I was mainly a stage actor. I found film acting mechanical, because it was so technical - there was so much technique with the lamps and the movements of the camera.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I trained as a stage actor and was given a lot of technical tools to play with.
My background is a small town with no movie theater. So... I always pictured myself onstage. I went to acting school and learned all the skills. I left early because I did my first movie and discovered that I really loved the minimalistic work with the camera.
I did a film very quickly, and then a lot of work for television, and then I did stage work.
I was very interested in theatre, mostly in stage design. I did a little bit of acting.
I started using film as part of live theatre performance - what used to be called performance art - and I became intrigued by film.
My first job was a film called 'Storm Damage' for the BBC. I was 16 and working with really respected British actors. I didn't have an agent at the time, and it kind of threw me into real acting.
I really feel that acting for film and acting for the stage are two different crafts. I think that they share things in common. But I liken it to a painter switching over to photography. There are similar things - you have to be conscious of light and color and form - but it's a whole different medium.
I love working with actors, and it's all been based on my being trained in the theater.
I grew up seeing a lot of theatre, and it was theatre that really seduced me into acting - not film or television.
I started missing acting when I was in school, and I realized after being in the business after however many years that I was really interested in film.
No opposing quotes found.