Comes from the casting of "big names" at all. it's part of our "cult-of-celebrity" society. And this is continually perpetuated by spending big bucks at the box office for said name, usually to be disappointed. I take this seriously, as a theatre professional - the hype of the name is what you're paying for. Not the quality of performance. An example of this was Julia Roberts in her abysmal failure in the Broadway production of "Three Days of Rain." I didn't see it - but I believe it.

Megan Cavanaugh's advice was the best I've heard from any form of celebrity. DO. THEATRE. FIRST. Theatre is MUCH harder than film ... you don't get "takes" to get a scene right. You have a stage, your fellow actors, and the audience. it's sink or swim time, and the actors who are doused into film (which is happening more and more as celebrities are brought in younger and younger - Clare Danes is a good example), they bypass the actual craft for the laymen's version. This is why Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro, and their entire generation are so amazing, on screen or stage. They went to acting school and performed on stage first. Meryl Streep? Same thing. They were consequently all "discovered" by agents or other types of Hollywood suits, while ON STAGE in a production of something or other.

Now, all of these young film "up-and-comers" are trying for a form of "legitimacy" that they have not had. They're trying to "pay-their-dues" ... about 5-10 years too late. This is why the cast of Grey's Anatomy is generally so good - T.R. Knight, Sandra Oh, Sara Ramirez, Justin Chambers, Chandra Wilson - they're ALL from the theatre, originally. But know this - Theatre is an actor's craft. Film is a director/editor craft. So think about that the next time you go to the movies, or you're watching your favorite show on TV. How much magic is being edited out to make the actors look good? How many takes did it take to make that ONE three minute scene? NOW go see some live Shakespeare, and think about the work it takes to be up on stage, versing in poetry for 3 hours, and doing it WELL.

I apologize for my rant ... it tends to be a sensititive subject for me. I have no hopes for Hollywood, and that's not out of bitterness, it's out of choice. This is why I love supporting shows like Exes & Ohs, with actresses LIKE Megan Cavanaugh. We're from the same "hood" as it were, and I can respect that.

 Naming is a difficult and time-consuming process; it concerns essences, and it means power. But on wild nights who can call you home? Only the one who knows your name.
[From Oranges are Not the Only Fruit, by Jeanette Winterson]

I think that theater acting and screen acting are two different crafts entirely. I've heard of many screen actors that have bombed doing theater. I've also seen some theater actors struggling at screen work. What translates well in one medium isn't necessarily going to translate well in another.

I heard Michael York give a talk about Shakespearean acting. He suggested that what worked on stage didn't necessarily work on film.

Is screen acting less of a talent than theater acting? Or, is good acting just that, good acting?

Ever since the theater has been in existence, there has been stunt casting. It gets people to go to the theater. That is important. Most people in the U.S. do not attend a theater production every year. If using a screen actor in a play means people might go to theater and find a love for the stage, then it works on one important level.

I am also bias.  In high school I was more involved in creative writing and drama -I absolutely love plays and went to a lot of plays b/c i thought at one pt in my young life I wanted to be an actress but all that  changed by one drama teacher who posed a question to her students Do you see yourself onstage or behind it. I'm thinking behind it. Hence my degree in English in creative wrting aka plays.   I enjoy theater it's like a rush for me. I alos enjoy seeing very good actors being on stage.

I thought all actors had to go to acting school and get involve in theater before advancing on to film.  It makes you become a better actor and actress. 

 Meagan C. is right, theater is the best way to go to craft your skills.  Also,  having an experienced acting coach isn't a bad idea. Heck! Will Smith admitted he had to have a coach for the film version Six degrees of Seperation. 

"What do I want to be when I grow up? I want to be Nancy Pelosi's chauffeur,as long as she takes me shopping"-Ms.Fashionista

I think in the case of Musicals, coming from a singing career isn't that much of a leap... but then there is the acting portion. I recently (Saturday) saw The Color Purple, which I had reservations about (I'm not an Oprah fan, and I didn't really LOVE the book) but it was quite enjoyable. Anyway, to the point, in the SF production, Michelle Williams of Destiny's Child fame played Shug Avery and did a marvelous job at that. I am sure there are many more examples... even among TCP cast, Latoya London of American Idol played Nettie.

Another word on Amy Ryan... She has been a member of the cast of HBO's The Wire since season 2, if you are a fan of her's and haven't watched this gripping drama, do your self a favor and rent or buy the first 4 seasons before the fifth and final season begins in January! Plus, as it has been reported here, one of the main characters is a lesbina, Det. Shakima "Kima" Greggs played by Sonja Sohn.

I think that they are similar, but different things can make it bomb.

Like if you go to Theatre and you can't hear the play due poor projection or blocking the whole show is ruined (doesn't matter what it is about).

Theatre is really variable - each night is different the physical space of the theatre can change everything, and the audience that turns up can change everything.

