The Clyde Fitch Report: I do know that whenever I first heard it—as well as every time since—it’s been an assault on my ears. Why? The answer should be obvious: It’s absolutely meaningless. What else is theater, if not live? Unless linked with “movie,” as in “movie theater,” indicating a building where films are screened, or as in “theater of war,” part of the definition of theater is that it’s live. It’s not the same as the term “live television,” which means an event broadcast as it’s occurring, as opposed to events previously recorded.
2 comments:
I understand and in many ways agree with the point the author is trying to make, but isn't it the live aspect of theater which keeps people thrilled and itching to go see more? That is where theater is like no other form of artistic entertainment (meaning sports don't count). Using the term "Live theater" does not marginalize the art, but rather points out what is so unique about it. There is no use in denying that our cultural form of entertainment is moving toward (or is already at) strictly watching Netflix in bed, so it is hard to get people to come to theater. I don't think it's worth giving theater companies, or people in general, a hard time for using the phrase live- theater. Theater is live and it's amazing. Embrace it!!
It's strange to see someone so upset over something that seems so trivial. Of course calling theatre "live theatre" is redundant, but it wouldn't be my inclination to be offended by the phrase. The author of this article states that its demeaning to theatre but to me, it seems like if anything, it would patronize the viewer of the headline. I guess I can see how calling it "live theatre" may lower it to lesser forms of entertainment like film, or god forbid, television, would come across as cheapening the performance. But to me, an article using "live" in front of "theatre" in their headline just seems like it implies that the reader may be confused as to the definition of theatre.
Post a Comment