Is acting difficult?

[Kyla]

Acting is HARD. Several years ago, a friend of mine, who was (and still is, actually) working on her MFA had an actor drop out of a scene she was working on for her directing class at the last minute. She was kinda freaking out about it, and, being unemployed at the moment and not at all realizing what I was getting into, I offered to do it instead. I figured, hell, I can read and memorize stuff. Shouldn’t be that hard.

Yeah. Boy howdy was I wrong. But it was an interesting experience and gave me a new respect for actors. If that much effort goes into one scene, I can’t imagine how much goes into an episode of a TV show or a a play.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@Prelude_to_Fascination

I’ll take the 100 random people, with a few qualifications. After all, actors are people too…with the possible exception of Keanu Reeves. No one knows yet what he is. He sure ain’t no actor.

Could 100 random people with no previous experience just walk on a stage or set and act believably? No way. But if they had the desire to act convincingly, and had enough training, as well as talent, sure they could. How else do actors become successful?

Your argument makes not a lick of sense. Once you stipulate that your 100 random persons have the desire to act, teh talent, and sufficient training, they’re no longer random people; they’re random actors. It’s like saying that any random group of 5 guys could give the Boston Celtics a run for their money in a game of basketball, but stipulating that the guys you choose must all be 7 feet tall and have extensive experience in the NBA.

[Kaio]

@WhyNot

I also think that film and stage acting require such different skill sets as to be impossible to lump together. I have no idea if film acting is hard or if I’d be any good at it. I’d like to think I would, but I really don’t know.

The core skills are the same – you need to be able to recall and relive emotions appropriate to whatever your character is experiencing in the scene, and be present and “in the moment”, etc.

Mainly the difference is in technical skills. It’s sort of like the difference between knowing how to spell, and knowing how to type. Related, but each requires it’s own learning curve and practice. On stage, you need to project (both voice and body language) to the back of the house. It has to be “bigger” than real life without going over the top. On film, the camera is closer than virtually anyone would really get, so it has to be “smaller” than real life, without becoming flat. Most of the rest is basic technical stuff peculiar to the medium – hitting your mark without looking, an awareness of the size of the frame so your face or gestures don’t fall off-camera (you have to remain very very still for close-ups – shifting your weight could move you out-of-frame), and eyeline, which is the current bane of my existence. Looking at something that’s not there, without suffering from wandering eyes? Or even better, something that’s not there and moving? Really hard. (Your eyes tend to jump from point to point rather than following smoothly like they would if you were really looking at something.)

@Hello_Again

There is a quite famous story from Stanislavsky “An Actor Prepares.” A woman (I actually think it was his wife) was practicing a scene in which she “looked for a lost brooch” whihch was supposed to have great personal significance in the scene. She was being very fake and “overacty” about it “Oh where is my brooch O where? O where?”

Stanislasky said to her: Stop. Find the brooch or you’re out of the troupe.
She said: hahaha there is no brooch, this is a play
He said: I’m serious: find the brooch or get the F out.
She: but…
He: find it.

This time she really looked for it.

Here it is. I love this story, because she is so proud of herself when she’s done, thinking that it was her Best Acting Ever. Then the teacher asks, “So where’s the brooch?” Her response? “Oh. I forgot.” Snerk.