I
was in the theatre group in our class because I firmly believe that that is the
best medium to experience a play. In this blog postI am going to list a few
arguments to show my reasons and will mention why some of the counterarguments
are irrelevant. Starting by stating that plays were written to be performed
would lead us nowhere. I will ignore this obvious fact because based on this we
could hardly argue. Instead let me compare the medium with the others.
The
theatre is closest to the film therefore I would like to start with that.
Through technological advancement the film may have the advantage because it
allows for tricks that could never happen in a theatre. However these do not
amount to the actual presence of the actors. When on stage, their whole body is
always visible and they can never be out of shot. Seeing the characters on
stage even when they do not have lines or action and also seeing them fully all
the time not from shot to shot adds a dimension of reality to the characters.
Thus the experience can help the viewer in their suspension of disbelief in a
way that a film never could.
However its
means of making the audience realise that what they are seeing is not real and
is just a play are also more powerful. Breaking of the fourth wall can happen
in a film but in a theatre the actor has the freedom the react to the
audience’s reaction. That way the viewer breaks out of the world of the play
and notices the reality around them. The theatre offers the possibility of
these two opposing methods in much more powerful ways than a film could.
I will not
compare the theatre as a medium with the book and the digital database
separately because what matters for our present purposes is its differences
with a written text. Although this is very subjective, it has to be said that
reading is altogether a duller experience than viewing. It is impossible to
experience the glamour of theatre. Comprehension is another issue where there
can be no final answer in deciding which is better. Both reading and watching
can be hard to understand but while in a book we get careful explanations, in a
theatre the words are supported by actions.
However
a typical argument against theatre is usually that it is just one possible
interpretation of the lines, of character or scenes. This is undeniable. The
issue arises from the relatively little stage directions which allows for
countless interpretations. Seeing just one of these does not equal the full
experience. Reading the play in theory should mean that we can imagine all the
possibilities. Unfortunately, in my experience, this requires the kind of close
reading that few actually practice when reading. Also, there is a relatively
easy way to overcome this possible defect of the theatre. We simply have to
watch more than one production.
These are of
course only my arguments and I acknowledge the subjectivity of the topic. Therefore
I am looking forward to your arguments to disagree with me, in the comments!
Sources of pictures:
http://lorannah.blogspot.hu/2011/07/83-much-ado-about-nothing-globe.html
https://www.oldhallhotelbuxton.co.uk/offers/theatre-breaks-at-the-old-hall-hotel-2/
I must say that this post was well written and it was clear that you were thinking about the topic a lot. I cannot argue with your points, as I also think that theatre is a good medium to show us an amazing story. However, in the case of the significance of books in connection with the theatre, I have to say that most of the theatre plays would not exist without their book formats, that preserved them for a long time, so that we could go to the nearest performance of Much Ado About Nothing and know its story. The post was however interesting and thought-provoking.
ReplyDeleteI truly believe that you have managed to raise points in this blogpost which I also regard as relevant when considering the advantages and disadvantages of the theatre as a medium. However, I would like to add that personally, I was a member of the film group and I still hold the opinion that even if the theatre is more powerful in its genre and it is more life-based than a movie, there are special cases when you go to the theatre and for example see nothing just because you are seated to the wrong place, or hear nothing because some people do not even know what does etiquette mean...I am just saying that for example when you are working or a project, it can be much more convenient to watch the film at home, than re-watch etc. (of course I am not talking about cinemas) Anyway, I liked your post.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, most of your arguments hold up and as a member of the film group, i must agree that cinema could never emulate the theater experience. However, I think that you are underestimating the visual spectacle that cinema has to offer. Whereas the quality of a theater play almost completely hinges on actor performance, the cinema can use dozens of techniques to enhance the immersion of the audience into the story. In addition, you say that theater has an andvantage over cinema because of the continuous, physical presence of the actors. I disagree with this and will argue that the opposite is true. Cinema, with the use of various cinematographic techniques, can closely capture on-screen emotions and can display dialogues in ways that are impossible in theater.
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right! The visual spectacle of cinema has a lot to offer which, in a way, I do slightly underestimate. But it is closer to the truth that I do not think that this possibility of spectacle adds enough to the whole yet to challenge the other arguments in favour of the theatre. But your counterargument is a powerful one!
DeleteI liked your post very much, especially because I partially agree with you. Theatre and cinema are two very different mediums and the message they broadcast to the audience also differs by the circumstances of viewer experience. It is true that theatre will always be the most personal form of any play and the interaction with the actors and actresses add a lot to viewer experience. However, I believe that not only cinema or television can deceive its audience but also theatre. While a film is a detailed piece of work to make everything seem like perfect on screen and hide the reality by props or camera cuts, in a theatre the method of acting might also be very deceiving and can also hide the reality from the audience. Actually, in my opinion in both cases the audience is grabbed out of reality because this is why we go to see a film or a play, to finally get into another world and get out of ours for a while. :)
ReplyDeleteIt was a well put together blog post, Kitty. Personally, I really liked how you defended your views and opinion, your devotion and enthusiasm came through completely. And it awoke my own personal aspect that I am very protective of, especially because I chose to be a part of the book group. So when you wrote that 'reading was a duller experience than viewing' I immediately felt a wave of protest. Although a theatre play can be engaging with its liveliness, and movies are a delight to the eyes with all their actions I firmly agree with Henry David Thoreau when he said that "This world is but canvas to our imaginations” so are plays and movies. They are 'only' the reflections of people’s imagination. These reflections are wonderful and need to be appreciated. They fascinate me how different our perceptions and interpretations of the book are. All in all, I think that we should read more imagination stimulating and developing writings so then we could enjoy more difficult readings, such as Much Ado About Nothing.
ReplyDeleteI am glad of your reaction to that line as it shows me that my intention of provoking some sort of a reaction was successful so thank you for that! You are right in pointing out the imaginative possibilities of reading and the quotation you chose is a very good one too. Yet I do not think that the possibility of imagining the play is lost after watching it. I advise watching more productions so as not to get stuck with one possibility and afterwards I fully encourage imagining putting on the play for ourselves because that helps like nothing else if we wish to understand the characters, their motivations and the story in general.
DeleteI liked your post very much, because I got the feeling that you think theatre is a unique medium. I absolutely agree with that, because I think the uniqueness of it comes from the fact that you only see a play once. Even If you go to see the play again, it will not be the same. For me this is the "glamour of the theatre". Also, I liked that you mentioned the different adaptations, because here in Hungary there is a big variety of Shakespeare adaptations.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you can never see the same play twice in a theatre is certainly one of the most precious aspects of it. I am glad you pointed it out, I agree with it whole-heartedly.
DeleteGreat post, but in my opinion, reading a play is never the ideal way of enjoying it. I think it does need that plus content, which is added to it by the director. The ideal play, especially in Shakespeare's case, is usually an incomplete work of art that achieves its complete phase when it's taken onto the stage, and filled with life by the director, the cast, and the crew. And in the case of Much Ado About Nothing, it can also be a tool, to make people interested in Shakespeare and theatre in general. For instance, the way Josie Rourke uses it purposefully, by creating an interpretation that attracts attention from those who normally wouldn't neccessarily attend a theatre performance, and even less likely read the story in a book format.
ReplyDelete