Arthur Lowe Quotes

I am constantly asked, 'What's the difference between acting in the theater and acting in film?' The only answer I can give is the space - you adapt to the space. But acting is acting.

I've worked with actors who treat the first two takes like rehearsals. And that's okay. If the camera is on you and we're doing a scene where I'm off camera, I'm treating that as a rehearsal.

Actors are separated all the time.

You don't really think about 3D when you're acting. As a director, you do.

Sometimes you may even have a stunt double do certain things for you, but when it's close-up and it's really dramatic, that's when you really need to concentrate. You cannot get body doubles or anybody else to do it for you.

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.

As an actor I want to do as many takes as I can. I wanna shoot the scene... or shoot the shot 'til they make me quit.

In films people basically work for the camera, you know, and that's why actors can hate each other and not be speaking to each other and still look as if they're in love because really they're loving the camera loving them.

In theater, you get to rehearse several weeks, you memorize everything, and by the time you open, you know what the play is. In film, it's almost the opposite. You do your work on your own and maybe have a couple of minutes to rehearse. When the camera rolls, you generally don't know what's going to happen.

Especially as a director on 'West Wing,' I directed a lot of different things in a lot of different ways and really stretched my wings.

Any actor working a long time should know how a shot is set up, where to place themselves, how to handle the lines. I'm a member of the crew, like the best boy, the electrician. What I'm good at is making eyes at the camera.

Television has dried up for my generation, so it's plays and films. You get used to being lazy doing films, but classical theatre's going to finish me off.

On 'Glee,' the director can be like, 'Hey, your face is looking a little too intense here.' And they can show me the screen, and I can be like, 'I know exactly what to do here.'

Directing is very close to choreography; you deal with space, time, emotions, lighting, making beautiful images.

I have been taking classes and I'm familiar with stage, but I'm not as familiar with acting on camera.

TV, it's a director's medium, and they wanna make it look interesting. To be rehearsing mostly for the sake of where you're standing so they can do the lighting, that's what I don't like.

I've been acting for a while, but theater is pretty different. I've never been in a play.

That was the beginning of modern acting for me. You don't have to tell a camera everything. It gets bored if you do and wants to look elsewhere.

I've got four piercings in my left, so we've dubbed my right one the 'period drama ear.' I have to be filmed from that side when I do emotional close-ups in 'Downton.'

The eyes are the windows of your soul, and when you're acting, they're one of your most important instruments. Especially for close-ups!

At Julliard, they don't teach you where to move your face for the camera, you know?

I was more used to acting onstage, for a long time. I don't know, maybe I was temperamentally more suited to stage stuff. And there are things about the stage that I miss in a lot of ways.

In film, there are always things that could conceivably create artificiality in any performance.

I think film and television actually is a lot harder. Acting onstage is physically more arduous, but to get to emotional truth within a scene, it's much tougher to do it on film.

Stage acting lets you feel the character a little better, but in the movies, you have to keep regenerating your energy level when shooting scenes over and over again.