Film Actors Who Are "Surprisingly" Good Theatre Actors

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 2/26/19 at 11:53am

I know we should not have this sort of binary because a good actor is a good actor no matter where they primarily work. However, I couldn't help but talk about this topic with some other people the other day after we were comparing notes on "movie" actors we saw on stage and how some were "surprisingly" good while others we thought were going to be good due to their pedigree and accolades were a bit underwhelming. There are some actors who work primarily in film who people don't really consider the "best" or most "skilled" actor but they end up doing a stage production and "surprise" people with how great they are. Conversely, you some times see classically-trained or theater actors who successfully transition into film and are noted for their acting skill there but then they do a stage production and people find them underwhelming.

I was wondering if you guys could think of some examples. Even examples of where some actors met your expectation.

Updated On: 2/26/19 at 11:53 AM

[SomethingPeculiar]

Posted: 2/26/19 at 12:28pm

The most prominent recent example I can think of is Daniel Radcliffe. John Larroquette also surprised people in H2$. For years, Melanie Griffith (Chicago) and Reba McEntire (Annie Get Your Gun) were the two "poster children" for surprisingly great Broadway debuts.

Then there's the opposite: Surprisingly bad stage actors, like Julia Roberts, Larry David, and Forrest Whitaker. There's also a grey area with people like Bryan Cranston and Chris Cooper: they started in theatre but hadn't had Broadway/NY stage success before their film careers, so they pleasantly surprised everyone with their Broadway debuts. I think that's different from theatre animals who went to Hollywood, like Hugh Jackman, Glenn Close, Ruffalo, Pacino, Streep, Adam Driver, etc.

The reality is, some actors cannot translate well onstage, and it's a big gamble to cast someone who is new to theatre or hasn't worked onstage in a long time. And, it comes down to the role, the director, and the actors who surround the "celebrity" newcomer.

Updated On: 2/26/19 at 12:28 PM

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 2/26/19 at 12:45pm

On the boat of surprisingly bad stage actors was when Julianne Moore did The Vertical Hour considering at the time I thought she was a highly skilled actress and knew she did do some theatre work before she hit it big on film. During the late 1990s and early-to-mid 2000s I thought she out of her contemporaries would do well on stage (of course I was just a teenager and young adult that the time and now I should have seen that her style really is cinematic). It was noted that she lacked stage technique and seemed lost. Moore later said she failed to connect with that medium. Jessica Chastain was another one who I had big expectations with when she did The Heiress with her Juilliard training and some stage work as she didn't hit it big on screen until her mid-30s with The Help and then Zero Dark Thirty. Now that about six years passed by, I sort of see she is a bit limited, which pains me to say.

On the other hand, Scarlet Johanssen won a Tony award despite not being wildly celebrated as an actress. Of course, I heard very mixed things about her follow-up in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.

I also think if you ask movie lovers which Hepburn is the better actress, most people would say Katharine and for good reason. Yet, it was Audrey who has the Tony Award and two huge out-of-this-world receptions for her two Broadway plays. Katharine Hepburn I heard was amazing in the stage version of The Philadelphia Story as she was in the film version.

This makes me think of Bette Davis and how she was Hollywood's answer to saying it too had credible actors who moved the craft forward and had excellent technique, and yet it seems her stage ventures were not that successful. However, it seemed she was not in the best physical condition to be gauge whether she could have really done it and seemed shaken by her lack of experience in that forum. I did read that Joan Crawford, who people at the time didn't think was the best actress (I saw some of the Depression-era films of hers and I have to agree a bit) but had real presence on screen, once toyed with the idea of doing stage work and even did a rehearsal or something with a stage director (I forgot who) and apparently he said she was amazing and could have been amazing on stage if she did not decide she did not want to do it. I also think she had stage fright as well. Rosalind Russell who did not have the success or reputation of Davis got some of the best stage reviews ever in Wonderful Town and Auntie Mame.

[darquegk]

Posted: 2/26/19 at 1:09pm

The great female legends of stage and screen from most of the twentieth century are hamstrung both by sexism and by a sea change in health and lifestyle: women getting pushed out of the spotlight due to the "onset of a certain age" happened with much greater frequency then, and due to a number of health-impacting factors, middle age and senescence set in MUCH earlier than they do today. (Consider that in 1969, Bobby in "Company" admits he is middle-aged and has been for a while on his thirty-fifth birthday, and Joanne is an "old broad" at around fifty.) Nowadays, if you can afford to eat well, present well, and keep in good shape, middle age kind of ceases to exist, and you're young until you're old with no stout, worn-down period in between. It's amazing what the paradigm shift away from chain-smoking and mass consumption of hard liquor has accomplished.

