I imagine as an actor it must feel different, so it probably does come across in their acting. Performing in front of a live audience for one continuous block of time vs acting in font of a camera and crew, done in takes over several days, and out of order etc. It must affect an actor's self-awareness, knowing they have to get it right then and there. I think stage acting is exaggerated in some ways too, because as well as having to project right to the back rows of the theatre, the actor has to put more into the performance to convey emotions that would otherwise be augmented by camera angles and effects, the score, etc. for the screen. I haven't seen many live stage plays in my lifetime, but I can agree that theatre acting is a little more removed from realism than screen acting. I still love it though, and wish I had more opportunities to see live theatre

Could be that I'm simply too influenced by the production-style of movies and tv-series. Without close-ups, a subtle score and a high-class movie production, I can't buy it. I don't know. 

I do like musicals, though. Musicals are a thing of it's own, removed from anything "real" already due to all the singing. Musicals are very melodramatic, and I love it! 

Vhanja wrote:

Ah-chie wrote:

If I may ask, and I want to make sure you know that I am asking this question in the most friendliest of ways, just for discussion purposes... if it lacks such subtlety why do you think they would want to do it so much?
-Val

I don't doubt that there subtlety in theatre as well, that probably didn't come across in my previous post. Of course there is. It's just that I don't in general like "theatre acting", I don't really know what to call it. Even with such a high-class, professional and skilled actor as Ben, what I've seen of him in theatre still feels more fake than anything I've seen from him in any movie/tv-series. I know that it isn't, it's just something about theatre acting that seems so off for me personally. I can't get into it.

 

Like I said I'm not here to convince you to like it - if you can't get into it, then you can't get into it.  And that's perfectly all right.

And I am glad to see that you can see that there is subtlety in stage acting.   
(Edited because when I re-read my original remark it sounded very judgmental and I really didn't mean it that way at all - sorry!)

As a theatre lover I am a bit sad that it all seems too fake for you to enjoy it at the same level as cinema or
TV acting because I have experienced some truly transcendent acting (and stories told) on the stage, and of course some of the greatest pieces of literature have been written for the stage (and do not translate as well when put into film or performed on TV IMO).   

To answer my own question (about why actors are drawn to the stage in comparison to acting in films)...

I think it is because actors, especially those who really love becoming, morphing or immersing themselves into their characters find that theatre acting allows them the artistic freedom to do just that, in a way that cinematic acting will never.  TV or cinema acting is too disrupted, too controlled by others (editors, directors, producers, etc.) to allow that interpretive power that is available to an actor as he/she steps out onto that stage each night.  Once Ben sits down by that phonograph and wistfully listens to Nat King Cole's sultry rendition of Nature Boy, Hamlet is his, and his alone, to entertain, enlighten and delight us (the audience) with. 

And I think that is what makes that compact with the audience of the theatre (that direct real life, in the flesh connection with each theatre goer that others have spoken of in this thread) so special and makes watching the acting in a play so unique. 

It is a relationship beween the actor, who is so in control of every aspect of the actual performance, and the audience member, who can experience the actor's performance before them as it is happening, that cannot be reproduced as a  viewer of cinema or TV.   

It is making me tremble even as I write about it here... it is that powerful of a feeling.  But I guess that is why actors, quality actors like BC, will always be drawn to act on stage and why I will always love going to the theatre.

-Val

Last edited by Ah-chie (October 17, 2015 3:46 pm)

Liberty wrote:

The acting, effects, etc., are not so likely to be completely natural, because you're in this odd, unnatural situation.   I do think I know what you mean, Vhanja, about the "overacting" or "theatre acting". The actors can't rely on tiny differences in facial expressions, because they won't be seen beyond the first few rows.  So, to me, you sometimes get something that's more physical, more expressive.  I like that, but I can see why not everybody does. 
 

