As an aspiring actor you may wish to specialise in the medium you feel most passionate about. The reality is that most people who have completed acting courses won’t have the luxury of choice, and of turning down stage roles for screen roles or vice versa. It’s a tough world and, as a new graduate from acting school, you will need to embrace all opportunities. That means cultivating the versatility to perform both on stage and in front of the camera. To do this, all actors need a thorough grasp of how different stage and screen acting are.

Successful actors choose their acting training carefully, plan their careers and capitalise on their strengths. It has been traditional in the UK for actors to learn their craft with acting training geared to stage performance. That’s no longer always essential. For example, a new trend is standup comedians crossing over into stage and screen acting (think of Ricky Gervais, Eddie Izzard and Matt Lucas). What is vital is for you to appreciate where your talents lie, and to assess which medium ultimately offers you the best opportunity to shine.

Physicality

The key difference between stage and screen acting is the way in which meaning is expressed and conveyed. The stage play relies strongly on language and verbal delivery. First, that means that the stage actor needs a voice that can be heard in a large auditorium. Second, in stage work the voice is central to expressiveness and communicating emotion. Third, timing of delivery, and using the voice to create and sustain dramatic tension, are crucial, since they can’t be tweaked in the editing suite.

Movies create meaning very differently. Montage – essentially the juxtapositioning of shots – is central. A character has received terrible news. Film can convey his or her reaction in several ways, suitably tuned to the narrative: by cutting to a stormy sky; a flashback to a car crash; a close-up of a dropped phone dangling. In a play, it is voice and physical movement that you must rely on for conveying emotion.

Gesture, movement and physicality are also vital on stage. Whereas tiny gestures can be magnified in close-up film shots, as a stage actor you will use your body very differently. You will need to communicate a physical energy and develop a ‘stage presence’. The film close-up permits subtleties of facial expression and movement that don’t work on the stage.

Camera work and editing achieve effects that the stage actor must create largely by using the body. In film, props and settings are also used extensively to convey meaning and atmosphere. As a stage actor, the onus is on you to do that work.

The Experience of Stage and Screen

As a theatre actor you may find yourself, quite literally, centre stage: significantly in control and in receipt of constant feedback from audiences. In moviemaking, the director’s whim is paramount and editing powerfully shapes the product that (eventually) appears.

Temperamentally, you may discover that you are best suited to performing in one medium or another. You may realise that you are one of the many actors who struggle with the lack of continuity associated with shooting isolated scenes, the process of endless retakes and the absence of audience reaction. Three months on location in Borneo might not be your cup of tea either.

Whatever your preference, the ability to cross over and perform on stage as well as film and TV has clear career benefits. Variety can be the spice of life and mastering the different skills needed can help add texture and depth to your performances.

Method Acting: Bridging Media

Acting for stage and screen demands different acting styles and appreciating that fact should be a consideration for you when you are starting out in acting training and deciding which acting courses to take. Method acting gives actors a firm foundation for work in any medium. Creative expressiveness underlies good performances both on stage and before the camera, even though you will use different devices and strategies to convey it. For stage work, method acting will help you to create the emotional depth and intensity that stage performance demands. In film acting, it will help you to get into character on cue – no mean feat.

Because the stage demands a particular style of acting, some theatre-trained actors find making the transition to the screen difficult. Method acting will help you to bring a naturalism and authenticity to every one of your performances, regardless of whether it is for stage or screen.

As well as honing your ability, a spread of acting courses will illuminate the avenues that you can pursue as an actor and the skills you need to get work in different media. This insight you gain into the world of acting, along with self-knowledge, may lead you in directions other than those you initially planned to follow. Appreciating the different media, and the demands of each, will help you extend your range, depth and versatility as an actor.

Basically, internal means from the inside. External means from the outside. Stimulation means an act that encourages a given response. Simulation means an act that imitates the appearance of a given response.

Now, let’s look at these concepts more closely to see how they apply to acting and acting methods.