But I was thinking about this question, and wondering if Marilyn Monroe, had she lived, would have had a mid-career renaissance. Today, absolutely: she would be like Jessica Lange, returning without the youth but with twice the charisma. But in her era? Sadly, when the spotlight went out then, it went out early and it far too often stayed off.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 2/26/19 at 1:18pm

The problem with Monroe is that I think she had so many personal demons from her childhood and how people (especially men) treated her into her adulthood that it's hard to separate her from that to really see what her potential could have been to have that sort of renaissance. The thing with Lange is that she always seemed to have her head on straight and could follow through on the work ethic to keep working consistently and well and have people want to continually work with her.

[darquegk]

Posted: 2/26/19 at 1:35pm

Ditto for the other legendary broken bird Sinatra hooked up with, Judy Garland.

Who do we have today that devolved into an uninsurable mess today but made a comeback? Mariah Carey came back to some extent, but mostly as a singer, and her career has forever been teetering; Lindsay Lohan has gone into being a club manager and model rather than an actor, and Amanda Bynes is doing fashion design.

[Joviedamian]

Posted: 2/26/19 at 4:10pm

I think the question might be the other way around. The majority of film actors that I know that are good in both mediums, are most likely to have gotten their start in the theater.

[Danielle49]

Posted: 2/26/19 at 4:24pm

Joviedamian said: "I think the question might be the other way around. The majority of film actors that I know that are good in both mediums, are most likely to have gotten their start in the theater."

Agreed. I recall reading several interviews with famous film actors who describe theatre as acting boot camp. Live theatre works a muscle that film can’t. One big example that I’ve recently been intrigued by is Brian Tyree Henry. He started in theatre and didn’t start getting bigger film projects until a few years ago. I caught him in Lobby Hero last year, and am so glad I did. He’s that rare gem that excels in theatre, film, AND television.

(Speaking of Lobby Hero, Chris Evans is a good example of the OP’s question. Big movie star who did well onstage. Wonder if we’ll see more from him.)

Updated On: 2/26/19 at 04:24 PM

[Jarethan]

Posted: 2/26/19 at 5:04pm

I imagine that Rosalind Russell and Angela Lansbury would be at the top of the list, even 50 - 60 years later.

More recently, Denzel Washington has to be pretty far up the list.  Jake Gyllenhaal has not done a lot yet, but seems to be returning and getting terrific reviews.  I have not been fortunate enough to see him yet, but look forward to the day.  Jane Hathaway's performance at the Public theatre a few years ago also suggested someone who could have a strong stage career if she ever decided to focus a little harder on it.  Although he has not returned to the best of my knowledge, I thought that Antonio Banderas was outstanding in Nine, better IMO than Raul Julia; perhaps his accent would limit him to certain roles, but he displayed a level talent I never saw in his movies.

Ellen Burstyn made her stage debut after receiving at least 3 Oscar nominations and one Oscar previously.  She won a Tony for the first time out,  in an incredibly competitive year, winning over Maggie Smith for Private Lives; Liv Ullman for A Doll's House; Elizabeth Ashley for Cat on a...; and Diana Rigg.  She appeared on stage a number of times after, but -- despite mostly excellent personal reviews -- lightning did not strike twice re the shows themselves.

Know there are others, but can't think of them right now.  To lazy to research to determine if they were on the stage before becoming recognizable film actors, e.g., Henry Fonda.

 

[natashalost]

Posted: 2/26/19 at 5:51pm

Truthfully, before seeing Angels in America I knew absolutely nothing of Andrew Garfield other than the fact that he was in the Spider-Man movies. With this knowledge, I went in expecting to be utterly disappointed by his performance. I guess I, somewhat cynically, thought there was no way a superhero movie actor could pull off Prior. Well, I came out feeling the exact opposite of him. He was brilliant in every way, and his performance has to be one of, if not my favorite, I've ever seen on stage. 

[ggersten]

Posted: 2/26/19 at 6:34pm

 

[OKBroadwayFan]

Posted: 2/26/19 at 6:37pm

Jane Hathaway's performance at the Public theatre a few years ago also suggested someone who could have a strong stage career if she ever decided to focus a little harder on it. 

