Core Post 3 Presley

          Having trained as a theatrical and cinematic actress, I agree and disagree with Barry Kings main points in ‘Articulating Stardom’. I agree on the point that acting for film doesn’t require ‘good’ acting because, truly, editing can do so much. Lev Kuleshov, a German filmmaker, articulates this fact by his studies in the ‘Kuleshov effect’. Kuleshov used montage to track people’s reactions and learned that an actor’s acting (expression, in this case) had little to do with the viewer’s response. He presented viewers with a shot of an expressionless actor then a shot of (1) a girl in a coffin, (2) a bowl of soup, or (3) a pretty woman. The viewer’s reaction to the shots depended completely on the latter shot. And in most cases, the viewers praised the actor’s ability to express (1) sadness, (2) hunger, or (3) lust. The actor did nothing but we as viewers think they did something because of what surrounds them. We don’t realize they’re actual skill, like we would in a theater, because seamless editing plays such an important psychological role which is incredibly hard to consciously track (despite Dyer’s attempts on 144-146).

            However I disagree that theater acting is intrinsically better than cinema acting as the reading suggests, because they are vastly different. A theater actor would have just as much trouble transitioning to film as a film actor would transitioning to theater without proper training. First, film acting requires much more of the face and less of the body- you need to learn to look natural on screen, which is far different from being natural yet requires subtler motions and deliberate facial expression. Dyer explains how we hold the face as supremely expressive in film (134). This arises largely from the emphasis on the close-up as a filmic technique. To look natural on stage requires grander motions and articulation, since audience members are at such a distance- which also means there’s less focus on facial authenticity. Fonda realized this shift when he moved to film acting, which he described as, “you do it just like in reality” (Dyer, 141). Second, film actors must automatically fall into and out of character and formulate more of the story on their own. Many films film the end first- the example King offers is acting, “the aftermaths of an affair that has yet to be enacted”. Or they may film something not in the script that the director has come up with on the spot. This requires emotional distance and adaptability. Theater actors are encouraged to really get into the story and let the build up affect them- which the film actor can not afford since it’s so start and stop (My opinions on this contradict Dyer on p.141).  Third, film actors generally are encouraged to use more improv while filming (depending on the director) because there are multiple takes to ‘get it right’. This would never be allowed in a theatrical performance, again an example of how, in certain ways at least, film acting requires more imagination and on-the-spot action. And finally, films usually film day-of after changing or developing the script on set. It’s common that actors may have never rehearsed the scene before or may come in with just a general storyline. Theater actors have much more time with the material (they rehearse for months).

            To boil it down, film actors don’t need to be good in order to succeed, whereas theater actors must be good in order to succeed. King articulates, “for actors of limited or average ability, investing their energies in the cultivation of a persona represents something within their control and a means of competing with actors who have ability in impersonation,” (181). I agree film acting is much more about your persona than your ability. The two fields require vastly different skill sets because, in the end, they are two separate fields.