Fundamentally I feel that there is as much difference between the stage and the films as between a piano and a violin. Normally you can't become a virtuoso in both.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I've played guitar and piano for a while, so it's really fun to play music on film.
I definitely want to act, but I also want to score movies, and I have this idea to fuse classical music with other styles that would give it a different perception.
It's very different working on stage to film; the immediacy is there on stage.
I think that's one of the things that has always put me in kind of an odd niche. It's that all of my understanding of orchestral music is via film, not via classical music like it's supposed to be. To me it's the same, it doesn't make any difference.
Film is much more visual, a scene is typically a lot shorter, you're dealing with a lot more characters, a lot more locations, and you're able to rely on things that you just can never do on the stage.
You have to really concentrate on piano or acting. You can't do both.
Making a film or doing a play are completely different experiences and entirely fulfilling, but completely unique. I also think one complements the other. People often say that theater is about flexing your muscles, and is actually real acting, whereas I sort of disagree.
Film music should have the same relationship to the film drama that somebody's piano playing in my living room has on the book I am reading.
Doing a piece on film is completely different from doing it onstage.
In musical theater you have to be very big and very animated, while film and television are more toned down.
No opposing quotes found.