 

The onstage chemistry with Jethro was top notch.  

:)

Updated On: 2/26/19 at 06:37 PM

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 2/26/19 at 6:56pm

Does Laura Linney count? I know she's had extensive Broadway experience but I knew her primarily from her movies and was really impressed with her in The Little Foxes.

[Theatrefanboy1]

Posted: 2/26/19 at 10:16pm

For the record I’d like to give Julia Roberts another chance. And forget all about her original debut.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 2/26/19 at 10:17pm

Laura Linney is also one of those actors who started off doing Broadway and other theater (she was trained at Juilliard) before getting picked up by Hollywood.

I think that when it comes to film actors with relatively little theater experience doing Broadway, much of their success depends on their role. For example, Scarlett Johansson playing the supporting role of Catherine in the straight play A View From the Bridge is very different from asking say, Daniel Radcliffe to carry the lead in a musical like How to Succeed.

If you really think about it, most of the most famous DRAMATIC film actors (Meryl Streep, Daniel Day-Lewis, Al Pacino, Marlon Brando, and countless others) were originally primarily stage actors for at least a short while before being picked up by Hollywood. The general consensus seems to be that it requires more skill to play the lead in a play that a lead in a film, although of course it depends on the role. In other words, if an actor is really good at doing straight plays on stage, they are likely to do well doing screenplays on film as well, but the reverse is less often true.

Musicals however, are a totally different animal.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 2/27/19 at 10:55am

Theatrefanboy1 said: "For the record I’d like to give Julia Roberts another chance. And forget all about her original debut."

Me too. I think she's become a much better actress now than she was before and I'd like to see her try again. I think those film actors who didn't have initial success on stage, I think many of them who do display skill on film just need more experience and an understanding director to guide them.

[TheQuibbler]

Posted: 2/27/19 at 11:07am

Michael Cera was a pleasant surprise for me. For someone whose speciality is small, internal awkwardness, I didn’t expect his style to translate to the larger size of theater. Yet I thought he was wonderful in Lobby Hero and made the most of an underwritten part in The Waverly Gallery.

[Larcen26]

Posted: 2/27/19 at 5:16pm

I would dare say that Zachary Levi is better as Georg Nowack than he is as any film or TV character thusfar.

(Though Shazam looks to really fit into his skill set.)

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/27/19 at 5:51pm

I loved Christina Ricci in Time Stands Still.

[uncageg]

Posted: 2/27/19 at 11:56pm

I walked into A RAISIN IN THE SUN excited to finally see Audra live onstge. Even though it wasn't a musical. I left floored at how good Sanaa Lathan was and ran to see her in Vera Stark. I really hope she plans to do more stage work. I am a fan of her movies but I would love to see her onstage more.

[SomethingPeculiar]

Posted: 2/28/19 at 12:40am

Larcen26 said: "I would dare say that Zachary Levi is better as Georg Nowack than he is as any film or TV character thusfar."

Ditto. And while he was adequate in First Date, he was WONDERFUL in She Loves Me. Also, there was a lot of Georg in his character in Marvelous Mrs. Maisel. (I think Scott Ellis even directed one of the episodes he was in)

[Dave28282]

Posted: 2/28/19 at 9:06am

This is actually a really interesting discussion.

I think there is a huge difference in acting between stage and screen. It baffles me that many casting directors for tv and film do not seem to see this difference. They visit an actor in a play and then cast them in a film, based on what they have seen on stage, which results in wrong choices and unrealistic acting on screen.

I will try to put this into words a bit clearer. To me, acting on screen needs to be "real". The scene has to look and feel like real life. As realistic as possible. This seems to be a very difficult task, as in 95% of the cases it looks very acted. Whenever I zap along tv channels, in a split second I can tell what is acted and what is real. Most actors take on an "acting posture", which doesn't seem to bother the director or casting directors, as it happens all the time. But it hardly looks like real life, nuanced reactions, intonation, eye-movements, it almost seems too over-thought. Very rarely you see an acting performance on screen that feels like no thought has been put into it, because it's real. When I zap along a performance like this, I must stop and pay attention because it's so real. Julia Roberts and Amy Adams often have moments like this. I can imagine Julia Roberts not being a good stage actress at all. I see this good natural acting in some of the new netflix series and films too, especially in projects that are not from the USA. I thought the films "Calibre" and "The Ritual" had some very well acted scenes.

