A Quote by Michael Shurtleff

Acting in theatre or television or screen is only for the irrecoverably diseased, those so smitten with the need that there is no choice. — © Michael Shurtleff
Acting in theatre or television or screen is only for the irrecoverably diseased, those so smitten with the need that there is no choice.
Often actors ask me if I think they should go on trying to be an actor. I have the same answer for everyone who asks: If you have a choice and could reasonably be happy doing something else, by all means go at once and do something else. Acting or writing or directing in the theatre or television or screen is only for the irrecoverably diseased, those who are so smitten with the need that there is no choice.
The great difference between screen acting and theatre acting is that screen acting is about reacting - 75% of the time, great screen actors are great reactors.
The diseased, anyway, are more interesting than the healthy. The words of the diseased, even those who can manage only a murmur, carry more weight than those of the healthy. Then, too, all healthy people will in the future know disease. That sense of time, ah, the diseased man’s sense of time, what treasure hidden in a desert cave. Then, too the diseased truly bite, whereas the healthy pretend to bite but really only snap at the air. Then, too, then, too, then, too.
I couldn't believe it! I mean, I'd always dreamed of acting on the screen - my previous background was all theater - but I wasn't sure if the opportunity would ever present itself. Not only was this acting for the screen, this was acting in 'The Hunger Games!' I knew that I had to give this audition my all.
I grew up seeing a lot of theatre, and it was theatre that really seduced me into acting - not film or television.
After my schooling, I started theatre. By the time I graduated, I was doing theatre 24x7. Luckily, the FTII (Film and Television Institute of India) acting course started.
The book can't compete with the screen. It couldn't compete beginning with the movie screen. It couldn't compete with the television screen and it can't compete with the computer screen I don't think. And now we have all those screens so against all those screens I think the book can't measure up.
When I was doing fringe theatre, my ambition was to do repertory. When I got to rep it was to do national theatre; then it was t,o get a couple of parts in television. I never had this great desire to overreach myself. I was too busy enjoying acting. I was just obsessed with it.
I said the screen will kill the reader, and it has: the movie screen in the beginning, the television screen, and now the coup de grace, the computer screen.
We talk about theatre museums filled with old costumes and things. What we also need is a theatre museum of the old routines on videotape. We are only the custodians of those techniques, and they should be preserved.
I used to do theatre in school and college. When I started working on television, only the camera was new. Theatre experience really helps one lose inhibitions.
Acting must be scaled down for the screen. A drawing room is a lot smaller than a theatre auditorium.
I just enjoy acting, whatever area - theatre, film, television.
The money is better in films and television. But in terms of acting, theatre is more rewarding.
Before entering into small screen or even films, every actor should do theatre first, as it is the best teacher of acting in its true sense.
On the one hand, young theatre directors were coming to television theatre, because they wanted to get closer to the cinema, despite having studied and worked for the theatre.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!