do you think it is more difficult for actors to act?

Absolutely. The hardest parts i've ever played were parts where I had little to no speaking parts. It's difficult to just stand there. You still have a character to play, you have to portray a certain type, emotion and spirit for that character. With words, thats easy to do. Anyone can memorize lines of dialogue. That dialogue does part of the job for you when creating your character. That doesn't mean you can be lazy but if you have little to no dialogue, you have to work much harder to show the audience who your character is.

in some respects. voice is one thing. body language is another but you have to remember. Acting is only one a part of the job. you have to do it with the right attitude. if a silent actor isn't doing the job with the right attitude he will try to manipulate the job and the whole project goes down the tubes. if he tries to manipulate the job he will be replaced in order to save the project. however, a silent actor will be hired again, if not for the silence then if he has a nice voice, because he is able to follow directions, he may be allowed to speak for the same team because it is clear he is a team player and knows how to be professional. it's all in the name of getting the project done and the mission accomplished. after all, what would happen if the lighting crew didn't like their job and the lighting was off or the script guys thought they needed to add in more or fewer words? it's all about balance! that's what you need to keep in mind. if the silent actor speaks when he isn't supposed to, the project doesn't flow like a well oiled machine. he needs to look at the big picture. it's not about value. it's about order. the prducers hire a dirctor to make a project happen. the director has the procuer's wishes the director knows how it's supposed to look and when things don't look right, that is why heads roll. because it's HIS rear on the line. he has to answer to the producers because they sign the paychecks and when snotty actors get out of line things happen to poeple. actors can be replaced and nobody likes to get repirmanded and the directeor would rather replace a silent actor than have to restart the whole project. you have to look at the project from all perspectives.that is why on the set te director is king. because he knows what he is doing. he has the plan and if everyone follows it the project gets accomplished. the reason silent actors do not get paid as much as speaking actors is that movie studios aren't using the voice and therefore do not feel they should have to pay for something they are not using. this does not mean the actor is not allowed to speak when they are not rolling, it simply means he is not being paid to speak when they ARE rolling. he's basically a pretty (or not so pretty whatever the case may be) face and body boy (or girl) or hand or whatever body part the need. The voice over actors work the exact opposite. the stuidos are paying for a voice, not a body. Only he TOP actors (like Tom Cruise or Julia Roberts) are actually in a position to make any serious demands and I'd say that's pretty flaky as Hollywood is very choosy on the flavor of the month. It's the general public that has the power by choosing to go and buy the project that has been created that influences what the stuidos produce. The general public however, seems unaware of this power and yields it to Hollywood. Hollywood is well aware of their influence over the gneral public. Actors are actually the very small fish. I have a bit more to say but hey I believe this answers the question.

Well, using only body language in order to build a character is pretty hard, but a "normal" part, which includes verbal interaction with other character, is also difficult.

I don't really think that an actor's main "tool" is the voice; yes, it is very important to have a charming voice, a good diction that improves a performance, but mimicry is also very important.

As you said, they don't have any lines to learn when they build a character like that. I guess that the physical effort is much more visible and they would have to think about expressive "tricks" that can help them emphasize the feeling they are trying to achieve.

On the other hand, a "voice" part involves a harder preparation. Actors have to understand the character psychological abilities and that means that they have to "investigate" literature in order to find out how they can become the character they are trying to impersonate. And then, there's the vocal training for the stage performance; actors have to read the text beyond the plain script. They have to understand the deep meanings of the words and to reconstruct reality with them. And that is not easy, i can assure you!

After they've finished with the "word" work, they have to start thinking of mimicry and moves that would help making their performance believable. And that includes the fine art of understanding the body-language.

All in all, I think that a "normal" part, with all the hard work behind it, is much more complicated than just a movement-based role. Yet, the contemporary theater encourages modern ways of expressions, such as modern dance and the body language.

So, you make your choice: if you want to know what "talent" is made of, I'll tell you that it requires a great voice "availability", but also the predisposition for movement language.

I think roles that have no dialogue are VERY hard, even if they're just in a scene where they don't speak. It's very hard to convey a feeling, emotion, or even THOUGHT without speaking.

I agree with you. I think it is much more challenging to be onstage with nothing to say. You have to stay in character and engaged with "nothing to do."

But then challenges are what acting is all about!

i really don't think its that hard for an actor to do... i actually think its easy for them cause they don't have to learn or remember any lines or words.

I don't think so. They get money for what they are good at. Can't complain. lol