Acting in this realistic way, like we would talk to eachother in real life is the only way acting on screen becomes real, but the stage is a different ballpark. Stage per definition needs a different approach. A more "carried" intonation, perhaps give the voice a bit more support, everything is slightly more elevated in energy, a very different delivery of lines, pauses, you need to work with all the rows in the theatre. This is a language we somehow accept when sitting in a theatre because, naturally, this is not a close face to face situation, which is resembled by a close up on a screen. An actress that comes to mind that does this well on stage is Judi Dench. Whenever I see Judi Dench on screen it makes me cringe a little. Her acting on screen is way too stage-like which makes every choice, intonation, eye-movement, reaction, even the way she listens to her co-actors, insincere. It looks very, very acted. She should not be given roles on screen, no matter how good she may be on stage. 

Updated On: 2/28/19 at 09:06 AM

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 2/28/19 at 9:45am

Are there stage actors you think have adapted well on screen despite their stage training? Based on your post, you made me wonder what actors do you think are excellent on screen. I know you said you felt Julia Roberts and Amy Adams have moments. I do think it really depends on the material. Not every film wants total realism because otherwise we'd have much more "mumblecore" films or amateur actors (hiring people of the local community who have had no acting experience) which I know a lot of movie-going audiences can't stand. They still want to see some acting craft in their screen performances just things like line delivery and conveying characters. Movies may try to capture more "real" moments, but they are still dependent on the basic tenants of drama for storytelling purposes and are exaggerated moments of life because it is through that exaggeration that we get the heart of the matter and it feels more real.

[Danielle49]

Posted: 2/28/19 at 12:52pm

Such a recent example, but I consider Timothée Chalamet a performer that has what Dave28282 is talking about. There’s a subtlety and a life that he infuses into his characters to the point that it looks easy — a rarity in film actors, which I think is the reason why he’s so quickly become an acclaimed performer. Wonder what his stage work is like.

[Jarethan]

Posted: 2/28/19 at 2:07pm

Dave28282 said: "This is actually a really interesting discussion.

I think there is a huge difference in acting between stage and screen. It baffles me that many casting directors for tv and film do not seem to see this difference. They visit an actor in a play and then cast them in a film, based on what they have seen on stage,which results in wrong choices and unrealistic acting on screen.

I will try to put this into words a bit clearer. To me, acting on screen needs to be "real". The scenehas to look and feel like real life. As realistic as possible. This seems to be a very difficult task, as in 95% of the cases it looks very acted. Whenever I zap along tv channels, in a split second I can tell what is acted and what is real. Most actors take on an "acting posture", which doesn't seem to bother the director or casting directors, as it happens all the time. But it hardly looks like real life, nuanced reactions, intonation, eye-movements, it almost seems too over-thought. Very rarely you see an acting performance on screen that feels like no thought has been put into it, because it's real. When I zap along a performance like this, I must stop and pay attention because it's so real. Julia Roberts and Amy Adams often have moments like this. I can imagine Julia Roberts not being a good stage actress at all. I see this goodnatural acting in some of the new netflix series and films too, especially in projects that are not from the USA. I thought the film "Calibre" had some very wellacted scenes.

Acting in this realistic way, like we would talk to eachother in real life is the only way acting on screen becomes real,but the stage is a different ballpark. Stage per definition needs a different approach. Amore "carried" intonation, perhaps give the voice a bit more support, everything is slightly more elevated in energy, a very different delivery of lines, pauses,you need to work with all the rows in the theatre. This is a language we somehow accept when sitting in a theatre because, naturally, this is not a close face to face situation, which is resembled by a close up on a screen. An actress that comes to mind that does this well on stage is JudiDench. Whenever I see Judi Dench on screen it makes me cringe a little. Her acting is on screen is way too stage-like which makes every choice, intonation, eye-movement, reaction, even the way she listens to her co-actors, insincere. It looks very, very acted. She should not be given roles on screen, no matter how good she may be on stage."

 

Can't disagree more.  Judi Dench became 'famous' as a global movie star (I know she was already very famous, greatly admired and loved in the UK for her stage and TV work) after the age of 60.  Yet she managed to get 7 Oscar nominations since then, and is now 'famous' as a great movie actress.  The main reason is because she is so natural.  I would guess that you just don't like her.