I was involved in a play where one night the audience was so energetic that the performance ended up being more like crowd control. The performance wasn't our best but the audience loved everything - even our mistakes! 500 people laughing, cheering full on adrenaline rush straight away - you don't get that with film. We had reviewers on different nights and they had totally different opinions about the show...

But on the flip side when you bomb on stage it is awful - nothing worse... film can be embarrassing - but in theatre it can feel like years of embarrassment in 1min!

Film you can be a lot more subtle and you can tell stories in very interesting ways - there is alot of freedom,you aren't confined to a "black box" Some sitcoms are filmed live so they at a strange mix between tv and theatre... like Absolutely Fabulous (it isn't canned laughter - there is actually a studio audience for all the kitchen scenes etc)

Both are art forms that include acting but there is so much more involved - but maybe I am bias because I am a director not an actor...

Hmm. The NY Times review of Cyrano seemed pretty complimentary of Jennifer Garner's stage venture, and Claire Danes' as well. I haven't seen either yet, but I'm also feeling some theatre withdrawal and Cyrano is definitely on my list.

As far as other successful stage/screen crossovers, it seems like half the cast of The West Wing can do either medium excellently, which might have something to do with Aaron Sorkin having started as a playwright and continued as a screenwriter. Recent examples include Allison Janney, who was in something at the Williamstown Theater Festival over the summer, and Janel Moloney, who made her stage debut in 100 Saints You Should Know just a couple months ago. I didn't see Allison Janney's show, but Janel Moloney was quite good. And I spotted another West Wing alum, Richard Schiff, in the audience.

Oh, and of course Tony-award-winners Mary-Louise Parker and Kristin Chenoweth, both of whom also had turns on The West Wing, have been very successful in both disciplines. MLP originated the lead role in Proof on Broadway, which earned her the Tony, and she's gone on to star in Weeds and also appeared in Angels in America, among other things. Kristin Chenoweth is doing her part to make Pushing Daisies the best new tv show of the season (in my opinion, anyway) and has starred in You're a Good Man Charlie Brown, Candide, Wicked, and The Apple Tree onstage, to name a few.

Thanks for this post! I love finding articles about theatre on AfterEllen. :-)

I'm going to see Pygmalion. I disliked the play vehemently, but it's better than the musical. I love Claire Danes, even with her movie choices. 

As for Garner, re-read the review. She had trouble with only the closing scene, not the rest of the play. I agree, she had impeccable comedic timing, and she was a pleasure to watch onstage. It's a difficult last scene, too, and I imagine anyone having trouble matching the gravity that Kline brings to it (he's a powerhouse; he made me weep).

I think the transition from Theatre into other mediums is easier. Those A/B/C listers who end up on or off Broadway usually end up not doing such a great job. America Ferrara and Eliza Dushku (among others) only did a so-so job in Dog Sees God, an off-Broadway unauthorized look into the adolescent lives of the Peanuts characters. Ferrara was more disappointing as the colorful Sally, and Dushku was under-used as the institutionalized Lucy. 

Those are just a few thoughts. 

...(It's been about 15 years since my last role.) I am biased toward stage, but I do recognize that they're two different species of work. Some actors can't cross over at all, but I'd say that actors going from stage to screen have an easier time with the transition than going the other way. Sure, you have the arc of a stage performance, where in screen work, it gets all chopped up. And I think you look at a character in a completely different way when you know that you have to play the arc all in one fell swoop, as opposed to shoving it out in bits and pieces that may not be in chronological order and you may not even know where your character is headed. There's also the size of the action. Stage action, even in an intimate theater, has to be bigger if it's going to telegraph to everyone, but it also has to be veeeeeeery specific. Not a lot of room for error there, or you're either making an emotive brunch of the scenery or no one has any idea what you're doing.

Film action is tiny enough to be almost accidental. Anyone remember reading a story about Brooke Shields when she was doing Blue Lagoon? She had that sex scene, and since she was all of fourteen or whatever at the time, she had no idea what to do, so the director just tickled her feet and somehow it ended up looking right. It's that kind of thing that gives screen acting a bad name.

As for the singers who end up being shockingly good actors, I think that singing generally involves a lot more acting than anyone gives it credit for. Heck, there are a lot of singers out there with terrible or negligible voices out there who are successful because they know how to sell a song. That selling is acting, whether they call it that or not.

take a broadway actor and place them on tv or in film and you have someone who is over the top and always playing to the back row before they can be retrained.

take a tv/film actor and place them on broadway and you have someone who is too subtle in expressions and mannerisms for the back row to follow before they can be retrained.

both mediums are extremely difficult for either participant, but the truly great will overcome and shine, no matter the stage.

Speaking of Hollywood going to Broadway, there is also the phenomena of the vehicle (movies themselves) going along with the drivers (hollywood actors) to broadway: Xanadu, Young Frankenstein, The Eyes of Laura Mars, even Goonies!

It would be great if Ishtar joined them, it's got the perfect set up for a musical, with the leads being songwriters...

I've never seen anybody discuss the homoerotic subtext of Ishtar, maybe I'm must not reading the right stuff???