Yes, this is exactly what I mean. They usually have to talk a bit loud to be heard, which means that the dialogue won't be realistic because most people don't talk that loud unless they are shouting. They have to exaggerate a bit, move a bit more, express themselves more in every way. And with it, for me, they lose the realism. And when they lose the realism, I can't follow it anymore. Especially if, in addition, the language (as with Shakespeare) is so archaic that I can't really understand half of what they are saying, and it makes it all even more artifical for me. 

Having that said, I do understand what you guys mean about the magic of seeing an actor perform live then and there. I have been to a few (not many) theatres myself, and it is a wonderful experience for that alone. I just can't get into the story or the characters because of everything mentioned. So I am in a way even more detached than I am watching a movie.

But of course, the realness and closeness of a live perfomance can never be replaced by anything.

Vhanja wrote:

Yes, this is exactly what I mean. They usually have to talk a bit loud to be heard, which means that the dialogue won't be realistic because most people don't talk that loud unless they are shouting. They have to exaggerate a bit, move a bit more, express themselves more in every way. And with it, for me, they lose the realism. And when they lose the realism, I can't follow it anymore. Especially if, in addition, the language (as with Shakespeare) is so archaic that I can't really understand half of what they are saying, and it makes it all even more artifical for me. 

Having that said, I do understand what you guys mean about the magic of seeing an actor perform live then and there. I have been to a few (not many) theatres myself, and it is a wonderful experience for that alone. I just can't get into the story or the characters because of everything mentioned. So I am in a way even more detached than I am watching a movie.

But of course, the realness and closeness of a live perfomance can never be replaced by anything.

To me there will never be one defined way to express emotions.Cinema has its own techniques that are better suited to the screen and stage has its methods of getting the same emotional conveyance out to the audience.  Sometimes certain methods overlap, some are unique to the specific art form.

When I am in the theatre I know because of the reality of it being a live performance in a place that has 3 dimensions, I have to accept that I cannot look directly into someone's eyes to see small facial expressions or eye movement. So I don't go in thinking ahead of time that that is the only effective way for an actor to gain the emotional depth of the character being portrayed.  Once you accept this then you can open yourself up to the many other ways an actor can achieve this depth (eg. using his/her physicality, body language/gestures and vocal intonations) to impart the inner workings of a character. 

And in a way the language (which is the true gift of Shakespeare to the world) becomes paramount because the story is being done on a stage.  BC used this wonderful, lyrical language to great effect in Hamlet.  And he used his own powerful mastery of how he said those words to impart the inner turmoil of Hamlet - he didn't need the use of C/U to achieve this IMO.  It does require that someone listen very closely though (as you said the language is antiquated to a degree) but the rewards are prodigious when you give your full attention to the text - especially if the person saying it has such a rich, emotional voice like Benedict.

-Val

@ancientsgate:  everything you said.  Both hubby and I feel it was the best theatre we have ever seen and Benedict gave an absolute master class in acting.

Last edited by besleybean (October 18, 2015 5:14 pm)

I love him hearing him talk about his work. So bright, so interesting...

Whisky wrote:

It's very interesting what you discuss.

Funny enough, I get this feeling of "superficial" not at all with normal theatre, but I often get it when watching musicals, or opera. I love musicals, I do like opera (I know most people say it's love or hate it, but I really think I like it, in a non-extreme way...), but both never touch me as deeply as theatre does, spoken words. Maybe music is another language again. I'm sure it is. It's like music is a category of it's own. I think if I had to do categories, for me their would be cinema, theatre, and musical interpretation. I know opera and musicals are very different, but in the end, for myself, they feed the same corner of my brain - the one that loves music.

I could never choose between theatre and cinema. I love both so much. But they are really different, which is why I find this concept of NT live incredibly exciting, because it's bringing together two worlds which in my opinion are different at the core. I was surprised and delighted it worked so well.

Liberty wrote:

For me, seeing live performances has something magical which really doesn't have a lot to do with realism or believability.  When I'm watching a film, there's a detachment because it's on a screen, pre-made.  In the theatre (or at whatever venue it takes place) you're right there in the room with living actors, experiencing it in the moment.

