"Theater buffs who'd rather click it than ticket, however, can sneak peeks on computers, catching glimpses (and sometimes more) of acclaimed performances and sellout shows."
"Theater buffs who'd rather click it than ticket, however, can sneak peeks on computers, catching glimpses (and sometimes more) of acclaimed performances and sellout shows."
14 comments:
It is rather sad that people rather watch a horrible verison of a show than go and see the show live. I believe that this is unfortunate for the actors and others involved but what can be done with nowadays technology level???
Hopefully AEA will come up with something to keep the performance out of youtube.com and convince people to come to actual shows rather than bootlegged ones.
The fact that there is bootlegging going on is indeed sad, and unfortunately for those fans who do not live near the major theare hubs of this country, live theatre does not have the same widespread distribution as the film industry. This does not make it okay to watch on you tube because it is available for free there. I am not suggesting that it should be tough cookies, you live in a community without a Broadway theatre community. But more that it is ridiculous to justify this illegal activity with reasons of access. National tour anyone?
i see the point of this being especially awful for the viewer isn't getting that live theatre experience. but, i would argue that a bootleg would be just as awful to a movie director as a theatre director. both have strong visions and certain ways they want the viewer to experience their work.
One of the reasons that bootleg versions of theatre are hard to get rid of is that not alot of people get the oppertunity to see Broadway shows. Yes there are national tours. But even with national tours not all people are able to go the theatre. Just because its a live experience that does not give theatre the right to keep art from people who are unable to see it on Broadway or on a national tour. I'm not saying we should let bootlegs go for the wider good, but perhaps after a certain number of years that a show has been running there could be a compromise between producers and youtube to let certain parts be allowed for promotion. [tos] made a good example of how youtube can be benefical for everyone.
I have always found it interesting that for live theatre there is no photos/video recordings, but for concerts it is OK. For theatre they have to just say no, or people would be puling out tripods and booms to record, but when a bootlegged copy of a famous/special performance appears online, I don't think it truly is the end of the world. In my experience the people taping, sharing, and enjoying those terrible shaky shots of Wicked are the avid, dye had fans... you want to watch this one because it was someone's last night or someone special is playing your favorite character. As a theatre major, I would almost find it flattering that someone was so intent of taping my show that they hid the camera in their purse. I agree that when it comes to other mediums, like music and movies, bootleggers are terrible because generally people use them to avoid paying. But in a theatre sense I feel that small bootlegged snippets almost pay homage to the show and its performers.
YAY Copyright laws. Intellectual property is an interesting thing. Can anyone but a playwright or composer copyright their work? Can a designer or an actor? ANYWAY....really off topic.
Now, Bootlegged videos...
I can't believe that people would do that!!! Why would you spend all of that money for a ticket and then film it so other people can see it for free on youtube? Eventually AEA is going to come up with some rule about keeping shows from being posted online, but until then we are just going to have to suck it up.
A solution would be for the producers to professionally videotape the entire show, not just the 30/3 rule and then sell DVDs. You might say, "because that will stop people from coming to see the shows." Not true. The people coming to see shows on Broadway and national tours are going to come anyway, the videos are an opportunity for the producers to get more people hooked on a show (plus, you are allowing people to see shows who wouldn't normally be able to). This increased publicity would create more people wanting to see the shows, because they will want to see the real thing (live theater is a completely different experience than a filmed version.)
Watching clips of a show online completely defeats the purpose of theater. Theater exists because there's nothing like the thrill of seeing a live performance. When a show is professionally filmed, for whatever reason, it's almost as good as being there...but generally when someone sneaks a video camera into the theater with them, the product is extremely unsatisfactory (plus WAY frowned upon). Not only is it annoying that people disregard such basic rules of theater-going, but I can't imagine wanting to watch a clip of a play on YouTube rather than seeing it in its entirety and live.
Watching a bootlegged recording of a play defeats the purpose of the theatre. But the quality is usually so bad that its hard to sit through the whole thing anyways. I don't like the fact that these clips are available on youtube but I don't think they are as damaging as they could be.
