Heady

Update #2: A.C. Douglas wraps up the discussion by claiming that everyone but one is missing his point, which he again rephrases:

"My question was framed specifically to provoke an exploration of the difference between live theater and film in terms of the realization of the artwork itself, not in terms of why and how that realization is experienced differently in live theater versus in film, and the relative merits of each."

I'm wondering how it's possible to remove the "realization of the artwork itself" from the experience of that realization.  Is A.C. suggesting that the interpreter of the artwork him/herself is not experiencing it as he/she interprets it?  Is there some way we can be 100% objective while experiencing/evaluating the realization of an artwork and separate the two (realization and experience) to discuss them separately?  If yes, what exactly would be the point of doing so?  Do interpreters really not take into account how their audience is going to experience their realization?  (I suppose some do--or claim to.)  But we're human beings and, in essence, unable to completely separate the realization of an artwork from our experience of that realization. 

Update: A.C. Douglas replies to several responses.  I find there the essence of the problem with this discussion.  A.C. writes (in response to John Shaw):

"The correct statement of that case, using Mr. Shaw's example, would posit the realizing of the Goldberg Variations on the double harpsichord for which it was written, or on the modern concert grand. In both cases, the text would remain precisely the same, and the question would be: Of the two instruments, which is better able to do the work justice?"

It's a fallacious statement through and through.  The two instruments are not what are doing "justice" to the work, it's the quality of the performer manipulating the instrument.  Likewise, an ingenious director working with live actors on a stage can do things that a mediocre director can't do in film (or any other medium, most likely).  In the end it comes down to the quality of the text, the quality of the performers and the quality of the director.  The argument doesn't lie in the quality of the medium, which none of us really has the ability to measure.  Honestly, who cares whether it's on a movie screen or in a musty theater as long as it's well-done?       

My original post:

A.C. Douglas rants in three posts (one, two, three) about the validity of live theater as an artform:

"A film of, say, Beckett's Godot (i.e., made as a film, not a filmed record of the stage play) is potentially, inherently and in itself, capable of producing a more convincing aesthetic product in terms of the play itself than the play presented live on stage (not the case in a recording of a piece of music versus a live performance of that same piece), and that capability has nothing whatsoever to do with "the Collective Other" which is a function of audience response alone, that same response experienced with film just as with live theater."

Well, if that's true then one must wonder why a wildly successful film of Waiting for Godot hasn't been made.  It is, after all, one of the most reliable ticket-sellers in the theater world.  And I further wonder where one can find this universal scale of "convincing aesthetic product[s]" to which A.C. seems to refer. His entire argument seems to hinge on the premise that everyone shares (or ought to share) his aesthetics. 

He later supports his position with the argument that a film director has "almost infinite control of all aspects of the realization of the text possible."  Since when is infinite control automatically better?

As Jonathan Shaw artfully posted, film flattens everything to two dimensions.  Theater occurs in three.  It's bizarre that A.C. fails to understand what opportunities this simple fact affords the audience and/or doesn't get any aesthetic pleasure from those opportunities.  It's even more bizarre that he is unable to acknowledge the fact that many audience members do get aesthetic pleasure from these opportunities and therefore enjoy theater as an alternate artform to film.  Just because A.C. Douglas doesn't means that the theater is somehow an inferior artform to film?  Hogwash.  I feel sorry for him.  With such a bull-headed anti-theater stance he will likely never be able to actually enjoy a good or great theatrical production.  I wonder if he always sits in the theater and thinks about how much better each scene that's being performed could be on film. 

In his response to Jonathan Shaw, A.C. wrote:

"Everything you describe can be done in film, and done better than in live theater."

Hm.  How can a person watching a film focus on a character who's involved in a scene but isn't on the screen?  Well, a person watching a staged version can.  The audience member in a theater has the freedom to focus on any object in an entire scene that he or she chooses.  When watching a film, that same audience member's available objects are limited by what the director has made visible.

Imagine repeatedly viewing a film of Romeo and Juliet.  The balcony scene.  A close-up of Juliet speaking, her face filling the giant screen.  I want to see Romeo's reaction to what she's saying.  His facial expression.  His stance.  But I can't.  The film director has removed this option.  The scene is frozen in one interpretation, shot at one angle.  The director manipulates my focus to a certain character. 

Imagine the same scene in a live theater.  One night I focus on Juliet's face as she delivers the same lines.  The next night I revisit the theater for the same performance and focus exclusively on Romeo's reception of those words.  The director may indeed have staged the scene so that Juliet is intended to be the focus but I choose to look elsewhere.  The stage director can't suddenly remove Romeo from the set of possible objects that I can focus on.  Yes, the director perhaps has less than "infinite control over all aspects", but that actually affords the audience more freedom.  Does A.C. really find it odd that some audience members at some plays might prefer and indeed get greater aesthetic fulfillment from that freedom than they would from being limited by the film director's "infinite control"?  Has he truly never had such an experience at the theater?

Again, this aspect might not necessarily appeal to A.C. and it's probably among his ever-growing list of caveats that are his way of rebutting other bloggers' completely valid responses to his question, but who really cares?  He's one audience member.  Nothing will be lost if he stops going to the theater.  There are millions of others out there who obviously derive pleasure from the lesser degree of manipulation and control present in the theater.  I'm one of them.

Comments

[thaddaeus]

Thank you.

I just discovered this site-spanning argument today, and while I struggle to understand ACD's point of view, as an actor and theatre artist, I think you have constructed the best argument against his film vs. theatre stance.

One of my favorite things to do when watching theatre is focus on actors in minor roles. In a film, they may only be on screen for the duration of their few lines, but on stage, they can be observed for longer lengths of time. To me, it is the mark of a quality production to be able to observe the care and talent that goes into the smallest of roles. I feel this is similar to viewing "Romeo's reaction," as something that exists within the scene, even though it is not the focus of any specific moment.

I can't wait to see how all this ends. Happy New Year.

[Marcus]

I love doing exactly what you say as well. A.C. seems to think you can somehow remove this experience from an evaluation of the quality of the realization of an artwork, or something. If that is possible (I maintain that it isn't), what's the point of multiple realizations of anything?