Theatre versus Film versus Television

[CapnHook]

Posted: 5/24/04 at 7:49pm

The subject says it all. Let's discuss this.

There are many ways audiences experience stories. The Theatre, Film, Television, Radio, Books, Music, Puppetry, Dance, Interpretive Movement, etc.

In what ways is the Theatre a better way to tell a story? Same for Film and Television? Are there no limits for a story? Is one method no effective than another?

I have my thoughts, which will be full expressed later, but for now, I'd like to hear what other members here think.

I'll briefly share my views.

In 1965, THE ODD COUPLE opened on Broadway, written by Neil Simon. Later in 1968, it became a film. In 1970, a sitcom was done for television. Generally the same story, all hits, earning a nominations for various Tonys, Emmys, and Oscars (one each for Writing).

Which method did you think was best for ODD COUPLE?

Also look at PETER PAN. It has been to Broadway, as a play and as a musical, dozens of times; it has been a Television cartoon series, a silent film (1924), an animated film (1953), and a live-action film (2003). Which is the best choice, or is one not any better than the other?

[Plum]

Posted: 5/24/04 at 8:01pm

Of course each medium has its own benefits and drawbacks.

Theater's most unique and wonderful asset is the live audience, and the chemistry between it and the performers on stage. On the other hand, theater is very location-based- that magic can't be widely distributed. In addition, there's no second takes in theater. This makes each performance a bit different than the next, which can be good or bad.

Film and television, of course, have the benefit of multiple takes, as well as being able to use visual and aural effects that are impossible to create live. They are also easy to distribute widely.

Television, in addition, has the quality of being able to tell longer, more involved stories than the other two, through mini-series or full-blown seasonal shows. Movies and shows have to have more self-contained stories.

Theater, television, and movies each create their own kinds of illusions. Different actors and creators are best-suited for different mediums. No one is better or worse than the other- there is crap and there is gold in each.

And now I'm done rambling. :)

[secret-soul]

Posted: 5/24/04 at 8:11pm

TV is furniture
Film is art
Theatre is life

[CapnHook]

Posted: 5/24/04 at 8:15pm

Plum, yes, you pointed out the basic viewpoints.

What I'm looking for, which I should have said already :-P, is not producing angles (spread of audience, multiple takes), but from an audience's perspective: what in a show makes it better for Film? Stage? TV?

[jo]

Posted: 5/24/04 at 8:52pm

Each medium ( film or theatre) provides an excellent opportunity for a member of the audience to react to or interact with what he is watching.

Film allows you to see the focus of the scene before you - as the camera guides your eyes to what is happening. And the close-ups provide you with a more intimate look ( especially when one wants to see the nuances of an actor's performance). Likewise, the magic of film-making makes spectacle scenes more wondrous to behold. Personally, I don't think anything on stage ( of the same show) can top that memorable scene of Julie Andrews singing "The Hills Are Alive" against the breathtaking vista of the Alps. But I digress.

On the other hand, theatre makes one feel more connected to the show and the performances. There is a much greater sense of audience participation ( from the response - whether it is simply the rapt concentration on their faces or the laughter that punctuates the hall or the more visibly expressed ovations). You feel more a part of the whole performance. And if even film-making can create more magic - there is nothing more magical than when you suspend disbelief in a theatre, as you see what normally is not expected on stage. I remember someone saying that when he sees a helicopter in a movie, it means absolutely nothing ( or that it is commonplace). But to see it in the context of the fall of Saigon on stage, that was quite atmostphere-building in the play. Wait till you see the flying car come to Broadway

It is a challenge for actors to conquer both mediums equally well. The process is different. Someone ( Hugh, I think) said that after shooting the film, you lose control of the artistic process as an actor ( as the film goes to the subsequent editing and other processes). Onstage, you continue to exercise control of what's happening. And this is quite apart from the discipline required for each art medium. Film-making is probably more tedious but as soon as the show is in the can, there is no more to be done. In the theatre, you are only as good as your last performance - there is the need to continously provide a consistent level of artistic commitment over a prolonged period.

I did ramble on as well


Jo Updated On: 5/24/04 at 08:52 PM