The Seattle Times: Theater is inconvenient (you must move your buns); it’s uncomfortable (at least airplanes have flight attendants you can flag down for pretzels); it’s puny for cultural capital (not the street cred of graffiti, nor the sophistication of symphonies); it’s economically silly (there are better ways to make money); it can be intensely claustrophobic and boring (can’t get up, can’t change the channel); and so on.
11 comments:
This article really made me think about what is so appealing about theatre. Part of what makes theatre such an uncomfortable yet raw experience is its immediacy and the way it forces its audience to watch. You can't eat, you can't look at your phone, you can't "change the channel." You have to watch what's happening on stage, and it is beyond uncomfortable, especially in the more emotional performances and scenes. Just like the author of the article said, there is something distinctly different about watching a play over watching a movie. In movies, everything was filmed in a controlled environment. It was all safely edited and perfected before it reached our hands. In theatre, there is always an element of not knowing. You don't know what can change, what can go wrong. The fact that you are watching real, live people right in front of you may elicit the reaction that you are watching something real, intruding on a private moment. It makes me want to look away every time, like I'm embarrassed I'll be caught peaking in to someone's private conversation. It brings the audience together. We are all watching the same thing, and because of this (and despite the fact that we are all strangers), we are all connected.
This article is very true in presenting the differences between theater and film. I especially like the quote "watching a movie isn’t watching acting — it’s watching editing". It's so true for film that we as the audience do not really watch something live or real on the screen, but something that has been manipulated a thousand times by an editor in a dark booth in the depths of Hollywood. Theater gives instant feedback, as the audience has nothing to do but watch and interact. The same could be said for movie theaters, but the only time I have reacted with the audience is during Marvel movies. Sometimes when we watch films, we don't react the way we would at home in the theater because of the awareness of others around us. I feel like that sometimes too. But in live theater, it doesn't matter what my reaction is because it's live. There is feedback from the audience and it encourages whats happening on the stage. I love watching both forms of entertainment, but I agree with the author of this article that I have cried more and laughed harder in live theater. Even compared to watching Netflix at home. I guess live theater just has this special power that no other medium can replicate. A sense of togetherness and intimacy that I absolutely love.
As I was reading this article, I came up with another way to differentiate theatre from films and Netflix from the economics point of view. (My major is economics in my home university.) In economics, consumer goods are divided into goods and services. Production and consumption are separated in place and time for goods, whereas production and consumption occur at the same time for services. That is to say, Films and Netflix are more classified as goods, and theatre is more classified as services. That strong non-durable nature of theatre is what creates “sublimeness” and aura as the article states. In addition, this article not only clarified a peculiar quality of theatre, but also the significance of theatre. Although it is said that 40% of jobs will be lost to AI in next few years, I believe theatre jobs will remain because it is all about human interaction. Some programming jobs might be taken over by AI, but actors would not be replaced by any other things like robots, computer graphics or virtual reality. Those are the goods, which means that they cannot create the same “sublimeness” and aura as the real live humans do.
This article puts words to an idea that I often find myself not being able to explain. When I mentioned that we were doing Into the Woods to a few family members, the first response I received was “oh that was the movie with Meryl Streep!”. They were thrilled at making the connection and what followed was me attempting to explain what makes the theatrical piece different and, well, better. You get through the easy answers of autotune, weird editing, and the fact that there was literally nothing unexpected about it. And then it gets to the hard part of trying to explain that theatre is more real, and not in the it’s-happening-right-in-front-of-you-phase, but it is real in that you are seeing and feeling that emotion with the whole room, with the actor, and with that character. You can’t just turn away or skip over the scary parts. You can’t turn it off when it gets too real. You have to be ready to be uncomfortable right there with them, and that is what gives it its power. That is the difference.