The external is all about surfaces. That’s not necessarily a bad thing – the external is a given and a necessity for the actor. An actor showing up for a casting call, for example, automatically brings their external, visible selves. Strangers on the street are seen externally for the most part. It’ll take some kind of stimulation – an accident, a tantrum, a fight – to make the internal come out. Method acting aims for stimulating the internal to come out also.

With external acting, what you get is voice inflections, mannerisms, sad/happy faces, presence if the actor is charismatic enough, and other tools of projection. Don’t get me wrong – all these things are important for an actor. But not at the expense of the internal, the emotional truth from within. The external craft is there to support the internal characterization. They are not intended to cover up for – ‘simulate’ – something real. All good drama schools and acting classes know this.

By internal, we may think of the inside as opposed to the outside of a book. The outside is the cover, right? Usually it is an illustrative surface that covers the content. Take that analogy a little further and you get an act that ‘covers’ for something that may or may not be there.

Great acting is about tapping into internal resources, which we all have, and using it to the fullest. Acting from inside leads to believable characters simply because the emotions are real. That shows – how could it not? Humans are very good at spotting emotional truth – they can be fooled, but only when they allow themselves to be.

The most moving performances, the ones that really touch you, involve actors who bring themselves – their emotions, their experiences, their physicality – to the role.

Method acting stimulates the process by insisting on truthfulness from every angle.

Simulation in acting is a sham, a pretense, a shortcut that will only lead to mediocre performances at best. Stimulation, on the other hand, comes with hard work and years of great acting lessons to perfect. The approach of method acting classes turns out to be one of the most, if not the most, successful approaches for insisting on internally-driven acting brought to the outside. (Marlon Brandon, Harvey Keitel, Denzel Washington, Ellyn Burstyn, Al Pacino, Sean Penn – the list goes on and on – were trained in The Method.)

When it comes to solid method acting classes in London, I am renowned for providing top level instruction. By stimulating your inner tools, not simulating them.

Perhaps you were attracted to acting because it’s a practical, hands-on kind of thing. Acting is active (from the Greek meaning ‘to do’). It’s the opposite of sitting at a desk. Studying Hamlet (let alone Aeschylus or obscure avant garde theatrical works) might not be what you had in mind when you embarked on your acting training.

The good news is that a Masters degree in literature might give you valuable insight into appreciating writing, genres and the history of expressive forms but it isn’t necessarily going to boost you all that much as an actor. That said, a good understanding of the rudiments of dramatic works can be vital. That’s why it is taught as an integral part of many acting courses. A grasp of the language of drama is crucial. A tragedy, for example, is a whole lot more than a sad story.

The role of an actor is to interpret dramatic works, roles and characters. Interpreting texts and understanding how they function is what literary scholars also do. Cultivating some of those skills will help you understand characters and bring them to life. You will appreciate how dramatic tension is created and the importance of structure. Unless you’re a mime, an appreciation of language and dialogue is crucial to effective acting.

Some understanding of the development of dramatic forms will help you appreciate the possibilities of drama and the range of choices and ‘treatments’ available to actors and directors. Understanding the innovations of the giants – the playwright Chekhov, the dramatist Brecht, the films of Bergman or Tarantino – enrich the actor’s dramatic imagination.

It’s about appreciating content as well as form. You can’t understand Ibsen without also understanding how his plays challenged Victorian morality. You can’t even get a grip on Eastenders without appreciating how it is a product of our times. If you land a role, some knowledge of dramatic traditions may also help you get your head around your director’s approach.

Practical Issues

Let’s say you’ve struck it lucky. You have a good chance of a role (maybe just a small one) in production A or B. Which should you choose? There may be all sorts of considerations (pay! hours! commuting!) but you’ll certainly want to go for the one that will bring you to attention and best showcase your talents. A general appreciation of drama will help you evaluate the script. You need to be a good critic to be able to evaluate whether one might be a hit and the other a bomb.

