|
The
primary driving philosophy of the Stonestreet Screen Acting
Workshop is that the craft of film acting is different,
indeed, significantly different, than stage acting. Film
acting is a different artform than theater, and film deserves
equivalent respect to theater as a venue for the actor to
develop a special craft, a craft that is both extremely
difficult, challenging, not to mention magical and mysterious.
We believe that film acting is an artform, a craft, all
onto itself, not some minor adjustment to stagecraft! Are
we an "on camera" acting conservatory? NO! We
are a film acting conservatory with cameras.
Why
"screen"? There is "stage acting" and
there is "screen acting." And there are many types
of screens, from 100 foot arena screens to iPods and YouTube
screens. What are the adjustments from stage, and what are
the differences between the variety of screens?
We
do not simply provide students with professional casting
directors who "teach" "on-camera" acting.
We believe such an approach is a disservice to students
as well as derogatory to the special craft of film acting.
Film acting is not just some minor adjunct to stage acting
that is conferred upon or taught to students by casting
directors and agents. Film acting is surprisingly difficult,
fresh, new and different...more different than pundits of
theater training are generally willing to admit. At Stonestreet,
we recognize that film acting is a craft. Read on for further
clarification.
In
addition, unlike other "on-camera" conservatories,
we are not dominated by just ONE technique. We at Stonestreet
make it a fundamental requirement of our faculty for them
to be trained, understand and respect the great variety
of technical training that exists. And if a student's training
is weak, we introduce him or her to the new and various
techniques. If his or her training is very strong and limited
to one technique, we open their eyes to others, and assist
in adapting their technique to the demands of film.
Acting
is an artform and a craft. It is both extremely difficult
and delicate, and often provokes heated and almost religious
debate as to what acting techniques are preferable. In addition
to the doctrines promulgated about acting technique, many
professional actors, directors and drama instructors believe,
with dogmatic conviction, that live theater is the only
venue where an actor's craft can be realized, and further
they espouse that the stage is a higher artform than film
and television. Many professionals often promote the notion
that a great theater actor need only make minor adjustments
for film and television. Theatrical drama conservatories
promote the false notion that film acting is simply a matter
of cheating to the camera, or "sitting on" certain
impulses. The Stonestreet Film & Television Acting Workshop
debunks the foregoing notions and trains actors to understand
the numerous and significant differences between theater
and film.
Have
you ever sat in an acting class and heard the teacher exclaim
that a student's work in class was "good" or "bad",
and you scratched your head thinking just the opposite?
"Good" acting and "bad" acting is something
for an audience to judge, not just a teacher. The instructors
at Stonestreet believe that an actor can master a technique
but nevertheless be "boring" or "uninteresting."
Within Stonestreet's film acting classes, a student's film
work is truly put to the test. Can you hold an audience,
can you rivet them to your performance on camera? Although
the opinion of the acting teacher is important, it is crucial
to remember that acting teachers have a tendency to look
only at the "elements" of the specific technique
they teach.
Film
acting is not the same as stage acting. At Stonestreet,
a student will be exposed to the truth of this proposition.
Notwithstanding
the over thousand-year history of theater, and the great
body of plays that have been written, the nobility of theater
is in the play. What we mean by nobility is that it is the
play that lasts from generation to generation. An actor's
performance on stage is experienced by an audience, and
then vanishes. Not so with film. In film, it is the actor
and not the writer that remains intact, preserved for future
generations to enjoy, to be provoked, to be challenged.
Yes, some say that theater is an actor's medium...but here
at Stonestreet, we believe, in the end, film is the true
actor's medium. Art changes, tastes change, audiences mature
and evolve, and so a film actor, like many artists, who
is not discovered by one generation, can be discovered by
other generations. This is the nobility of film acting.
At Stonestreet, we encourage our students to study its craft
with the same work ethic that exists in the theater.
Because
of the eclectic student population at Stonestreet, and because
the instructors at Stonestreet are familiar with the various
schools of technique, we provide a forum and training ground
for students to be exposed to the spectrum of acting training
and techniques. Such exposure is crucial for the growth
of an actor. To remain ignorant of the great and vibrant
variety of perspectives because of an imposed dogma by one
school of acting limits the development and evolution of
an actor's craft as well as an actor's ability to work with
different actors and directors.
Filmcraft
vs. Stagecraft
Most
actors receive their training in a theatrical environment,
utilizing classic stage plays as material. However, film
material is often far less dialogue intensive than a stage
play, not to mention that screenplays in general are not
literary or poetic like that of the many great plays. Some
view this difference as evidence that film is somehow less
of an artform than the theater. Others believe that stage
acting requires greater craft than film acting due to the
“lower” quality of film material. Stonestreet
believes that theater and film are so significantly different
as artforms, that the actor is presented with a whole new
set of problems when confronting film and film material.
Film is different than theater, both as an artform and on
the demands placed on the actor.
Is
filmcraft nothing more than "acting for the camera?"
This is a misconception and a limited view of film acting.
An understanding of film acting encompasses much more than
merely "acting for the camera." "On camera"
acting classes often merely adjust actors down, or teach
actors to cheat toward the camera, or assist actors in dealing
with the technical intrusions into their work. However,
the motion picture is much more than a single shot. It involves
a myriad of film grammer (cuts, dissolves, POV shots, close
shots, long shots, flashbacks, etc.) that all impact on
an actor's performance. An actor needs to understand these
complexities. In addition, actors quickly discover that
the camera is "psychic" (a description coined
by Lillian Gish) in that it knows immediately when someone
passes through a nontruthful moment. An actor can "hide"
on stage, but he or she cannot do so on camera. In addition,
"truth" or "truthful acting" is not
enough for film. Film requires that the actor be more than
truthful: the actor must also be interesting! Techniques
an actor can use to be "interesting" without violating
the truth of character or social historical circumstances,
or the moment to moment interaction, is a large part of
the training at Stonestreet.
|