“Theater is inconvenient (you must move your buns); it’s uncomfortable (at least airplanes have flight attendants you can flag down for pretzels); it’s puny for cultural capital (not the street cred of graffiti, nor the sophistication of symphonies); it’s economically silly (there are better ways to make money); it can be intensely claustrophobic and boring (can’t get up, can’t change the channel); and so on.” This quote in the article really stood out to me, because each of these statements are both a reason I love theatre and people hate theatre. You have to go out of your way to go watch actors on stage. You have to sit in the same seat for (usually) 2 hours, and watch everything that is on stage, with really no escape. It can be cheesy and corny that you laugh even after the curtain goes down or so gut-wrenching and real that you still can’t get that image on stage out of your head. And all of it is why theatre is interesting and evocative and why it has withstood time.
This article's headline is similar to a prompt I chose to answer for an award. The anecdote at the beginning of the article is one that I think greatly captures what it's like to experience theatre at its best. The utilization of defining key terms like sublime is a very effective strategy to allow us to understand what makes this potentially uncomfortable experience so rewarding to attend. Something I wrote about in my award essay was the idea of risk. It takes lots of complicated thought to pull off effects big and small in theatre and having the ability to reproduce these moments each night is something that inherently is risky. And it isn't even a reproduction each night, no show is ever the same. But the fact that the show can still happen with discrepancies from night to night and still leave audiences feeling the same way is a remarkable feat.
Obviously, I too love theater; I’m ¾ of my way to my BFA in it. And part of why I love it is because of the communal aspect. However, I disagree with the author’s evaluation of television and movies. Part of what makes TV and movies so amazing is the accessibility. There is a personal aspect of being in someone’s living room that you can not get in the theater. Additionally TV and movies can reach more people, because of convenience, and that TV is more economical. For $9 a month you can get everything on Netflix while a Broadway show ticket can be over $100 for two hours of entertainment. Live theater is expensive and the “top level” theater is often restricted to big cities. So while yes, you do have to get off your buns, to use the author's words, depending on where you are you may need a plane ticket and a hotel room as well. I love theater. I agree that there is something special about it, but I also think there is something special about TV and movies.
I really like this article because I think about what makes theater so drawing a lot. After all, I go to theater school. Specifically thinking about comedy, it’s definitely easier to laugh at a live event then it is at a recorded event, hence the invention of the laugh track. Being with people and experiencing something with them is much better. This applies to movies too, I think people laugh more in a theater or when they’re watching something with friends simply because of the feedback. Live theater and live shows go one step further, the audience connects to the performers. I’ve seen two shows in the touring house in Baltimore and I had nosebleed seats both times, but I still felt connected to the characters even though they were just little dots. Watching a movie from that far away would definitely not capture my attention in the same way. Doing theater is awesome.
An observation about myself I’ve come to realize is that I rarely cry at the movies, but I always cry at the theater. I’ve always wondered why that is, since I have such a deep love for both. A funny story I was told was during one of my high school musicals, a boy who had never done theatre before got the lead for West Side Story. He put on an amazing performance and by the end of one of his numbers, he received a standing ovation. When he retreated backstage, he exclaimed to his peers, “That feeling was better than any drug I’ve taken!”. As hilarious as the statement was, the story really resonated with me and it’s what I consistently thought about when reading this article. There’s nothing like the realness of a live performance. Film is something you experience for yourself, but theatre allows you to make personal connections with the people in front of you live. Both sides can see and feel the emotions being experienced in front of them and performance can impact them deeply. This article touched me because it further emphasized my love for theatre and why I am here at the School of Drama.
My favorite quote from this article sums up exactly why I also love the theatre, and how I feel when I get asked why theatre, not film: “There’s no immediacy, no risk”. There is a thrill to theatre that one cannot get with film. You cannot mess up and redo. There is no room for error or cutting corners. For the audience, watching the actors perform live and tech stunts happen in real time is entirely more breathtaking than even the most moving film performance. Seeing somebody in front of you, sing Les Mis has a completely different effect than hearing a recording of it. There is something that changes when you are seeing the person in real life, you are getting real angels and no fake shots. The seemingly impossible moments with tech may even be more moving. In movies, it is easy to make objects move, to have actors fly, but when it is happening in front of you with no editing, that is where magic truly happens.
Post a Comment