film vs. theatre

There are a lot of guys that have transcended acting by being able to entertain people both on the big screen, and on stage. Hugh Jackman, Daniel Craig, and Gerard Butler are a few that immediately come to mind. On a MUCH smaller scale, I have also had the privilege of being able to use both of these avenues to bust my chops in order to entertain the  masses  hundreds  dozens of people over the past month or so. I just finished up a production of "Jerry Peavler and the Great Debate," where I got to portray the title character, not to mention my favorite on-stage persona to date. At the same time, we have been in the editing stages of the newest installment of "Space Cops," which was actually shot in the rehearsal period of "Jerry Peavler." Not everyone has the avenues or resources to get to partake in either one of these artistic venues, and I'm lucky enough to get to do both. So I thought it would be cool to sit down, think it out, and compare these two artistic outlets that don't pay anything. And if nothing else, give you something to read before you go to bed to help you save some money on Ambien.

There are three categories that I feel are comparable when doing both arts, so I'll go through these and give what differences have stood out to me while doing both. They are: preparation, performance, and time. Since I've also had the rare opportunity to not only be on stage or on the screen for both of these platforms, but also be on the production side of both, I'll definitely be giving my observations from both sides of the "fourth wall."

PREPARATION

The majority of the preparation when starting a show or a film falls on the production team. Some of the responsibilities are the same, such as finding and ultimately getting together costumes and props. Another area where the prep is similar is in the blocking. On a stage, you have to put the actors in places where their deliveries are the most effective and where they can be seen by a majority, if not the entire audience. In a film, very similar, but with the camera, and getting so many different angles, blocking becomes more difficult because, for example, where an actor is looking for one shot has to be consistent with where he is looking at a different angle. When you use one camera like we do, this continuity can be very tricky, and sometimes maddening.

There are a lot of glaring differences in how to prepare for both of these, though. In indie film, you have to find a location to shoot. Luckily, we live in a small town with a lot of folks who like what we do, and have some cool places where we can do it. But it's not always easy to find a locale that fits your needs, like, say, when you get kicked off of a nature preserve mid-shoot and have to find something comparable (cough, cough). In theatre, obviously finding a suitable spot to perform is not a problem. However, unless you're going "artsy" (which sometimes translates into "lazy") and want to use a bare stage, you do have to build your location. And in community theatre, trying to find someone who is A) skilled enough to build something in a matter of a couple weeks that looks good, and B) get them to do it for no money can be a major hang-up.

As far as a script goes, with WSF, all of our films have original scripts that we write ourselves. We probably spend more time writing than we do anything else, aside from editing. This typically isn't the case for a theatre production. When you begin, you have a script in hand. However, in a show, you basically have to memorize that script, or a large portion of it, depending on your role. This isn't a chore that you have to really worry about in indie film. There have been a few shoots where a majority of the actors hadn't even seen the script before they showed up to perform. And with the help of cue cards, if you can't memorize, there are ways around it.

From an actor's standpoint, preparation is much more difficult for a show than a shoot. Weeks, if not months are put into not only memorizing lines, but rehearsing the show. An actor has to basically give up a couple of months to get ready for the stage. For the camera, especially with our productions, you just need to commit to us for a few hours.

The most lopsided difficulty in preparing for a film shoot over a show production is in the area of equipment. For the most part, all of your equipment to put on a play is at the theatre (lights, microphones, etc.). You just have to make sure they are set properly. For film, we have to provide everything ourselves and then move it from one location to the next. Cameras, boom mics, lights, dollies, steady-cams, tripods, green screens, among other things all have to be set up and re-set up, dozens of times a day, with continual adjustments.

PERFORMANCE

This is the area that I feel folks perceive is very similar for both. An actor is an actor is an actor. But there are some pretty big contrasts, aside from the line memorization.

During a performance in theatre, your timing, chemistry, lines and blocking all have to be on point. You get one shot at it. With films, if you flub a line, move awkwardly, drool, or have swarm of killer bees attack your face, no worries (except for maybe with the bees thing). You can even give a couple of different variations on how you deliver your lines if you can't decide on one. There is much more room for error and flexibility when performing in a film rather than on stage.

But, as an actor on stage, there is nothing quite like the feeling you get when you captivate an audience. When they are interacting with you through their reactions, especially in a comedy, that instant gratification is unbelievable, and you feed off of that on stage. In film, not only do you not get that instant reaction, it's just the opposite: the few folks that are on set with you are trying their best to not react. So you have absolutely no gauge as to whether or not what you're doing is working. As an actor, again especially in a comedy, that's extremely difficult. Also, on stage, you can feed on the flow of the story. But when you're filming you may have to react in fear to something that's not even there and, within a few minutes, have to laugh at a joke that you never heard.

Another big difference from a performance standpoint is that, in theatre, you get to perform the same scenes, same parts, same show multiple times. In films, unless there is a glaring problem with continuity or something like that, you perform the scene once, and it's over.

TIME

Considerable amounts of time are poured into pulling off both a show and a film. But there is a considerable disparity in how, and relatively when the time is spent. In theatre a majority of your time is spent before the show opens: building the set, rehearsing, learning lines, setting lights, etc. Once the show opens, you perform it and go home, until the last show, when you tear the set down and clear the stage. All that is usually done on the same day as the last show, so once it's over, that's it. With film, however, most of the pre-performance time is spent writing the script and gathering props. Typically for us, a day of shooting lasts anywhere from 10 - 16 hours, and we're usually not lucky enough to get it all in one day. But after the performance aspect is over, unlike in theatre, the journey is just getting going. Hours are spent on the back end going through footage and editing. This can take as much time as a rehearsal period can before a play: weeks or even months.

I love both of these art forms! And I think there are several similarities between the two. But I don't think people realize how many differences there actually are until you get to experience both from different perspectives. They are both very rewarding, very challenging, but very unique to the other. Are there any other differences that I left out? Or any questions about either field? Did this bore you to the point of your brain slipping in and out of lucid dreaming and hallucinations just to stay functioning? Leave me a message in the comments! I'd love to get some feedback.