catapult magazine

In his book, “Sculpting in Time”, Andre Tarkovsky bemoans the dominating influence of other art forms (literature, theatre, visual arts) on film. He is particularly concerned with the limitations of theatrical plot when it’s used in film.

He says theatrical writing “links images through the linear, rigidly logical development of the plot. That sort of fussily correct way of linking events usually involves arbitrarily forcing them into sequence in obedience to some abstract notion of order. And even when this is not so, even when the plot is governed by the characters, one finds that the links which hold it together rest on a facile interpretation of life’s complexities”(20).

Tarkovsky seems to suggest that film is better at telling stories because film is capable of speaking in the language of the human psyche. Theatre is dominated by abstract concepts of story that aren’t natural to the human (dream-like?) way of experiencing life.

He goes on to use acting as an example of the difference between theatre and film. Theatrical actors know the beginning and end of the story and this shows in their performance of each scene. Tarkovsky keeps key elements of the story from his film actors so that their performances are genuinely human: confused, unsure and not in total control.

I agree that film does different things than theatre (and that theatre also does many things better than film), but perhaps theatre could learn a few things from film. Or maybe it already has? How has film affected theatre and what should we do about it?

Great! We need more of these types of defenses for theatre. This is what I’m hoping to hear from the theatre folks. What’s so great about theatre?! I’m not trying to be a devil’s advocate. I want to hear theatre advocates.

Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that film is considered the most relevant art form today. We must not deny this fact. Such denial can only hurt the future of theatre. Adam presents a good piece of evidence that film’s place of prominence is envied by the theatre world when he points to broadway productions. I have also heard that many (if not most) drama students, including even graduate students, secretly (and not so secretly) hope to make it big in film rather than theatre. And of course we are aware that the “common man” buys tickets to Vin Diesel’s XXX rather than go to a theatre event. So let’s not pretend everything’s hunky dory in the world of theatre.

And I still do not agree that theatre captures the psychological world as well as film (and by this, I mean the world of dreams, the logic of free association that is at the root of human experience). I’m suggesting that the future of theatre as a relevant art form hangs on theatre’s ability to capitalize on its strengths as an art form. Just as visual art had to rethink its essence after photography, so theatre must focus on its own nature after film.

First Grant, what must we not deny? The consideration of film as the most relevant art form or that it is? I’m not sure I agree with either. But that may be a different discussion.
I’m not sure about the analogy of graphic arts and photography either. Maybe it’s the romantic in me, but the history of the two is important. Theatre history is as old as history. There was very little if any history of graphic arts before photography. I’m not sure which came first. I do understand your focus on the relationship between the two however.
As far as film vs. theater, I think that money is a big deal for many actors, but I love to see that several are returning to the stage, albeit briefly, to acknowledge their love and respect for live theater.
Ultimately, I want to lay the blame (and yes I think blame needs to be laid somewhere) on the immediacy aspect of American entertainment. People would rather see “Catch Me If You Can” than read A Comedy of Errors, just as they would rather watch The Bachelor than read A Tale of Two Cities. It takes less thought to sit through most movies than it does to sit through most theater. Sure there is some fantastic film out there that challenges (I think of the Coen brothers) and some terrible theater (the Importance of Being Earnest…I hate that play). People want the bite size chunk. Devoting two hours to a movie, where everything is handed to you in Hollywood grandeur, is easier than the suspension of disbelief for a small production of No Exit.
I don’t see one as better than the other. I see one as easier than the other (as far as audience goes). Theater demands reflection that turns too many Videogame-playing, MTV-watching Americans off.

I’m sorry. I meant to say “visual arts” rather than “graphic arts”. I made the change. I meant to refer to the shift in visual art toward what we call “abstraction”.

And what you say about the role of money in film is helpful. But I’m wondering why there is more money in film than in theatre? What is it about theatre that has detached itself from mass appeal? (Your thoughts on the history of theatre are very relevant here. Was theatre, as a religious expression of the Greek people, popular in the same way that film is popular today?) Why aren’t there Spielbergesque theatrical shows? And if there are, why don’t they have the same blockbuster appeal as films? If theatre can’t compete with the capabilities of Mtv and the film medium, what does this say for theatre?

And just to come back to Tarkovsky’s thesis a bit. Tarkovsky desired for film to be more like art than entertainment. He agreed with everything you’re saying about the corrupting effect of capitalism on artistry. Yet, he still believed that film, even art films, had more sway with people of our day and age than any other form of art. You can deny this thesis if you want, but we can’t deny the fact that “the people of this day and age” are fascinated with film and not with museums, theatre, poetry, classical music etc.

Thanks Grant.

Again, I think it’s less of a problem with theater than a problem with us. My wife and I wanted to go see a movie Saturday afternoon. We just as easily could have said, let’s drive to Milwaukee and see a play. Well, I guess we too (two artsy people) found it too easy to watch a good, but intellectually simple movie. I can’t believe how many tu’s I had in that sentence.
I love the reference to Greek theater and it’s popularity. Heck, even prisoners got out for Sophocles’ shows. I just don’t know. I’m pretty sure that whatever it is, is a societal problem, not an artistic one. Then again…how much of a difference is there.
Uh-oh.

Theatre is rooted in ritual. It is presentation, not just representation. Theatre and music are the only arts that take place in real time. After a play or a piece of music is performed, it vanishes. It cannot be performed in the same way again. As others on the board have stated, there is no replacing the nowness of theatre. The incredible experience of being in a place with other people and being a part of something really happening. That experience is sometimes dilluted when immense theatres are packed with far too many people. One of the most memorable performances I have been to was a show called ‘Maria Del Bosco’ by Richard Foreman. Deliberately staged in an extremely small theatre with less than 35 people in the audience, the effect of the show was fascinating and devastating. Being with these other people and witnessing something so mysterious and disorienting was more affecting than any film I’ve ever seen.