Exactly this. Only that I think "detachement" can be a very positive thing, and turn into quite the opposite.

In theatre, I get this feeling of being part of a play, as audience. Like the audience is the very supporting floor on which the play happens. I think that is true, because acting only works properly with audience. Acting in front of empty seats feels wrong. The audience is important, so I feel myself already a part of the play when I just watch. And then there is this fascination of the play itself, or more even, the way the actors deliver their lines, portray their characters. It's like a study, something in which I move to the front of my seat, hanging on their lips, their every word. I never feel removed from the play, never feel the distance to the stage. I feel like I am the resonance body for everything on stage. And I guess it works that way vice versa. It's a dialogue between the actors who bring a story to live, and me, who carries it and tries to understand, feel and taste it.

In cinema, a big part of the charm for me is the darkness, the total concentration on the screen. I forget myself. I think we all know this feeling of otherworldlyness, when walking out the cinema after a very intense film. Cinema totally removes me from myself, my everyday life. I'd say it's an experience of "loosing" myself a bit. As I have no anchor in the "real world", my mind engages very deeply with the happenings on screen. Of course it only works if it's a serious film. In comedies, people laugh and crunch popcorn and that's why I prefer intense, serious films in cinema to funny stuff. I like disappearing into other worlds. In a film, I never worry about wording, small gestures, the things I hold my breath for in theatre. Cinema, for me, guarantees that it's already finished, not live, not alive in that way, nothing can go wrong. And in this secure feeling, I can just really enjoy the film itself, the characters... I relax, enter another world that will guide me securely, exactly where the regisseur wants me to end up. It's like falling asleep, like guided dreaming, for me. But the anticipation, the edge-of-seat sitting, the breathlessness I experience in theatre, I don't have it in cinema.

Yeah, I guess I cannot put that difference into words very well After a visit to the cinema, I feel body-wise relaxed, but my mind is very active. After theatre, I feel sometimes exhausted, like I acted just as much as the actors on stage. But I have more "peace of mind" afterwards. This could also be because of the plotline and agenda, of course. There is of course also theatre which leaves your mind very busy. It's just a tendency I have observed for myself.

When I watched Hamlet on screen, it was overall a cinema experience for me, more than a theatre experience... except I knew it was live, it was happening right now... and funny enough, I really was thinking about it sometimes, trying to sort what I was doing... watching? Interacting? Interacting not really, because I'm not the audience the actors can feel is there, but still, there must have been awareness on actors side that people in cinemas all over the world will see it... so maybe I am part of that audience they play to? I couldn't say. It was exciting and strange!

I think what brought it to the point was the moment after the play, when there was silence in the Barbican, and silence here in our cinema, and then you could hear the applause in the Barbican through the speakers... and a whole cinema wondered: do we applaud? And if we do, to whom? The actors can't hear us, and still, we've been a part of it, we want to applaud. It really confused me. Did people applaud in your cinema? For me, it was the moment I understood the difference between theatre and cinema once more.

Sorry for writing so much, I got carried away

 
Beautifully put Whiskey and I agree with you whole heartedly.  I too love both cinema and live theater even though or yet, because they are very different experiances.

I have seen three Hamlets, Ralph Fiennes, Jude Law on Broadway and now Ben in cinema from England. Each one was its own significance to me, they were all magnificent and the interpretations were all different, whether in cadence, scenery, costumes, but Ben had the interpretation that spoke to me the clearest. It is like I understood it better than I have ever. More humor than they other two. I will never forget it. Awesome!

And some more thoughts from Benedict about the text of Hamlet... (Part 4)

https://flipagram.com/f/e8WzVFPs3o

Can't wait to hear the remaining parts.  He has so thoroughly thought through the context of every line (including those of all the other actors).  He really must be able to recite the whole play I imagine. 

And not only recite the lines - he understands the contextual meaning of it all as well.  Again, he's just remarkable as an actor.

And this comes across so clearly when you see him on stage performing.

-Val