It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Yes I know her. Says she'll only do it if she can be Bond's equal.
No problem. Just get Brosnan back.
It is most likely just coincidence, but I wonder if maybe we shouldn't have a look at actors cast in roles, big or small, on the National Theatre.
They are very different types of acting.
Perhaps, but the difference isn't very important anymore. Most theater actors have grown up watching TV and film and know it requires different modulation in performance than theater. Nevertheless, theater is still the place to go to acquire skills that come in useful with any type of acting, and it remains the test of overall skill. The fact that Connery, Dalton, and Craig all had theater experience speaks for itself.
Sounds like you consider theatre above "lesser" acting like movies or tv. I don't agree that "theater is still the place to go to" or "remains the test of overall skill." Actors acquire useful skills they need wherever they act, and there is no need to do theatre specifically. It is surely possible to be a good actor in movies or tv, but not in theatre, and the other way around as well. Many actors don't do them all, and that (in itself) doesn't make them bad actors. As for the "test for overall skill" - what? That's like saying opera is an overall test of a singer's skill, and all singers need to study opera to acquire skills to actually sing well. Or how good one is at writing poetry is how one determines how good one is as a writer overall when it comes to novels, investigative journalism, or sitcom scripts.
I mean... Just different things. Not entirely different, but still. Theatre is neither necessary for an actor, nor superior to other acting.
I think it requires more skill from actors than screen acting, and is a greater test of "pure" acting.
And yet I think most actors would. This is borne out by the number of film stars who still go back to the boards, as if they prove they still had it. And England's preeminence in acting is because so many English actors receive their training in the theater and thus have greater range and skill.
The theater allows an actor to acquire more skills than anywhere else, and for a committed actor some theatrical training is necessary. The lessons it teaches in stamina, voice projection and modulation, acting before an audience, and versatility (theater acting casts less on looks) remain useful in the more intimate media of TV and film. The reverse isn't true for skills unique to film acting.
I'm not so sure. Acting in movies and TV is sometimes less about acting than about projecting an aura before the camera and looking pretty in front of it. Those "skills" can't be relied on in the theater. It is rare to hear of theater-trained actors who fail at acting in front of the camera, whether or not they're stars.
If we're assessing a singer's technical skill, than an ability to match an opera singer in certain areas of range and flexibility would be germane. Anf think it would be wonderful if singers did a bit of operatic training--not necessarily to sing opera, but to study the techniques of breath control and projection that are useful in opera and still useful in technically less demanding types of songs.
Well, poetry and prose are rather different. But great prosodists usually have an appreciation for poetry and vice versa.
Obviously.
Well said. I couldn't agree more. I spent all of my twenties either in drama classes or in rehearsal. I can attest in classic theater training one learns movement, stage combat, dance, emotional exercises, fencing, audition techniques, voice training, improvisation, scoring a monologue and dialogue, public speaking, dialect, and beat construction just to name some skills. That's in addition to whatever specific style of acting one's professor is teaching.
In theater, (when one is lucky to land a part in a show with multiple performances) you have to keep the energy up to the same levels if not more every performance.
In film if an actor is tired or gives a half ass performance, the director and editor still have a decent shot of making the actor come across better. In theater it's all on you.
Theater training and experience gives actors the skills to make very specific choices regarding their characters. Those that transition from theater to TV or film bring their skills and knowledge with them. Some of those actors, end up taking on iconic roles in films and become the benchmark by which others are measured. As mentioned before Connery was indeed a theater actor before Bond. Bela Lugosi had played Dracula in 1000 performances before landing the 1931 film. Both George Reeves, and especially Christopher Reeve were stage actors before playing Superman.
The major golden age films stars: Humphrey Bogart, Bette Davis, James Cagney, Irene Dunne, James Stewart, Katherine Hepburn, Laurence Olivier, Clark Gable, Robert Mitchum, Spencer Tracy and more ALL worked in theater prior to film.
To be honest, I'm fairly confident the next 007 will have had some theater experience behind him.
Film acting, especially as James Bond, brings its own challenges. Some of this can't be mastered in the theatre. A lot of playing Bond isn't acting in the traditional sense. It's projection and charisma. Confidence. One doesn't have the time to master it like one does a theatrical role played out over a long time. Given the tight production schedule on Bond films, along with improvisation, some of it is off the cuff. Moreover, the presentation has to be appealing to the masses as viewed through the screen.
As an example, Timothy Dalton gave a convincing, rounded portrayal of James Bond. However, it wasn't one that resonated with the masses in comparison to his predecessors.
So ultimately, I don't think it's necessary but I don't have a problem with them going that route. Just make sure your actor is versatile (not all theatre actors are) and makes sure he can command the small screen with his presence as well.
As I said previously, I'm quite certain the next actor will have theatrical training, at least while Babs is in charge.
Is being versatile really the point. Does Bond require a good actor, or just someone who might be the worst actor imaginable, but they for some reason, are popular with the audience? Not aimed at any Bond actor, but a genuine question that popped into my head when I read your post.
I think Lazenby proved in the past that you don't need to be a great actor (some would say Moore & Brosnan too) ,but I think now that Craig is seen as Bond then the next actor will need to match that calibre.
That's true. Lazenby wasn't an actor, but got by on his charisma and natural toughness.
