I’ve seen a number of plays performed in a not so great fashion and couldn’t really understand the appeal of live theatre until I saw quality acting and quality writing. It was spine-tingling and beautiful in a different way to a film. The fact that these emotions are poured out in a space you share with the actors makes a play special.
Some plays are difficult though in the way no mainstream film would ever be done.
I saw My Fair Lady at the Hollywood Bowl, starring John Lithgow as Henry Higgins and Roger Daltrey as Alfred P. Doolittle. I have the 1964 film version on DVD. I much preferred the Hollywood Bowl version. First, I was in the company of Shayna and *Spiny Norman. Second, the box seats were very, very good.
But I really liked Lithgow’s portrayal of Higgins better than Harrison’s. It’s been a while, but the thing I remember liking especially was his rendition of I’m an Ordinary Man. In Harrison’s version he sings:
Very gentle man…
But let a woman in your life…
Whereas Lithgow sang:
Very gentle man.
But…
Let a woman in your life…
I just liked it better. I can watch the DVD any time I like. But the live version is a one-moment-in-time thing that I’m very glad to have experienced.
Doesn’t it? My point was that this was a play with a professional actor, not an amateur, and it still sucked.
But you also claim that motion pictures are superior because they feature professional actors. Your claims are mutually exclusive.
First of all, as others have said, this comparison simply does not work. A play is not a movie, and a play is not trying to be a movie. They have different goals. To compare one to the other like you are doing is, honestly, stupid.
It’s not even the same as with a CD or concert performance, as a movie is not a recorded play. They are two completely different mediums. The analogy about football & baseball is spot on. They are both sports, they both involve throwing a ball. Aren’t they therefore the same thing?
And with all due respect, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that all films are high quality, Oscar-caliber masterpieces filled with brilliant actors and majestic cinematography, while all plays are on the level of grade schoolers in someone’s garage.
Well, my claim was that they are superior because everything about them is done by professionals, not just the actors. When you, pepperland girl, said that maybe I had not seen quality plays, I tried to give an example of a play (granted, it was an adapted Shakespeare, not the original one) I had seen with an professional actor. Which still was, IMHO, appallingly bad.
Hedwig came to mind when I saw the thread title. The movie is excellent, but seeing a live performance is an entirely different experience altogether.
I guess it’s just a case of different strokes. I’m not a huge fan of live theater, but there are certain performances that have really blown me away. There’s a kind of intensity in a stellar live performance that isn’t present in the same way with a movie screen.
- Professionally produced plays also have everything done by professionals.
- Can you try to explain what it was about that play that was so bad?
- This is going to sound rude, but how many plays have you actually seen?
Except they’re not.
You are aware there are independent movies? And professional actors/stage directors/choreographers/etc.?
My apologies for being U.S.-centric here, but it’s the only way I can describe it:
If you’re watching the latest blockbuster from Hollywood, or the Academy Award winner for best picture or whatever and you’re dead set on comparing it to the stage, you have to go to Broadway in New York or London’s West End.
If you’re watching a low-budget indie film that didn’t get wide distribution, go to Chicago or L.A. or San Francisco or St. Louis or any other major metro area with a serious theatre scene.
If you’re watching a cinema student’s film or a B-movie of some sort, find local community theatre.
And there are mixes of all these. One of the shows I was in, in community theatre, the lead was played by an actual Broadway actor (not a star or anything, but still). And of course movie stars will take on roles in independent films from time to time.
ALL movies do not have everything done by professionals. Some do. ALL plays do not have everything done by amateurs. Some do. And vice versa.
It’s like you’re intent on comparing Major League Baseball players to the kids who play peewee football, and declaring the entire sport of baseball superior because of it.
Hmm. I have attended several live theatrical events in the last couple of years. Each time it was because relatives or friends were in the cast. I suspect this constitutes the bulk of most audiences outside venues like Broadway. Perhaps dinner theater as well … after all, you get dinner. Oh, and the Nutcracker at Christmas time, and any other venue that can finagle schools into sending their students to watch.
-
*Professionally produced plays also have everything done by professionals. *Maybe. The actors certainly were not world-class.
-
*Can you try to explain what it was about that play that was so bad? *The acting, first and foremost. Terrible. The moving around the stage. Their diction. I don’t know, I’m not a professional critic. But I know Kenneth Branagh’s performance of the famous " to be or not to be"-scene (You-tube clip here) sent shivers down my back and gave me a perfect understanding of the text, while the version I saw just made my skin crawl.
*3. This is going to sound rude, but how many plays have you actually seen? *About fifteen over my lifetime, I guess. Acted in two schoolplays myself. I didn’t like any of them, but I kept going to see plays out of a sense of cultural obligation. I don’t expect that seeing more live plays will change my opinion.
The weird thing is, I have gone to live performances of stand-up comedians and puppeteers, and liked those very much. Live performances of dance, I liked sometimes, and sometimes not. Either had nothing to do with how big or professional the performance was. So I hope I’m not a culture barbarian. But ordinary plays, every single time, were a big disappointment.
