, in the upstairs function room of a local pub, which had a bar on one side of the room and a stage and toilets on the other, with the entire room used for the play and the audience sitting at bar tables all around the room. The actors had to move around and interact while being a part of the environment itself, and the guy who played the barman was in the room, behind the bar, even before we started. Apparently some of the audience really did mistake him for a pub barman and asked for drinks, he had to try and turn them down while staying in character .

In that case, the blend between the audience and the 'theatre' environment, along with the environment we're meant to imagine all this happening in, was completely seamless, and made it so much more real. We had audience members staying behind afterwards for a drink and a chat with the cast and crew, who commented on how realistic it seemed compared to other plays they'd seen. So I guess really, it all depends on the environment. On the other hand, there are some films in more experimental cinema that try to break down those boundaries even more. If you haven't seen it already, I highly recommend you watch Dogville. It's a feature-length film by Lars von Trier, with a pretty big-name cast, and the film is set in a small American town, but it's filmed in a warehouse decked out like a drama studio, with 'buildings' merely chalked outlines on the ground with labels saying 'SHOP' or 'BAR', and as we follow the main characters the other townspeople can be seen in the background doing their everyday things in their own 'buildings'. A very rare example of a mainstream film that focuses on an entirely experimental form of cinematography, influenced directly by theatre. Certainly worth watching, no matter your opinions on the debate at hand .

I haven't seen that much really good theatre, but I saw Ian McKellan and Patrick Stewart in Waiting for Godot and it was one of those moments I'll never forget. The emotion and connection I felt to the characters on that stage was palpable.

also I would just like to say to you sir!

Spoiler

I think that pretty much sums up my feelings towards everyone who got to see that when I didn't :'(

I have to say, I agree totally on that video, except I'd apply it to Hamlet instead of Waiting for Godot. Specifically, David Tennant's portrayal. I have a friend who saw it in Stratford, but I never had a chance to go, and I missed it when it was filmed and shown on the BBC. I would do anything to see David Tennant play Hamlet, I've heard so much good stuff about it and I love the guy as an actor...

 

[ace_of_something]

Usually, I find if something is 'BIG' it's more enjoyable on the stage. Meaning big crazy characters, over the top. You have to 'act to the back row.' Other than that I would have to say I prefer movie-films because of the much wider range of what is possible.

It's always fun to see a play though.

 

[Aetera]

I'm going to have to say theatre(screw you, spell check. Theatre > Theater). You feel like you're involved more in the experience of the performance when you're seeing the actual actors in front of you.

 

[kloiberin_time]

I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Acting in film and acting on stage are two different worlds.

Take the face. A close up of someones face in film can tell you worlds about what they are thinking. Are they worried, sad, happy. For an example on the "small screen" I will use the show "Angel" Angel and Cordelia are sitting side by side. Angel is concentrating on something and Cordelia says something less than intelligent. All David Boreanaz had to do to portray Angel's irritation was dart his eyes quickly towards her once. Me describing it doesn't do it justice, the scene is hilarious.

The stage on the other hand requires much grander gestures and also requires more body language. Most if not all of the audience would miss his eyes darting. If you have a chance to watch the film version of "Closer" back to back with the stage version you will notice that the acting in the stage version is much more over-exaggerated.

I could go on-and-on. My belief is that certain things work better on stage, and certain things work better on film. "Glengary Glen Ross" and "Death of a Salesman" will always be better plays than movies. Shakespeare on the screen will never live up to Shakespeare live. Yet "The Departed" "Hot Tub Time Machine" and "The Expendables" would be almost impossible to stage live.

It comes down to viewer preference. What do you like to watch. You prefer theatre, your friend prefers film. I enjoy both. Let's not over-analyze which is better.