Variety: "'I’m confident that we have pioneered a new genre,' says National Theater artistic director Nicholas Hytner, who has every reason to sound buoyant.
In creating NTLive, Hytner and his producer, David Sabel, have pulled off a trick once regarded as unthinkable, if not unwatchable: they have taken live theater and broadcast it via satellite into movie houses in the U.K. and abroad."
8 comments:
I am conflicted about the concept of live broadcasts from theaters into cinemas around the world. On one side, I think it is a great idea to bring theater to those who may not be able to get to a great quality professional theater, either because they don't have one or the tickets are too expensive. Hopefully, programs like these will increase the audience base of theaters around the world. The possibilities are endless. The live broadcasts could be used for educational purposes in schools and universities and it will make going to the theater a much more personal experience (in some respects). On the flip side, the broadcasts may hurt box office revenue which, because the theater is not making much money off these screenings will hurt their bottom line. In addition, when you film a play, you loose the immediate connection between audience and performer that is so important to the theater. It is this quality and this quality only that makes live theater different than television or film.
This is what they should do to revitalize theater here in the US. The MET opera does it already with their live performance screenings so why not do it with a Broadway show. MTV showed Legally Blonde which generated much interest from people and created much publicity for the show.
By doing and borrowing this idea, theater can begin to be shown to people who don't have the chance of moeny to travel to NYC or visit a theater. IT can show quality and get people excited about this dying art form.
Showing these performances may loose a sense of live action and experience but it will show people a different type, hitting a much wider audience, then just those couple thousand seats, clustering broadway. Instead it will hit the millions of seats occupying America and the world
I'm really glad that this article finally addresses the issues/compromises that the theatre makes in order to do a live broadcast. The idea of prioritizing one night to favor the mobility of cameras is essential in producing a decent portrayal of what is being shown on stage. Seven static camera positions cannot compare to three static, and four mobile positions. Yes it is expensive, but the National Theatre managed to get extra funding to try and offset a lot of these costs.
I'm glad that this is becoming a more popular and monetarily accessible trend that just about anyone near a movie theatre can enjoy. If the internet is the new medium for entertainment because of its accessibility, then broadcasting live theatre is one of the first steps to try and make theatre accessible and not an art limited by its geographical location. I'm glad that Sabel takes a stance on keeping the theatre experience a communal one instead of isolating individuals.
I can't believe that people wouldn't want to go see something like this. yeah, I understand it's not live theatre, but if you can't make it to the actual theatre for a performance, I think this is a great way for greater numbers of people to experience any theatrical work. It's better to be watching a video of a play than to never see it at all.
We talked about the idea of broadcasting live theater online or to movie theaters briefly in Directing one day. People who really love theater are going to prefer to see a live show in every case; sometimes you're just unable to do so, whether it's a time or a money issue. Live broadcasts make theater more accessible, which helps get rid of the idea that theater is an elitist medium. Also, it gives people who are really passionate about theatrical performance more opportunity to enjoy it. The biggest problem with putting the stage on the screen is when people want to do a variety of shots and editing; there should be a fixed camera that doesn't move throughout the entire performance so that you view the piece as if you were actually there.
Owch.
Painful.
This is a horrible, hideous, pointless, and just plain stupid idea that should be outlawed.
This is theatre. If you want to make money go into movies in the first place. Firstly seeing a 2-D representation of a distinctly 3-Dimentional event destroys so much of the original intent. Then once you start adding multiple cameras you create new problems. Who manages the camera? Do they have training on film? Are they actually using the medium of film to its best advantage?
This is just a money making scheme using big name actors to draw in people who only come for the eye candy anyway.
I seriously hopes this fails on a massive level just to teach them a lesson.
A bit pompous to think he has stated a new genera. Our very own School of Music broadcasts their performances over the internet. They may not have the audience the National Theater did, but they do it to.
However, I think it is great that so many people were reached "at the same time" with one project.
I can't imagine the logistics and expense that must have gone into this. It would be an amazing, challenging nightmare. Some day I hope to be a part of something this large.
What avenues does this open for theater? Could it become normal to watch theater from your couch on Pay Per View. I think that would destroy theater... its call movies. Go out and interact with the performers. There is nothing that will ever replace that experience.
I think this is a great way to further pursue theater and allow even more people to see it around the world. Not everyone has the opportunity to go and see a well done production, but this kind of technology would allow many other people be involved and see shows. While I agree it is not the same as a live production, it at least gives the opportunity of seeing a show to more people, and I think that's a good place to start
Post a Comment