Antonionis actors – David Forgacs pt.2
Acting for screen and acting for stage are 2 very different things. Stage acting requires large gestures and overdramatised movements in order to communicate meaning and emotion to audience members who are positioned a great distance away from the actors. There is also allot of emphasis on voice, volume and annunciation, again essential to communicate with a expansive audience. Screen acting doesn’t require this, the camera and microphones are able to zoom in on the actor and capture small movements, sounds and micro expressions. In this was screen acting is more natural because actors are not required to over exaggerate their performance in order to compensate for distance. Another major difference between the 2 types of acting is their structure. Stage actors preform their role in chronological order, they let the story line take its course and run their performance entirely through once before starting from the beginning. It is sequential and methodical and allows for a more natural progression of emotions from scene to scene. Screen actors often shoot out of chronological order due to location and equipment restrictions. They may have to play an angry seen right before a sad one and follow that with a happy one. They are required to jump from one mental state to another rather then gradually progress and evolve like the stage actor. They can also be asked to do numerous takes of the same scene which can hinder the actors spontaneity and cause performances to become tired. In this way screen acting can be seen as less naturalistic and authentic. Another thing that differs from stage to screen is films ability to frame shots and zoom into particular action. This enables them to highlight things such as a nerves finger tap which in turn gives the audience clues about the character and their emotions. Does this ability to direct the audience make film more or less authentic? It enables film makers to highlight important information but also excludes surrounding information by removing it from the frame. This means the audience are unable to view the exterior action and are therefore unaware of it. Could this be seen as less realistic as film makers are directing audiences of what to think about rather then enabling them to view the entire scene and read into it themselves? I suppose this helps strengthen the relationship between audience and subject. It helps the audience to feel involved and gives them an insight in the characters life rather then just as an onlooker or bystander. It allows the audience to focus in on small details and gives them a better understanding of the character then they would get if they were viewing the action to scale like we do in our day to day lives.