Core Response #2

I thought that the King article assigned for reading was very revealing about why screen actors tend to do theater in times when they are not in films. I had never thought about why someone like David Hasselhoff would want to appear in The Producers, but I assume it is for the reasons that King explained; the stage gives an actor more control over the performance and allows them to be live and stand or fall on their own merits rather than those of the editors and directors.
I had actually wondered about why many actors who end up starring in plays would choose to do so, especially when the medium of choice for most actors has seemed to be television. I suppose that to keep a production alive does require a different skill set than to make a movie, but to me it would seem that being immortalized in a film would almost do more to cement credibility as an actor than being in a stage production. A flubbed line or misstep on the night a critic is at the theater might very well be cause for a bad review, even if the play goes off extremely well every other night of the week. A film on the other hand gives an actor the chance to try different versions of the same character and to ultimately choose the one that suits the part. A director obviously will have some control over the final content, but a solid performance can be nearly guaranteed on film. It would seem also, that a film would offer an actor the chance to perfect the character in a way that theater never could, in a theater each night the audience is different, but each night the audience expects the same performance so trying on new personas for a character seems impossible.
While I understand the premise of King's article, I tend to be unsure whether he is correct in the assertion that stage is superior to screen for the reasons that he mentions.