A poor actor who is just popular won't be the right choice for the long run of the franchise because they would be stuck in a rut in terms of what direction they can go with plot/theme/tone. That's why they have to be versatile, particularly for a long tenure and successful run.
The Bond actor is normally on screen a lot in each film, sometimes doing the most mundane of things, and that's why screen charisma is similarly important. They have to own the scene. Control the room. Particular when up against notable thespians who may be cast as villains/superiors/lovers etc.
If an actor can bring versatility, some of that theatrical training and a charismatic screen flair then they've got the right choice. The best Bond actors have that mix and give the producers/directors the greatest flexibility when trying to craft a film.
Great film acting isn't the same as great theatre acting. The best and most natural film acting we have seen from the likes of Robert de Niro, Gene Hackman and indeed Sean Connery requires a degree of control and awareness that great stage actors don't always have.
Sometimes less is more, and when (for example) Grant makes his mistake about the fish and wine there is a barely perceptible eyelid flicker from Connery. It was all he needed to do but it was minimalist and it was superb.
But I still maintain Gene Hackman is the finest screen actor I have ever seen.
If only we could get Hackman or De Niro in a Bond film,Nackers, (or are they too big ).
And the wine/fish moment is a great example of a top actor being natural,i love it when he does that.
And he also pauses briefly when Grant is spiking Tatiana's wine,while calling for the waiter,as he notices it.
Two reasons alone why I love that film !!
But this was after the fact: during his short tenure he was not popular as Bond. And while he grew in the role his inexperience often shows.
It's just as likely think that such a degree of control and awareness was gained via stage acting, which (lest we forget) is where modern naturalistic acting and the method had their start. All of the actors you name were stage trained. De Niro was a product of the Lee Strasburg studio and Hackman got his start at the Pasadena Playhouse and various off-Broadway productions. The differences between film and stage acting might have been vast back in the early silent era, but they have been narrowing ever since.
Isn't de Niro a method actor, as opposed to a natural actor? If were to bring up naturalistic acting, we can't possibly not mention arguably the ultimate naturalistic actor, Robert Mitchum.
While it is true that his line delivery betrays his lack of experience, I can't honestly say that there are that many examples, and what ones there are, aren't offensive to my ears. What he lacked in acting ability, he made up for with charm/charisma and toughness.
What is pure acting? Is movie/tv acting impure?
But this is where our different opinions basically stem from; you appreciate and value theatre acting more. I appreciate and value screen and theatre acting equally. Since we disagree on that basic thing, we can't agree on the other, related issues.
I don't know if movie actors do theatre to "prove" anything - why would they even need to, and to who? Most audiences never get to see their theatre work anyway, so certainly not to them. (No matter how much one might want to. I've made some rough calculations on how much a week or so in New York would cost me, and concluded I just can't. At least definitely absolutely shouldn't even consider.) People who hire them for movies are unlikely to normally decide on casting for movies based on theatre vs. no theatre stints, but rather on their film work and/or personal relationships. And why would they need to prove something via theatre to themselves if they mainly work in film? It's different type of work, though, and I can see the appeal in that.
You think actors are more skillful and have more range if they work in theatre and I don't, so no comment on that part.
No, theatrical training isn't necessary for a committed actor, but since you feel the way you feel about theatre, I can see why you think it is. I'm sure it can be very helpful, as I'm sure formal training in acting or any arts can be, but is not necessary.
As for casting on looks, well, if an actor is giving a bad performance (or doesn't have skills in the first place), then the result will be bad in both movies/tv and in theatre. Obviously skills should be taken into account in casting.
Versatility isn't something specifically acquired or developed in theatre.
Obviously theatre acting teaches acting before an audience, because that's what theatre acting is. But one doesn't specifically need that if one isn't a theatre actor, right? And theatre acting doesn't teach acting in front of a camera, I assume.
Many skills learned can surely be somehow useful elsewhere than where they were first learned and developed, but if one only does either movie/tv work or theatre work, then surely the skills specifically needed for the other aren't necessary to do what they actually do.
---
Now as for how any of that relates to Bond, I couldn't care less either way. I don't care in general if actors I like do theatre or not, or if they ever have. If I'd get to see them do theatre I might care more about that side. (I wouldn't mind travelling, I just mind not being rich.) As it is I kinda wish they'd rather concentrate on work I have a chance of actually seeing. If an actor suits the role, is good in it etc. then why would I care about them doing theatre or not - I wouldn't hold either against them, nor assume theatre would make them better or otherwise more (or less) suitable.
Like @bondjames noted, film acting brings its own challenges, and since we're talking about films, those cannot be ignored. Hopefully, when the time comes, they manage to cast an excellent Bond.
True. One or the other isn't better or worse in itself, just different, and to some extent requires different types of skills.
For example, it's possible to do great stuff on camera that wouldn't work in theatre, because people just wouldn't be able to see it. Some details simply can't be seen unless you're practically next to the person. Camera can capture a lot of subtle acting via closeups - for instance of facial expressions, maybe just eyes - but it's impossible in theatre. Everybody can't even sit in the first row. :)
Michael Caine did a great educational video called MICHAEL CAINE: ACTING IN FILM in which he instructed a group of young aspiring actors in the art of film acting. He was very specific about subtly, camera angles and described film acting as an operation with a laser, whereas theater acting is an operation with a scalpel. Great analogy, IMO.