Acting: Stage and Screen

Most people simply believe that acting is generally the same style no matter the medium. I doubt people recognize the tremendous differences across each medium in terms of acting. In class we discussed the differences between screen acting and stage acting. Thinking about the differences seemed to open my eyes to views I already knew, but had not thought about thoroughly. There are two seperate styles for each form of acting, and these two opposing styles cannot cross between mediums.

In stage acting, the actor has more power over the production as a whole. The entire scene is in the hands of the actor, rather than having a director being able to edit the performance. In film, the actor films short lines of dialogue that can be cut or edited out by the filmmakers. In stage acting, the actor has an empty canvas to work with. The medium doesn't go through any kind of editing process to alter the performance. Actors that start in film may have a hard time adjusting to this. They are used to doing excactly what the director wants and expecting it to be tweaked in some way. This is the most general element that differs between stage and screen acting.

The requirements are also different between each medium. There is definitely a certain style that is required to perform on stage. The actor must be able to project their voice to be heard in front of a large crowd. Film actors do not have to worry about this. They can talk as if they are in a conversation with the other actors in the scene. In film, however, this allows the actor to have more freedom to implement more emotion in every line of dialogue.

Due to the fact that stage actors have to project their voices for a crowd, their body language has to carry a lot of the weight in the performance. Stage actors must be very animated in their movements to convey certain emotions or views belonging to the character. In film, actors must do the same but to a different degree. Since a lot of their performance comes from their line delivery, body language can be more realistic. The main difference is that stage acting is more animated, it's not very true to how people actually move and carry themselves. That is also part of the fun when it comes to stage acting. While film acting requires more realistic movements, stage acting can be more fun and experimental.

In the film "Crash", we were able to see film acting at it's finest. Each actor did a tremendous job of fulfilling stereotypes with layers. In the beginning of the film, each actor seems to portray the stereotypes that come with their race and/or social class. As the film moves forward, we come to realize that every character is three-dimensional. Without great acting, this could not have worked effectively. The acting allowed us to believe that a "bad person" can be a hero, and that a "good person" can be a villian. The realistic presentation of dialogue and body movements from the actors showed film acting at it's best.

In class we learned about the main differences between stage and screen acting. This was very interesting to me, as I possess a great interest in different acting styles. It was also great watching the film "Crash". The film was a perfect representation of the realistic nature of acting found in film.

Editing in Raging Bull

In the early twentieth century, editing was born in the form of "cutting to continuity". Instead of films being essentially one long single take, filmakers were now able to edit several shots while keeping the action continuous. Even with the introduction of editing in the filmmaking world, the medium of film still could not appropriately portray reality. The best known critic of early editing was Andre Bazin. Bazin had three main tenets that I would like to point out, as well as relate these tenets with the film "Raging Bull".

Though not a filmmaker himself, Bazin took interest in writing about film to share his views and opinions. While Bazin respected the popular form of editing in that time, he believed that editing could destroy the viewers experience. He believed that the current form of editing was not properly utilizing the medium. Bazin believed that film could display reality in a number of different ways. Bazin's ideal display of reality would be a form of editing that allows the observer to be ambiguous. The film should not feel as if the actors are displaying their performances for the camera, rather the camera should simply act as a patient observer. In "Raging Bull", the filmmakers use this style of filming and editing. The shots are long and patient, giving the film a realistic feeling.

Bazin also believed that the distortions used in formalist techniques destroy the complexities of reality. He criticized montages because it makes reality seem more simplistic. It did not reflect the complexities of reality. He believed that filmmakers of his time were being too manipulative, as if they were trying to create their own reality. Reality needs to exist within the walls of the frames, the film has to simply capture this reality. In "Raging Bull", Scorsese wanted to capture reality in Jake LaMotta's personal life. The way the film was shot grounds itself in reality, a style that Bazin would have greatly appreciated. While staying grounded in reality during most of the film, Scorses leaned more towards formalist techniques for the fight scenes. These conflicting styles is what lead to much of the film's success. A perfect example of this would be the scene in which Jake is asking Vicki about a comment she made about Janiro. In this scene, there is no music or ambient sounds. In the quiet, you can feel Jake's rage building up in his whispers to his wife. In the next scene, the film shows Jake violently beat Janiro in the ring in a formalist fashion. Bazin did believe that a certain amount of a film should be appropriately interpreted and organized by the director, Scorsese followed these guidelines firmly.

