|
|
Post by snsurone on Jan 12, 2018 22:25:47 GMT
There was a time when an actor would start out on the stage, usually starting in stock, the progressing to off-Broadway, then the Great White Way, and finally to Hollywood and (usually) motion picture stardom.
Nowadays, it's established film stars appearing in Broadway productions, such as Glenn Close in a revival of "Sunset Boulevard", and Uma Thurman about to appear in a play.
IMO, the stage is the much more demanding medium, requiring actual acting ability without the benefit of editing, clever camera work, CGI, etc.
Laurence Olivier always believed that the theater was superior to movies, and only made movies for the money, especially in his later years.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Jan 13, 2018 2:48:45 GMT
A stage career is in the great tradition. I think it's a similar deal with making music; some musicians live to gig and are never truly comfortably working in the studio.
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard Kimble on Jan 13, 2018 3:02:54 GMT
Laurence Olivier always believed that the theater was superior to movies, and only made movies for the money, especially in his later years. Plenty of British actors believed that: Gielgud, Richardson, Rex Harrison... In fact it might save time by listing the British actors who didn't: 1) Dirk Bogarde 2) ? |
|
|
|
Post by marshamae on Jan 13, 2018 4:20:29 GMT
Olivier came to appreciate film as a medium, especially when he could direct. In the 70’s he had some disastrous health issues. When he recovered he scrambled to make money to leave his family well cared for. He took any film role that paid well. Peter O toole did much the same thing.
Finally , as actors age, working on the stage becomes more and more difficult. Even drawing room drama requires some stamina. If the hearing or memory starts to go, ear plugs can help keep the actor going, but everyone doesn’t work well with these devices. In comparison, film and tv are much less taxing.
Stage trained actors like working with a live audience. Olivier really enjoyed stage makeup, especially false noses. Stage actors usually do their own makeup so it’s more satisfy8ng than the dull business of showing up 3 hours early to have make up artists work on you.
|
|
|
|
Post by snsurone on Jan 13, 2018 18:36:19 GMT
In addition, older stars of the theater develop allergies to stage dust.
That's what happened to Olivier and Helen Hayes, among others.
Yet, they want to continue working, so they have to move into film and/or TV.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jan 13, 2018 19:18:31 GMT
Theater has the advantage of requiring that actors memorize but also have strong interesting voices. You had to be heard at the back of an auditorium. Nowadays they probably would use microphones hidden in the stage and have speakers in the back.
My theory is that if you were an actor 50 years ago or more, you had to be strong in appearance and voice--stand out from the crowd. And the casting directors for film came from that background. But since the 90s or so, I can see that has changed. Actors for the most part on the younger side of the scale have weak voices and are kind of mundane.
It is true of race and gender.
Where are the Keye Lukes of today?
Or the William Marshals?
Compare Michael Rooker's generation of actor to ones in their 20s or 30s.
I noticed the generation gap when watching a scene in SCREAM where Courtney Cox is talking to Neve Campbell and Rose McGowan. They were almost mumbling their lines compared to Cox. Less intense, less emotional delivery.
|
|