To assess a script you also need to appreciate the differences in dramatic media. Scripts for film, TV and the theatre have very different requirements and demand different ways of working from actors. If you have a feel for your medium then, as an actor, you’ll gain a sense of what rules can be bent or broken and which to leave alone.

All actors learn from watching other actors and assessing their performances. A good actor is one who interprets the script and character well (in one of several possible ways). To emulate good acting, you’ll need to recognise it when you see it. So what was it that was great about performance X? One dimension of that will be the actor’s dramatic intelligence.

Some actors may have that intelligence without knowing their Shakespeare from their Schiller. But as a general principle, the wider your knowledge of your subject, the better-equipped you will be to act and to carve a path in the acting world. Obviously, your exploration of your materials may vary, depending on whether you’re aiming for the RSC or voiceover work.

If you love acting and the world of drama, learning about dramatic works will hopefully be enjoyable, not a chore.. It may be more interesting if you recognise what a knowledge of text and performance can do for you as an actor. If you’re taking an acting courses or drama lessons here and there, it’s something you might profitably consider learning more about it.

But are actors born to act? If you read or watch interviews with leading members of our profession, you’ll have heard some say that from early childhood they had a need to show off and be the centre of attention. Does that mean you need to be some kind of exhibitionist to succeed in the acting world? Is acting ability dependent on personality attributes or innate ability?

Think of the acting greats of our times and it immediately becomes apparent that, personality-wise, the luminaries of stage and screen are a diverse bunch with equally diverse motivations and backgrounds. It’s hard to find any obvious common denominator, except dedication to their art.

Some natural ability to perform (perhaps a gift for mimicry and voices) has no doubt led many actors to enrol in drama school. How ‘natural’ these abilities really are is debatable. They may be picked up from others and actively cultivated because they bring a child attention and approval. Also, an extroverted personality isn’t necessarily the mark of a good actor. The flamboyant, gregarious ‘luvvie’ is one of those enduring clichés. In reality an introverted personality isn’t a barrier to acting achievement and you don’t have to be a party animal. Robert de Niro allegedly began acting to overcome shyness.

Raw talent surely exists, to some degree. But raw talent doesn’t cook on its own (and even today’s PR machines can only take people so far). Actors must learn their craft, from diverse teachers: in acting classes and from directors, fellow actors and the responses of the all-important audience.

It would be foolish to think that anyone can reach the pinnacle of the acting profession with raw talent alone, purely through will power or without additional training. Genius is famously 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. Acting ability may similarly rest on the foundation of some mysterious and indefinable quality, but the rest is learned through hard slog – and good teaching.

For that reason, attending professional acting courses is the route taken by the vast majority of successful professional actors today. Lack of professional acting training is a prime cause of career crash. Complacency about one’s supposed innate ability is also a sure-fire career killer. Acting classes are only partly about ‘how to’ lessons from a drama coach. Interactions with fellow students, and their feedback, can teach you vital lessons about your strengths and weaknesses as an actor. (See my article on ‘Common mistakes’ for more tips on what not to do. . . ).

If there is a personal attribute that the best actors share, it is surely their insight into human behaviour (including awareness of self) and the ability to translate that into their performances (if not necessarily their personal lives!). The introvert, with a rich inner world, may have some advantage here. This ‘people-consciousness’ and inner reach may be partly innate, or subliminal, as well as a product of our upbringing and personality. But, as with so many skills, it can be honed. Method acting, for example, provides actors with techniques for accessing inner realms, evoking sensory experiences and expressing emotion authentically and powerfully.

When the news of actor Natasha Richardson’s tragically premature death broke, a New York newspaper ran a story with the headline ‘A woman who was born to act’. How so? The answer is surely this: whatever innate ability Natasha Richardson possessed, it was nurtured in an environment which gave her detailed knowledge and a deep understanding of her art. Those of us who weren’t born into an acting dynasty can take advantage of acting training and actors’ studios instead.