OK, fair enough. But those elements are not things that have anything to do with plays vs. movies, as far as I know. Lots of movies have bad acting, you know, even “high-class” ones.
I’m trying to get an idea of your taste here. Can you think of a film performance that seemed bad to you?
you are aware that there are stage plays based on Disney’s Lion King and Beauty And The Beast, right? Featuring actors in foam rubber suits. And they are sell out performances with ticket prices around £60. And little boys love them.
I think this is a perfect analogy. Part of the appeal in going to see a band live is to hear different variations on the songs you already know. You can see your favorite artist several times and find something new every time.
Same thing with plays: every different director and cast puts their own stamp on it. Plenty of people see multiple productions of plays they’ve already seen because they’re interested in how it will be different. What elements of the plot will be emphasized or maybe the play has been re-imagined in a different time.
In contrast, movies are static. You replay a DVD and its the exact same thing, exact same director and actors every single time. That also has it’s appeal but it’s different from the mutability of live theater.
Sure, but do the little boys love the plays better then the movies? Let’s not forget that is it is the parents who decide to go see such plays instead of movies.
Apparently, there are a lot of theatre lovers and -defenders among Dopers. And that is cool. But are we discussing anything more then just taste here? Is there any difference between genres (say, plays versus stand-up comedy or dance, or perhaps classical music) that makes most people say that yeah, a recorded professional performance is better then a live one?
WF Tomba, interesting question. I’ll get back to you on that one.
Exactly.
For example I have seen a total of 9 performances from four separate productions of Stephen Sondheim’s Company, and every single one of them has been different. A different director with a different set of performers can make a familiar story seem fresh & new. Even just seeing the same production more than once, there are still differences on stage every night. Plus it’s all live, anything can happen.
So maybe the performers you saw weren’t good. Or maybe they were fine but they were just not to your taste. There is no rule saying that one must love every single theatrical performance ever seen. I’ve seen shows I did not like. What I’m having trouble understanding is why you are judging every single theatrical show on the basis of one performance that you did not care for. How is that any different than me saying, “Why do people go to the movies anymore when it’s just crap like Alvin & the Chipmunks & Prom Date?”
An interesting fact regarding theatre & film: Did you know that the musical Phantom of the Opera has made more money than any film in all of history, even adjusting for inflation?
Agreed.
I love going to the theatre and I’m lucky enough to live in New York so that I manage to see quite a few Broadway plays a year. One of the last ones I saw was “The Seafarer” and just the change in the play from where it goes from a tone of dreary humdrum life to a creepy suspenseful tension…I don’t know, I just got chills. There was a tension there that you could just feel. I mean, I get that from watching films, too, but it was just so visceral. I really felt it. It sounds cheesy, but it’s something that has to be felt to be experienced.
The quality of the writing, direction, acting…that all makes a huge difference, IMHO.
We aren’t discussing anything more than taste. Plays aren’t inherently better than movies, and movies aren’t inherently better than plays. I think most people recognize the positives and negatives in a live production versus a recorded one, and they make their own decision as to which they prefer for which type of production.
You made the assertion that there could be no reason someone would want to go see a play that’s obviously inferior (for the simple fact that it is a play) to a movie, unless someone knows a person in the production. There are many reasons, which all boil down to taste. If you had said “I would never go see a play when I can see a professional movie version of the same story”, that would be you expressing your taste. But you said you didn’t understand how anyone could do such a thing.
It has nothing to do with genres. The only reasons I’ve seen that some people prefer a recorded show over a live one is that when a show is professionally recorded with multiple cameras you have the ability to see close-ups. But that has nothing to do with “movies vs plays,” and most people who would watch a filmed play would still prefer to see the show live. It’s simply another medium.
I will say that I think all shows should be recorded for posterity. Once they’re gone, they’re gone. I love that in recent years PBS & Great Performances have started filming certain Broadway shows and airing them on TV. They are not a substitute for the real thing, but I’d like to be able to watch them whenever I feel like it, even after they’ve closed.
Another comparison is seeing a sports event live vs. on TV - say, a basketball game. On TV, you get to see different angles, closeups, and hear commentaries. Seeing a game live, do you get any of that? No! Therefore, why would anyone want to see a live game?
Except that when you’re there, you’re … well, you’re almost a participant, aren’t you? You get the sense that you’re interacting with the players – as if your cheering or booing or whatever could spur your team on to greatness. Your energy connects with theirs, creating a mutual performance. There’s an electricity in being at a live game that IMO doesn’t occur when watching through a screen. It’s unpredictable, organic, exciting.
Sure, if you’re watching crappy teams you may not have the same experience. That can happen with professionals or amateurs alike. Sometimes the pros play lethargically and it’s a chore to sit through the whole game. But find a scrappy bunch of skilled, impassioned amateurs – even a high school match – and the ugly gymnasium and shabby uniforms don’t matter.
That’s how it is in the theater, for many of us. I love the movies, don’t get me wrong. But a live performance can be transcendent.