2 Answers

  1. Theater is the work of the actor with the audience, cinema is the work of the viewer with the actor.

    I apologize for the quality of the screenshots – I just opened the video from my contact page.

    Performance. These two people-they communicate with each other in the story, but in fact they sing for me, the audience. They have no requirements for facial expressions, for realism – the main thing is that they can convey their emotions to me.

    What does this same moment look like in movies?

    The classic version of the seventy-third year and the Australian version of the two thousandth – the characters communicate with each other, I, the viewer, just watch this scene, I must not understand the actor, but believe the scene-and this is the work of the director and cameraman, for example.

    Therefore, in good TV shows (that is, when a stage production is being shot on video), there are always two directors – the director of the production and the TV director, otherwise it's just boring to watch this.

    This, by the way, is the reason why Russian actors in films look so terrible – most of them have theater work as the main one.

    This legendary “Yes I love you” – on the theater stage would look quite normal, but in the cinema it seems like a terrible replay.

    Something like that.

  2. Let's start with the fact that the art form you described exists — it is a TV performance.

    The main difference is that everything happens continuously in the theater, this does not give the director and actor the right to make mistakes. Then, the stage, cardboard sets limit the faith of the actor and the viewer in what is happening. Also, in the theater, it is impossible to control the audience's attention, it is free.

    Cinema removes these limitations and gives huge creative opportunities: the actor-to replay the scene, the director-to control what is happening and the attention of the viewer without limits, the viewer-to believe more strongly

Leave a Reply