Not that one art form is superior to another.

Comparing theatre and film is apples and oranges from the perspective of an actor. The ritualistic nature of theatre carries over into the actor’s craft as well. Theatre is about repetition. The ability to find the truth in an action and then to keep doing it over and over again. When an action has been performed you lose it, and each performance you have to rediscover it. In film, the difficulty lies in jumping into a scene and disovering the truth in the action with no immediate context since scene shoots are often jerky and out of order. But you have as many takes as you need to get it the way you want it.

Okay, there’s more to say but I have to go (to a theatre workshop!). Later.

Grant, if you mean that film definitively captures the psychological world better, methinks that’s flawed. First of all, the word “captures” implies that the psychological world must be brought to us, and this isn’t what ought to happen. Art is always about a personal reaction—it’s never passive. Theatre relies on the imagination (which is why I believe there is hope for the theatre of the future, when film has gone to the extreme and back again and people get bored with having everything brought to them and want to start using their imaginations again.). I think that saying film is bar none better is simply accepting that today’s society likes images better than it does interaction, and leaving it at that, without leaving room for redemption.

And now before I make theatre out to be redemptive and film destructive . . .

Perhaps certain films have captured your perception of the psychological world better than plays you’ve seen. I’ll grant that in my experience that’s been the case as well. But I maintain that that’s because there are more P. T. Andersons nowadays than there are Richard Foremans. Film may have more tools to play with, but then again, who would say that a 12-string guitar always sounds better than a 6 string? And where would an orchestra be without the the mouth harp? Where would Vanilla be without chocolate, butter brickle, and maple nut to make everybody want to come back to Vanilla? Where would corn rows be without the afro? Mmm, butter brickle . . . (mouth wide open, drool).

No, film really does “capture” time and recreates it the same way over and over again (though the viewer’s experience can change). What I meant by “capture” was that film-makers can achieve a certain visual world that captures their own psychological experience. Since it is a human being’s experience, we can relate to it, if it is honest and intended for an audience (which all art is).

What Jason says about theatre is indeed very exciting, especially when you’re sitting in an audience and you are in that theatrical moment as it passes forever out of your grasp, remaining only a memory. But it is in the recapturing of moments like these that film excels, in the grasping of a moment and keeping it like a dream that you can play over and over again (Wim Wenders’ “Until the End of the World” captures this so well, I think) in your waking hours. What Jason is saying about the cuts of film is exactly what I feel is so dream-like (psychologically accurate) about film. Our dreams indeed cut into different scenes and settings like this. So, when I say film is better equipped to express our inner world, that’s what I mean. To me, Jason’s descriptions of theatre attest to the outwardness of theatre, the sharing with other people, the physicality and being in a space of this outwardness. Rather than say it’s like apples and oranges, I’m saying it’s like inner and outer.

Then is Film more capable of expressing the internalized “Dream” feeling (or whatever you’re arguing) only to the director who makes the cuts at his whim? How about the actors? the audience? I think the beauty of theater is that it is dynamic. Sure the film audience’s background will change ergo their perception, but that is small pickins compared to theater’s ability to produce two completely different shows on two completely different nights. That capture of time, though ephemeral, is strengthened by the unique interaction of actor and audience. Those who have been on stage, I think, would concur.

Grant, I get what you mean by the cuts and episodic nature of film being conducive to portraying, or at least being more in line with, our psyches or internal lives. It’s true that film can get at this part of our human experience very well. Eraserhead comes to mind. And 2001, as obvious examples. I’d certainly agree that film is better equipped to do this, but I also think that it has definitely failed to live up to its potential. What you’re talking about sounds more like some art films I’ve seen. Most very successful films go the traditional route of chronological narrative, which isn’t dream-like (at least my dreams don’t work that way). So I don’t think it is for this reason that the success of film has surpassed that of theatre.

Or are you suggesting that there is something about the very nature of film, no matter what its subject, that resonates truthfully in us and draws us to it?

I would have to say to Norbert’s first question that it does seem like the vision of a film belongs more to the director and/or cinematographers than to the actors; this is what Tarkovsky likes about film. There are countless examples of actors and actresses who come away from a film shoot thinking they’re involved in the worst movie ever made. Then the editing turns the actor’s performance into something amazing.

And I think that what Jason is saying is exactly to the point of Tarkovsky’s criticism. Tarkovsky says that in order for a film to do what is within its nature to do, it must not rely on theatrical tricks or overly dramatic techniques. Since film is still young, film-makers must push film to its farthest reaches, must discover the full potential of film rather than relying on tricks that will keep the audience’s attention.

Tarkovsky says these movies that rely on tricks are often popular, but they are bad for film and bad for people. Popular films often use sound scoring as a crutch to tell the audience how to feel about every scene and every character. Such films rot the teeth of the audience like a diet consisting only of candy. Art films, however, seek to expand the communicative possibilities of cinema, which helps film become what it is meant to be and helps people develop a taste for food that is good and good for them.

Back to theatre, though. This issue of success and popularity is what I’ve been thinking about in terms of theatre and film. Is theatre less popular because it is more artsy than movies? But if movies are using theatrical techniques of plot development and acting to become our society’s most popular form of entertainment, why doesn’t it work for theatre?