Bazin praised the use of deep-focus photography and long takes that allowed you to form your own opinion of the subject matter. He believed that the viewer is "deprived of a privilege" when a simple analysis conforms before their eyes. The introduction of deep-focus photography also brought longer shots, allowing the audience to truly study each scene and establish their own opinion. "Raging Bull" is an excellent example of these techniques. Editing was minimal in scenes that ask us to decide whether we believe Jake is a good man with issues or simply a bad man.

If Bazin was alive to see "Raging Bull", I believe that he would have praised it for many reasons. Scorsese and editor Thelma Shoonmaker placed two opposing styles in one film. For the fight scenes, the film adapted more formalist techniques. Allowing the filmmakers to conform an opinion themselves, an opinion that the film forces you to accept. However, most of the film was shot and edited with realist beliefs in mind, allowing the viewer to be an observer in this man's life. I truly believe that Bazin would have praised this film for allowing the viewer to decide whether or not Jake LaMotta truly was a raging bull.

Mise en Scene found in Parnassus

The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus was a very different movie. When it came to the actual story of the film; it barely held my interest. However, this film was an absolute feast for the eyes. After learning about Mise en Scene in class, I was able to recognize the importance and significance of every frame. The director had literally every shot intricately designed to convey a certain theme or idea. In class, we learned about the 15 points of Mise en Scene. The first point is dominant. Dominant deals with what our eyes are attracted to first and why. The first thing your eye will most likely see is the character of Valentina because she is above the other characters in the frame. The second is the lighting key. In this shot, the lighting key is low key lighting. The scene is mostly using diffused shadows with pools of light. The third is the shot and camera proxemics, in this shot it's a medium shot. Even Valentina's body is visible from the waste up. Fourth point is the angle of the camera. This shot is very interesting in the angle regard. While it is an eye-level shot; the angle still suggests a power relationship that does not normally come with this type of shot. This shot gives us the idea that Valentina has the choice to direct her attention to either of the two men in the scene. The fifth point is the color values. This point refects what information or clues are given from the lighting. The sixth point of Mise en Scene is the lens/filter/stock. I believe the lens in this shot is a wide-angle lens. Subsidiary contrasts is the seventh point. This is what the eye looks to after taking in the dominant. After looking at Valentina, the viewer is most likely going to look at Heath Ledger's character because of his white suit. The density of the shot is the eighth point of Mise en Scene. The texture is very stark. With their home as the background; there is nothing to see beyond that. This allows the viewers to keep their attention on the characters instead of the background. Ninth point is the composition. The composition in this shot is a triangle composition. The composition in this shot stresses the dynamic interaction between three characters. Form is the tenth point. This shot has a closed form, all the information needed is in the frame. The eleventh point is the framing in the shot. The framing in this shot is pretty tight. In this triangle form, none of the three characters have much room to move. This triangle relationship they share is limiting their freedom. Depth of field, the twelfth point, is a shallow depth in this shot. Character placement is the thirteenth point of Mise en Scene. This scene uses character placement to great effect. Valentina is above the two leading men. She can direct her attention to either of the two. She almost has empowerment over them in a sense. This shot is rich in terms of the character placement. Staging positions is the fourteenth point. The staging positions in this shot are very interesting. Tony and Anton represent profile positions. We see their profile rather than their whole face. However, Valentina represents a full-front staging. The staging positions suggests that we should be relating to Valentina's situation. The final point of Mise en Scene are the character proxemics. This shot represents personal distances between Anton and Tony. With Valentina in the center, she suggests more intimate distances with both of the two characters. I was able to write a whole essay about one image from The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus. This should be an indication of how visually rich this film is. Every shot in the film could have an essay written about it. This film was a perfect example of Mise en Scene in film.