National Theatre Live... on screen — Page 2

But given the choice of only being able to see a particular great production on a screen or not seeing it at all because it isn't going to play here or I can't get to London -- I'll choose the screen version over nothing. Is that so horrible?

It means you hate theatre and you hate America and you are directly responsible for the unemployment rate in this country. You didn't know that? You should be ashamed of yourself. You probably watch Downton Abbey as well. Why don't you just hand this country over to the Taliban?

---

Matt, I believe Frankenstein was Fall 2010--at any rate it was at least a year back, sorry that you missed it.

As others have said, no it's not at all the same as seeing it genuinely live. But to suggest that someone might see a filmed stage production, hate it and so decide theatre isn't for them, is ridiculous. It's been pretty much proven that showings like this raise interest in theatre (although honestly, I doubt too many none theatre fans are even aware of them anyway, so it's a bit of a moot point). The showings cost $15 dollars here, which is significantly cheaper than I'd pay for a major show, not that I live in a major theatre city anyway, and it's not like that money is money I would be spending otherwise on a live show--to suggest it's either/or for anyone is ridiculous.

"Gotham, you may be right. But I don't think the fact that Randall tried and failed resolves the question."

Randall's failure was the result of it being a vanity project. In order to have a true National Theatre, it must be solely about the work.

---