in the early days of cinema when great moments of drama were captured
on film in an attempt to appropriate the "prestige" of the legitimate stage.
But as cinema developed from the turn of the century, this approach, which
did not take full advantage of film's unique processes and effects, was dis-
missed because of its obvious limitations. Clearly, the circumstances of per-
formance are different. Onstage the action is limited to a given space,
viewed by the spectator from a fixed position and distance. Acting, voice,
and gesture, will necessarily be exaggerated to compensate for that distance.

In cinema, on the other hand, the camera is able to bridge that distance,
bringing the viewer closer to the action and the actors, embracing a "re-
ality" that is simulated. Gone are the constraints of the stage, since the
camera is able to transport the viewer into apparently "real" settings. The
acting no longer needs to be exaggerated and is more subdued and "nat-
ural." The action is performed and captured in short sequences. Because
the action is organized differently, actors do not have to dominate the
playing space for extended periods of time. Film acting requires less train-
ing, therefore, than acting onstage. Some film directors even prefer to work
with nonprofessional "actors" and have achieved good results, but profes-
sional training for actors can also be an advantage.

Some basic distinctions have been offered by Peter R. Gerdes in a special
issue of The Australian Journal of Screen Theory (No. 7, 1980). and a
recapitulation of these may be useful here. Theatre involves unrepeatable
performances: because "each performance is unique, there is no 'finished
product.' " Filmed performances are repeatable, however, because "[f]ilm
is a finished product; it can only be 'shown,' not performed" ( 12 - 13 ). On-
stage the actor is the "creator," whereas on film the actor is the "created."
Theatre is an actor's medium: "The art of the stage is an art of the actor."
Film, however, is a director's medium: "The art of the screen is an art of
the image," as orchestrated by the director who "is responsible for the
script and its representation," whereas onstage "the representation serves
the play." Theatre requires trained specialists: "On stage the actor is always
present with the whole of his personality," whereas on film "the physical
presence of the actor may be indicated by showing parts of his body only"
( 14 - 15 ). For example, in Joshua Logan film of the William Inge play
Picnic, the action reaches an emotional climax at a Labor Day picnic dance
in Kansas. The scene, remarkable for its sensuality and suggestiveness, in-
volves Kim Novak and William Holden, who was not a gifted dancer;
however, his lack of skill is disguised by close camera work that shows
only parts of their entwined dancing bodies.

Finally, Gerdes contends that "the drama text is an independent art work
to be read or performed," whereas "the film script is not an independent
art work and cannot be read or 'performed'; it is a preparatory element
for a future art work," nothing more ( 11 ). However, the original film
scripts of Ingmar Berman and others have been published and can be read
and studied and in that respect may be considered coequal to play scripts.

-viii-