How do you incorporate theater into your idea of an actor's

I've made this argument before because very few theatrical performances are ever put to screen for the masses to see (although I love what modern productions are doing in terms of broadcasting them in theaters around the world). None of us have ever seen Olivier on stage, or Scofield, or Gielgud, or Richardson. We know their pedigree and reputations are monumental, but it's really hard to judge the actual work because all we know about them is secondhand reporting from reviewers.

I think in practice, being able to do theater makes you a more well-rounded actor, and I think it shows a daringness that a lot of modern film actors lack (I can't see DiCaprio ever going on stage, for instance). And Pacino and Washington finding acclaim and success in it is definitely a feather in their respective caps. But again, very few of us can adequately assess the work they did unless we actually see it.

Simple. 

Theatre acting is a skill. If it's a skill you don't poessses in enough quantity, audiences and reviews will let you know, and you generally won't last long or continue to recieve acclaim. And thefore, it can and should inform your opinion on actors skills in that area, and their overall skill-set. 

The skills required to be a succesful stage actor cannot be counterfeited or faked. The slightest mistake usually will get spotted and dissected in a review or by audience. That is why plays usually go through Previews first, so actors can make mistakes before the official opening. Because once a play is officially open, there is no safety net.

Film acting is often a hybrid of elements that sometimes can often disguise an actors lack of talent or ability. Film/TV is a director's medium. It's why there are an abudance of extremely succesful film and TV "actors" who are beautiful or photogenic, but aren't really "good" actors per se. But they can be made to look "good enough" to convince most viewers. You can in theory take an average actor or even below average actor, splice various takes from different contexts in an editing room and make a performance that some might consider "great". You cannot do that on stage. Film is full of safety nets and shortcuts that can make any actor look better than they might actually have been on set.

Stage is a massive equaliser in terms of distinguishing pure levels of skill in actors. It's the actors medium. You can't fake it to make it, just because you have a six-pack and a gorgeous tan, which can get you very far in front of a camera. Film acting is simply that much less difficult. Anyone can be a film actor. Not everyone can be a good stage actor.

I instantly know an actor is the real deal if their stage credentials and accolades stack up, even if I've yet to see them perform on stage. It's too difficult and direct a medium to con people in. It's like being hired because of your job resume. Your new employer doesn't actually need to have been at your old place to see you working. They will know the positions and accolades on your resume should speak for themselves before hiring you.

That's interesting, because (all due respect to the general love for his performance) Rylance is exactly the example of a super-acclaimed theater actor that didn't show me his brilliance with his Oscar-winning performance (I should see Wolf Hall, I admit).  When I read reactions to Jerusalem, I can't reconcile it with the "Would it help?" underplayed repetitive display that I feel any decent actor could have done, much less someone vaunted as being a theater GOAT.  I seriously thought Hanks was easily better in that movie.  

But then you take someone like the recently deceased Brian Dennehy, and while I've not seen a second of his Tony-winning work, I'd seen him in countless movies and always been impressed, so learning of his theatrical plaudits is like hearing that Chris Cooper had 3 Tony's or something (he doesn't have 1, I'm just saying that that wouldn't have shocked me).  There's no cognitive dissonance.  

Well, you aren't alone on Rylance. Michael Shannon said he felt Rylance did nothing.

But let's be real. Actors reputations help them win Oscars all the time (outside of the actual performance), so Rylance winning partially because voters might havs been in awe of his rep as a theatre GOAT is very much business as usual for the Oscars. It's not really specific to Rylance.

He was also having a moment in his career the same year with a wildly acclaimed TV performance in Wolf Hall, which likely influenced Oscar voters as well.

Could you provide a source? I'm not finding anything.

Around 31:00

futuretrunks:

This is a real interesting take on why acting on stage is (maybe) "easier" than doing film - now THAT'S a pretty provocative POV.....

This is actually the same reasoning on our "Best Actor Across The Three Mediums" thread - how each medium requires a unique tool and why not only are TV and Film different skill sets - it's not just "like a movie" at all....... but there are differences within each medium too (ie a TV mini-series doesn't require the same exact skills as building a character over 7-8 seasons on TV series) - which is why a whole lot of people rank James Gandolfini and Bryan Cranston with any male actor for mostly one great character on TV not film or stage at all (though both did more than that obviously and Cranston in particular is a theater beast - 2 Tony's for Best Actor in 5 years).

This thread has a lot of complex ideas within such a simple question......

That's fair enough, and that's your choice to make. But others (like myself I guess ) do choose to make that judgement when discussing actors (and their talent, skill and accomplisment level etc). It's an individual choice if it matters, and to me, it matters.

If I'm trying to distinguish whom a more accomplished actor is, things they may  or may not have achieved on stage absolutely will factor into that assesment for me, and we have those type of discussions here often.

I’ll also add that theater and film acting are very different mediums that require different skills. Being a great theater actor doesn’t translate to being a great film actor and vice versa.

The thing about Hopkins is that his stage pedigree not only informs a lot of the choices he's made as an actor, but a lot of his stage work is readily available, as he came up at a time when people were starting to film those productions. You can source prime-era Hopkins stage performances pretty easily nowadays, whereas you can't really do that with many other stage legends.

I had thought about this thread when we were talking about Christopher Nolan returning to smaller projects instead of sticking around in the blockbuster sandbox. I'd argued that it might be good for a filmmaker who spends years on a massive project like Inception or Tenet to crank out some smaller projects as a palate-cleanser, but it could also serve as a director's version of this thread.