A Quote by Gwyneth Paltrow

The adrenaline of a live performance is unlike anything in film or theater. I can see why it's so addictive. — © Gwyneth Paltrow
The adrenaline of a live performance is unlike anything in film or theater. I can see why it's so addictive.
I had a lot of fun with those guys from the Wall Street. The laughter is unlike most settings you'll find. The level of intensity, the adrenaline, the stakes are incredible. I mean it is addictive. I can understand why people end up spending 23 or 24 hours a day hitting it.
I like the adrenaline of live performance, whatever that is, appearing in front of an audience of any kind, whether it's one or a hundred or a thousand. It gives you a buzz of adrenaline, its exciting. The thing about that is that you want to make those nerves work for you in terms of an energy that's appropriate for the part and the performance, and not to distract the people who are watching so that they become nervous for you.
I have a company in the U.K., a performance-capture studio. We're looking to push the boundaries of performance-capture technology in film and video games, but also in live theater, using real-time performance capture with actors onstage, and combining that with holographic imagery.
In the theater, actors are the essential element of the work. In a film, it's a real collaboration - not that theater isn't, because it is - but it's a collaboration to such an extent that you can give a performance in film that sometimes you look at and you go, "Well, that's not the performance I was trying to give at all."
Unlike film and TV, theater is a luxury object, but one that ordinary middle-class people can still afford. Above all, it isn't a mass medium: Live theater is a small-scale, handmade art form. Intimacy is what makes it special.
My preference is live performance. Because you get the feedback. There's an energy. It's live theater. That's why I think actors like that. You know, musicians need it, comedians definitely need it. It doesn't matter what size and what club, whether it's 30 people in the club or 2,000 in a hall or a theater. It's live, it's symbiotic, you need it.
My preference is live performance, because you get the feedback. There's an energy. It's live theater. That's why I think actors like that.
Unlike film, live theater is an anti-naturalistic medium in which character is mainly illuminated through speech and movement.
I started using film as part of live theatre performance - what used to be called performance art - and I became intrigued by film.
I come from theater and captured theater has a bad rap of being never what the live performance was.
And I think I'm an adrenaline junkie, and there's nothing that will spike your adrenaline more than sitting in a theater and listen to an audience react to something you've written.
Live TV is unlike any other animal. I love the adrenaline rush. I love the unexpected.
I looked at theater, in the sense that theater is unmanipulated. If I want to pay more attention to one character on stage than another, I can. I think there's not enough theater in film and not enough film in theater, in a way.
The truth is, unlike TV and film cameras, the theater stage doesn't add 10 pounds.
I think movies are a director's medium in the end. Theater is the actor's medium. Theater is fast, and enjoyable, and truly rewarding. I believe in great live performance.
There is something about the live performance of an orchestra that makes it very different to a film. With a film, you can rewrite it in a way with the material you have, and in rehearsals, you're really trying out different things. In an orchestra, you can't do that. They separate as soon as the performance factor comes into play.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!