The development of move acting over the years since the introduction of the film to modern day acting is fascinating to me. Some of the changes were due to improvements in technology, but it also seems that in the beginning people simply did not know all what they could do with a camera, things that we all take for granted.
The idea of ‘canned theater’ movies is scary for someone who has film student movies and in student plays. Having watched videos of performances of shows, it seems the only reason it is done nowadays is for recording the event. It does not stand up to modern view of both theatre and movies. The camera can only be in one place at a time, and may miss things going on the other side of the stage. The grand movements of the stage seem silly on film, especially since we consider film to be a genre that can be very intimate with the actor.
Ironically, when sound was introduced actors were then limited to movement, and sounds that could be recreated in the soundstage, until there was a way to record sound on location. (However, even nowadays the people who create sound effects are quite inventive in reproducing sounds.) One has to wonder about the shock of learning what your favorite actor actually sounds like, an experience that people nowadays only have happen very rarely.
It is only until the 1950’s we enter the idea of acting that is similar to modern day acting, and also the introduction of the movie actor as movie star and celebrity, which leads to not just acting on the set, but in the public with movie goers view of them being influenced by their (previous) roles and the media. They almost become products along with the movies. A historical example is many Jewish actors changing their last name to be more ‘American’ for audiences. A modern example of this selling or lack thereof was the dispute between Paramount pictures and Tom Cruise because of his post-Oprah era antics in the public eye.
However, actors often seem to be typecast in certain roles or sometimes typecast as ‘themselves.’ For example some people might I argue, and I would agree that Jack Nicholson has been playing himself for a long time. Some successfully break out of certain casting, or make sure to avoid it. Some are also noted for their wide ranges. Some times actors aren’t really actors but celebrities added to make things more realistic (or basically be product placement for themselves, for us cynical viewers).
On long the same topic, we have the Stanislavky system of theatre acting which strives to get actors to make there characters as real as possible by recalling on past events. With film being a medium that is known for being up-close and personal, this seems like a good way to go for actors to seem natural even when playing ‘unnatural’ characters, which is why it was translated into method acting for film. Actors try to figure how to inhabit the character and sometimes overtaken and almost become the character. Some people have though about this with Heath Ledger playing Joker and how it affected his mental state. Good actors can make improv acting seem natural if they have a handle on characters.
This chapter is full of information, but the common seems to be that actor is never really alone and is always under the watch of someone, and the camera both on and off set.
[...] an actor’s role, I find the other side of this career more interesting. Alex Tunny in “The Camera Loves You” too focuses a bit on the life of the actor beyond the film when he mentions: the [...]
Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation
Anyway … nice blog to visit.
cheers, Boom
.
[...] an actor’s role, I find the other side of this career more interesting. Alex Tunney in “The Camera Loves You” focuses a bit on the life of the actor beyond when he mentions: the introduction of the [...]