Kramer too easily glosses over the differences between stage acting and film acting. There is a distinct way that actors have to transform their acting techniques from theatrical moves into filmic gestures. At the end of this article he talks about how actors in the 20th century do the same thing as Keaton did. He says that the two mediums "can be seen as complimentary" however there is still a great divide between theater and film performances as well as competition for audiences between the two. Keaton was able to easily make the switch from Vaudeville to musical theater to the "dirty screen" because he did the same thing in all of these acts. It was slapstick comedy in every instance and the way that he performed most likely didn't change drastically. Probably what changed the most was his ability to pull of more complex stunts when he got to the medium of film, which was mentioned in this article. I have not seen his "The Three Keatons" act but I feel that they could not have been drastically different than what he was doing in Steamboat Bill, Jr. He is carrying out the same interactions with this actor that he probably did with his father.
As the article mentions, studios were looking to grab slapstick comedians because this is what was bringing audiences to theaters. It was easy for them to scoop these acts up, even though pay was less, because these actors didn't need to drastically change their performances. It might have even been easier for these actors then ones now because they didn't even need to talk. Everything was silent so their gestures just got bigger and their stunts more elaborate. This is much easier than someone going from the theatre to the screen now days because acting styles are very different.
No comments:
Post a Comment