I agree that much of what is intended in the show is lost when viewed through one person's lens, especially in terrible quality, but I also kind of like what sarah brought up. The fact that people will go to concerts, set up a coincidental pair and record the show, catching every mistake and crowd murmur, but that is why they are doing it. Someone can have 5 different live recordings of the same show and each one has importance because it is unique. The visual elements are lost here, but perhaps they aren't really needed for someone who appreciates the unique versions of each performance.
Looking at it from a different point of view, bootlegs have great marketing potential. For example, if you want to go see a show, and know nothing about what your getting into, I think a preview clip, or some form of media allowing others to see and become interested on some level is great for the theater scene. Lately these days, film seems to be dominating theater even more than in previous years (still looking for a good research paper on the subject that's recent). Look at circ and how their marketing blitz. B'way seems like a dinosaur to me in comparison.
For Example. I worked at one theatre near Sony Studios in LA. Around my theater was 3 movie theaters. There was constant reel deliveries going on all the time to each of them. Anyways on day they got themselves a new delivery boy. He got confused and thought we were on of the theaters on his list and tried to give us reels of some new summer block buster (don't remember which). I had to explain for 10 mins that we were a live theater, what a live theater was, what a play was, and that yes, people continue on from highschool to do them a professional level. What's sad about this story is that this was one of many, many instances during my brief stay in LA where I had to explain the difference between theater and film.
All of this seems a bit out of control to me. I agree with protecting the actors and the overall intellectual property of the the production. But if bootlegging is the big problem then we must have enough butts in seats. However, I don't actually think that is true. I was mentioned that this is free marketing. Yes and no... However, it is usually a very bad version, and the marketing is not controlled by the people trying to sell the product, so the wrong impressions or ideas might be given. Its all a matter of opinion.
More troubling to me is the involvement of AEA. Yes they are supposed to protect the actor. But with a union in negotiations, shouldn't they be focusing their resources (time and money) on the bigger issues. I think this would make the union more effective.
AEA already has in place rules for the producer about photos and videos, and restrictions they producer must place on the audience. Is there really anything more AEA can do. Creating more rules is not the answer, people are already breaking them.
Everyone should just let it go. Ushers should continue to watch for cameras and video recorders. But again, there are bigger issues we should all be focusing on like getting butts in seats and getting the government to increase funding again.
I don't think it is all bad that performances are ending up on Youtube. I know that is supposed to be heresy especially from an aspiring theatre artist but here is my stance on it. First of all, the people to whom the youtube performances most appeal are people who are never going to be able to make it to a performance of Wicked in New York. Period. Secondly, for those people and even those who are able to see the show I think that the youtube videos will only fuel their thirst when they either get the opportunity to see it in New York or when it tours to a city near theirs.
This argument strikes reminds me of one brought up over and over again in my media studies class; is the auteur's intent what is important or is it what the audience takes away from the experience? It may be our job and desire to affect audiences a certain way, but ultimately... what control does one have over another person? Especially in an age of technology where choice is essential; people are used to getting what they want when they want it, bugger the original intention. Who's to say I can't listen to the Beatles on my iPod if I want to, even if vinyl has a much more distinctive sound?
Here is a literal internet example:
David Lynch infamously complained about the small screen available to the viewer of a film on an iPhone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0
The internet community immediately followed up with:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzY89785sNg
I think it's absolutely fantastic the the glitz of Broadway has such a demand on the internet. I don't understand why producers don't pounce on this and starting filming maybe a song or two with cast members to promote on their site to make some money off this. Sure, nothing grand, but enough to give them a taste of what it's like to be there. I'm sure bootleggers' audience would drop a bit if better quality films were offered. Besides, Broadway isn't really losing off this. Like the article said, it's shitty, not the same as being there, and most of the time it's people who could never be there themselves. Unless these free youtube clips started costing money, it's hardly a horrible act.
Post a Comment