In her post titled “Theatre is life, Film is Art, and TV is Furniture”, Lauren Macready states that the reason she loves stage is because it is more rewarding for both the actors and the audience. The live element of stage means the story is unfolding in real time so that there is the ability for spontaneity and for each performance to have a uniqueness about it.
When asking the question of stage versus screen, Lauren refers to screen as being film. However, I would argue that this might not be the best medium to compare the ‘liveness’ of stage with. It is true, that unless the viewer decides to randomly choose which chapter order they watch their DVD in, there probably won’t be much interaction between the viewer and the text. And even this wouldn’t duplicate the same uniqueness or one-off experience that comes from stage as the order of chapter could be replicated by any amount of people. This would mean that it does not have the feeling of immediacy or liveness as if this is a once off moment that only the particular people in the immediate vicinity can experience.
You could argue that the live element of film is the experience that the viewer has while watching it. The actual film text doesn’t change, but every viewers experience will be different. People will miss certain words, they will not get certain allusions or inferences or they miss the importance of them, the viewer’s emotions will alter how they react to story lines, the location of where they view it and the medium will affect the experience (watching a film on your iphone is different from watching it in the cinema) and the people who they view it with. All these things inform the viewer’s experience.
I think the idea of spontaneity which Lauren mentions, refers to the interactivity of the audience and the cast members and the idea that the story of theatre unfurls in the moment. Rather than comparing this to film, if you wanted to make a comparison between stage and an electronic medium that allows interactivity and liveness, a possibility could be video games.
In video games, the audience has a direct influence on the outcome of the story (the audience is responsible for whether Mario lives or dies and how his journey plays out). Like stage, video games have a skeleton for which the storyline hangs, however each performance is unique. Like stage, there is a uniquenss in video games in that a story will never be exactly the same. It is a live, once-off performance.
Friday, 11 September 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
wohoooo. my post got a rap... haha.
ReplyDeleteCool piece.
It's true though, there is so much more powerful emotion involved in live performance, there is no screen separating you from the action and the actors.
Yes I agree, stage can have a very powerful influence on the audience. And for the actors too propbably because the acting is more continuous compared to film where the scenes are shot out of sequence and repeated over and over again.
ReplyDeleteOne of my most memorable experiences was going with my family to see the stage production of Beauty and the Beast. I still remember watching the beast transform into the prince with the aid of the 'special effects' (a smoke machine and some flashing lights) and yet after a decade I can still recall the majority of the play, yet I don't think I could tell you the last movie I saw at hoyts...
ReplyDeleteI agree with you; Theatre is much more powerful then its pre-recorded counterpart.
I think part of theatre is the experience. Therefore it will be more meroable. Also a lot of theatre I have been to have involved family members or friends, whereas very few movies or video games I have seen have involved people I have known personally.
ReplyDelete