Acting : The Difference Between Film and Stage Acting by Jeremy Kruse

For me, it's that acting on Stage is the thrill of live performance, and knowing if you mess up you can't go back, whereas on film you can cut and retake as many times as you need.

Understanding this is the key to success in film and TV for the experienced performer coming from either side. One coach of mine said that with stage you are in effect "throwing out" the thoughts, the emotion of the character. With the camera, you draw the viewer, that is, the camera, INTO you. "Think it" rather than emote it. These differences are a good reason why stage actors really do need to take an acting class in front of the camera. It's amazing what you discover as opposed to what you think you knew about acting. And elephant lessons can be taken back to the stage.

, Thanks Siri, there should be no "elephant" in that last sentence.

In film you want to act as if there is nobody else there at all watching, and it is actually happening to you. In theatre, you don't want to pretend there's nobody watching you, but you are still in the moment with your character - so you're kind of doing two things at the same time - performing for an audience yet also playing the action of the scene with the character onstage. On camera, you're only doing what you're doing with that other character. Also, on stage, you act with your whole body, on camera you act with your face, head and shoulders mostly. With stage you have more leeway to move around, with film you are usually in a tight frame where you have to convey the same intent using just your face. In film you have to be very precise with your movements, hitting exact marks on the floor whereas with stage you have more leeway. On film you usually shoot out of sequence, and short scenes where you must get to the proper emotional state cold - in theatre you have time to get into a rhythm with the performance and can experience the story in a linear way so that makes it easier to get into the zone naturally. that's all i can think of right now!

It's a big adjustment to me, coming from a theatrical background to have to stand on my mark and not move while I'm speaking. I definitely could use acting for the camera classes. Also, being used to using my diaphragm and projecting my voice to now making almost a whisper is another big one for me.

I coach many actors who are making the transition from stage to film, and vice versa, the intimacy of camera recognizes the nuances that express the internal connection to emotions...whereas those subtleties can be lost on stage. Stage, of course, is a grand medium compared to camera and requires the projection of voice and body, while still staying connected emotionally. I teach my actors how to adjust to both mediums.

On stage the audience is 'out there' and an actor must reach out to them. On camera, an audience is in your head and you must be willing to allow them to be there.

On stage everything has to be big and broad for the audience to see it. Film is much more intimate and internalized as others have said. It's hard, sometimes, not to overact. But the biggest difference for me is continuity. On stage you're acting an entire story. On film you're often acting in un-related 10 second snippets and doing take after take for camera angles, lighting changes, sound problems, or whatever. I find it far more difficult to "instantly" get into character on film. The final difference is boredom. Once the play starts you know it's going for 90 minutes and then it's party time. On film you may be on set for 12 hours and you've "worked" for 10 minutes.

I'm loving everyone's input on this. Besides the presence of a live audience, I like to think of the differences in terms of "frame" size. In other words, "what's your frame?" Are you in a 1,000 seat proscenium theatre? An intimate black box? Are you shooting a scene that will only be shown in wide and medium shots (like a sitcom) or will it be in closeups? Whatever the size is of the frame, you have to fill it with your performance. Another viewpoint is that your acting should scale to your furthest audience member. On camera that (usually) means only a few feet, whereas in theatre it's on the order of dozens of feet.

Film - Less is more. Stage - depends on the size of the venue, but the elderly with poor sight have to see your emotion from the back row. That's how I've always seen it!

I teach a class and coach working professionals in LA and I tell my students THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. The choices have to be just as exciting, your Fighting for is the same (ie how you want to change your partner). The energy is the same, and the silences are as strong. The ONLY difference should be the volume. Screen acting is NOT low in vocal energy or you will bore your audience to death. My students work a lot in the industry. I get new students who are so terrified to ove act on screen that they are totally dull. Use your charm and humor and energy and vitality or someone else will get the job. Check out the first chapter of my book called HOW TO MAKE YOUR AUDIENCE FALL IN LOVE WITH YOU at DerynWarren.com or on Amazon. I also have a video interview there too. Come and study with me if you want to work four times a night on great material and learn a perfect audition technique. Actors should want to work out. I love actors who read too. Dryn

I've done a lot of both on a small scale. The most useful advice I got early on is that film acting is like life. No louder, no softer - no bigger, no smaller. What you do with your eyes, especially in a closeup, can have a huge impact. Theater is no less genuine but projection, diction and enunciation are very important. Some things have to be magnified physically if you're in a large venue. Lots of little adjustments depending on circumstances but, otherwise, good acting is good acting.

J. Loius Reid, I liked what you had to say. The only thing I would add is that everyday life is often boring. So you have to choose the real parts of life that are riveting and they have energy. I am sure you agree.

High stakes. Agreed!

Theater acting is a linear, real time performance. Film / TV acting other than sitcoms is largely piece by piece and out of sequence. Non-linear delivery of parts of a character arc on demand day to day is the biggest difference from what I have seen- hard on the actor and hard for the director to keep track of.

Suzanne, most of the time a mark is a mark but your feet are not nailed down. If the AC and operator are working pros, they should be able to accommodate the reality of an actor's "life" in scene for all but unique, ultra-critical framing shots. If you are not working with pros and they miss focus if you miss your mark by a foot or lean to the left, they are holding back your work as an actor. I wish you better crews if that is the case.

I disagree Dervyn, there is a huge difference. In theater, you are always onstage with someone else. Reacting with your partner. (1 person shows exception) A lot of time when doing closeups the camera is in your face and you don't have anyone to play against. Unless your scene partner is willing to stand next to the camera and be in the moment with you. I saw this on AHS between Zachary Quinto and Dylan McDermott- which tells me they come from the theatre. Screen only actors won't do that.

Yes, Royce I know they put the camera on a track. I was speaking specifically about close ups and auditions. In an audition, you can't move out of frame. And that's a huge adjustment for me, as opposed to a theatre audition where you have the entire stage for your scene.

Suzanne the approach is the same and the choices are the same. While that camera is on you, you are giving a message to your partner just as you would on stage. Technique for auditions is very important. I agree. That is what I teach. I am a film director and I always wanted exciting auditions and not that low energy that some actors think is film acting. Please go to DerynWarren.com and read a chapter of my book and then come study with me in LA. My students work all the time for good reason. Small class. Very reasonable. Fun. Intimate and progress is amazing. You work four times a night on challenging material which all actors should want to do. I love actors who read.

Suzanne, to your point about closeups on camera; I have rarely NOT had my scene partner there with me on my closeup. From student films to huge Hollywood movies, it's the norm for the actor to stand next to camera during your closeup. Sometimes the space restricts this, but I've never had an actor choose not to be there for me.

Acting on stage means you're performing in front of real people and the intimacy and unspoken connections make you conscious of every move you're making. Dress rehearsals are one thing, but a live play is different every time you do it.