catapult magazine

catapult magazine
 

discussion

Theatre vs. Film

Default

grant
Jan 03 2003
04:25 am

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?

Default

Jasonvb
Jan 16 2003
09:31 am

That clears up a lot about Tarkovsky. I think it would help if we were to see some of his films. I haven’t yet…

About theatre. Theatre is and has always been the more progressive of the two media. Not that there haven’t been wonderful forward-thinking film artists, but theatre is usually at the forefront of the artistic scene. Theatre is cheaper and easier to produce. You can experiement and try things with it that you would not be able to try with film. If a production stinks, it’s not such a big deal. You move on to the next thing. No one loses millions of dollars (unless you’re on Broadway or the West End).

I think the globalization and ‘nationalization’ of culture has a lot to do with the success of film. Feeling a part of the national and global culture is a big deal when everyone’s watching the same TV shows, and buying the same electric razors from the same mall stores. Films are easily distributed and are a big part of what creates our world and country’s cultural consciousness. Theatre is more localized. Unless you’re a tourist, you probably haven’t seen what’s playing on Broadway. You almost certainly haven’t seen what’s playing at the small Da Da Kamera theatre in Toronto, and you definitely haven’t seen what’s playing at the Winkler, Utah Community Theatre. Theatres almost always serve smaller communities of patrons. Which is fine.

So why aren’t people flocking to theatres? I don’t know yet. Gimme a little bit of time.

Default

ethan
Jan 16 2003
10:25 am

We were having a discussion in a theatre class about the purpose of theatre today and someone made a comment that i found very intriguing. This person was an art major, and they made the comment that they thought theatre was fresher and more important than other arts because they are always new things to expirement with and explore, while in art, everything has already been done and everyone is just redoing other things. I’m not sure what i think about that statement, so i was curious what other people thought. If that is true, is it because of the immediacy of theatre, the fact that it exists for a moment and then is gone forever, while paintings and other artforms are constant and static and are here for good? Is it possible to do something completely original in theatre? Or in any art form? It’s definitely something i will keep thinking about.

Default

Norbert
Jan 16 2003
11:00 am

I think that one must be very careful saying “more important art”. Theater may seem fresh because it is a slippery fish. It changes as it happens, making it impossible to stagnate (at least ideally). Some of my favorite music is the same way. Jazz changes just when you think you’ve got it. I’m still a novice when it comes to modal theory, but it’s cool stuff. Maybe Space or JaBird or mwooten can comment on that.
The visual arts have also gone through periods when the active production (I use that word intentionally) of a piece was more important than the piece of art itself, and many artists still believe that. That is the thing that keeps them working, the constant need for creation. The nature of theater is that it is a constant creation. There is nothing after a production which you can pick up and hold and point to and say “Hey! Look at the art I just created!”. It’s over until the next show whether it be a brand spanken new play or the 300th run of the same thing.
Yes, theater is unique and yes, I think it’s fresh. Which, coming back to the vein of this thread, is it’s most wonderful and unique attribute. To go further than this, or for Tarkosov (or whatever) to not get to this point or minimalize it, is to do a disservice to the art form.
Again, I’m afraid I may be putting words in his mouth. Sorry if that’s the case Grant. I’m going to have to read his stuff before I type anything further I’m afraid.

Default

Adam
Jan 16 2003
03:03 pm

Ethan: I disagree with the student. I think that perhaps he/she has seen a lot of experimental theatre and thus has a good impression of the art form. Take him/her to ACTF sometime and that will probably change the opinion.

The bottom line is, I think we limit ANY art form by saying it inherently does something better. I think it’s egocentric for a photographer to say that photography is inherently superior in showing, say, the subtleties of the human expression. Show him a Rembrandt portrait. Likewise, if Dick thinks that a nice artsy film version of Hamlet lets us better get into Hamlet’s head, Jane is just as likely to think that it’s better to see an actor play it out in front of her in the present moment to get into his head. What’s more important—cuts and filters, or real time? I don’t think we can make that call.

I just happened upon a quote from David Mamet that is loosely related to the topic (Mamet is an accomplished screen and play writer)

“Q: What’s the effect of Hollywood and mass media on the theatre today?

A: It ain’t good but it doesn’t make any difference. They’re flooding the market with trash. The taste and the need for a real theatrical experience, which is an experience in which the audience can come to commune, not so much with the actors but with themselves and what they know to be true, just increases. Everyone’s pallet has been dulled to an extraordinary degree by the mass media. But that’s just the way it is. Television, of course, isn’t an art form. It might be, but nobody’s figured out how to make it so. It’s not even a question of doing good work on television, which happens once in a while. It’s that nobody seems to understand the essential nature of the media. I certainly don’t."

(I’m not trying to compare film to TV)

Is it possible that theatre is less popular than film simply because film is more accessible—both artistically and physically? We can take Coke into a cinema, we can stop the tape at home or watch it again—but fast forward through the scary part, we can keep it across the room and behind a glass tube or silver screen. Sort of like theatre is that book we know we ought to read but film is that book we really want to read . . .

Default

DvdSchp
Jan 27 2003
04:35 pm

Why is film more accessable? I think that’s a false assumption. A high school production of The Sound of Music is just as accessable as The Hot Chick. I don’t want to see either of them. The population at large for some reason believes they all understand the language of film because they all go to see them. I continue to be humbled by how little I understand about it.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that I saw a small production in Minnieapolis this weekend called “The Sunrise Cafe.” It promoted itself as a cross between Sam Shephard and David Lynch. Well, I discovered (and I honestly didn’t think this going in to the theater) that you can’t reproduce anything Lynch-like on the stage. Yes, I understood what they meant by that allusion, but it just wasn’t the same. Although I did like, I came out thinking, that would have been better if it were a film. Not just “it would have been better if I were watching a video of this,” but it would have worked if it had been translated into film. That dream experience does not happen as well in theater in my opinion.
Maybe it has something to do with this: the characters were played by very “physical” actors which to me brought forth a difference between film and theater. Ok, my experience in theater is limited, and I humblely acknowledge that I could be way off, but it seems as though in theater, the actors are the primary vehicle for the story. I realize there are other parts to theater like scenery and lighting, but they seem generally to be supplementary to moving the story. In film, it’s the camera that creates the story and actors are secondary, more like tools. Does that sound reasonable accurate? So what exactly does that mean?

Default

Norbert
Jan 27 2003
04:54 pm

Perhaps theater needs to push the envelope a bit more. Not in conventional ways, but in experimenting in lessoning the role of the actor. (I hope I’m not being heretical here). A la Robert Wilson stuff.
Now, I’m not overly familiar with him (a little bit in Theater History, and I had a student research him for a H.S. drama project…very good student). Are there others more familiar with him/his style? Is this something that may bridge a perceived gap between the two mediums?
Not that I’m giving up my position here Grant, just trying to stretch it a bit.
=)

Default

ethan
Jan 27 2003
05:58 pm

I have about the same knowledge of robert wilson as you, but i personnally am very interested in bridging the gap between film and theatre. Currently, myself and my friend and fellow student jack are brainstorming a potentially senior project (we’re both sophomores) with the intent of combining film and theatre into one multimedia performance. We’re still in the brainstorming stage, so we’re not sure how it all will work out, but hopefully something interesting, fresh, and cool comes out of it.

Default

BBC
Jan 28 2003
02:51 pm

I think theater is pushing the envelope, it is just that people like Joe Normal don’t even know it is there. Some of my students skipped thier homecoming dance last weekend to go to “Too Much Light Makes The Baby Go Bilnd,” a Chicago area show that puts on thirty plays in sixty minutes. These shorter pieces deal with politics, comedy, the drama of life, the media, and personla stories. My students loved it. Last term I took a bunch of students up to Albany Park (right near North Park College) to see the Albany Park Theater Project. A Harvard- educated couple help economically disadvantaged kids in that neighborhood to put their stories and other stories of the neighborhood on stage. Incredibly powerful stuff. I wish I could say the couple directing this thing were Christian. It seems to me to be what Christians ought to be doing.

Both these examples were absolutely top notch — and neither one of them was attracting audiences the size of a broadway production of “Cats”. The good stuff is out there, but as Norb pointed out before, sometimes it is easier to stay home and watch tv.