Why do theatres still exist?

Cafe Society
1

I should start with a disclaimer that I’ve never been to the theatre (and don’t have the disposable income for it).

I’m curious to know why theatre still exists, why it hasn’t been completely replaced by cinema.

It seems to me that film removes a lot of theatre’s limitations. You can see the actors’ facial expressions and hear their whispers, as opposed to watching tiny people dozens of yards away, shouting so they can be heard. You can shoot films on location or realistic sets, rather than an obvious stage. With film editing, you can present your actors’ best performances to the audience, cut out the bad performances, and direct the audience’s attention to where you want it. All of these things help to make the audience more absorbed, and help to tell the story better.

And yet, theatre has survived for the past hundred-odd years, and presumably there is a reason. I’d like to hear your opinions. Does theatre offer something that cinema can’t? Is it just elitism, so that people can show off that they’ve been to see a play? Or something else entirely?

2

Why does painting still exist when we have cameras? Because it is a different (although superficially similar) art form.

Seriously, go to a play. Even a community theater production. Having real, live people performing for you is a treat.

3

I don’t know where you live or what your income is, but I am sure there is inexpensive theater near you. Theater, books, movies, TV, and so on are all different art forms. They do different things, tell stories in different ways, and can be enjoyable for separate reasons.

4

A play is much, MUCH cooler than a movie.

5

What an odd question. Others have already said it but a play is a totally different experience than a movie.

I actually hate going to see movies in a theater. Unless it’s something really special, I’d prefer to watch a movie on my huge flat screen at home. I’ll even go to see a crappy play, not that I do it that often but seeing the people up there performing live just for us is a lot of fun.

6

Ah yes, but in a one-act play you get to see an actor play out the whole bit from beginning to end, completely uninterrupted by editing! Isn’t that kinda neat?

But on the other hand, at any point during a play you are free to let your eyes drift from, say, the face of an actor delivering a monologue, to, say, the face of another actor listening to the monologue, and back and forth between them - essentially “editing” the whole scene by yourself, with your own eyes, as it unfolds in real-life before them! And isn’t that kinda neat, too?

7

The vast, vast majority of theater is and always has been presented in small theaters where you can not only hear the performers whisper (well, stage-whisper) but you can even see them sweat when they’re having trouble with their lines.

Even when it grows to the level of a Broadway production there’s a level of intimacy and connection with the audience that film doesn’t give you.

You say you’ve never been to a theater production. Have you ever been to a live music performance, whether it’s a band in a bar or Woodstock? Why doesn’t everyone listen to digital recordings? After all, there are no bad notes or slurred lyrics, and the record can be mixed so the producer can showcase the vocal, the drums, the horns or any other part of the ensemble.

8

Take your favorite movie that was adapted from a play. Since obviously I don’t know what that your favorite movie adapted from a play is, I’ll pick one and go with Streetcar Named Desire. Watch the classic Kazan/Brando/Leigh/Hunter/Malden movie and it’s great, and it will be great tomorrow and seven weeks from now and 29 months from now or 11 years from now, it will always be great, BUT it will also always be exactly the same.

See five different versions of the live play and it can well be almost like seeing five different plays, all of which might be great in and of themselves. It’s amazing how differently different actors can interpret the same character: you might see one version of Streetcar in which Stanley seems like an almost retarded total thug, another in which he seems like a brilliant sociopath, another in which he’s amazingly vulnerable; Blanche might be so pathetic you cry in one version and hysterically funny but less likeable than Stanley in another and incredibly sensuous in a third, while Mitch (Malden’s character in the movie) might be an obviously sweet but neurotically shy character in one production, very obviously a closeted gay guy in another, and a character who down deep is more despicable than Stanley in another, and that’s with each actor saying the same lines at the same times.
The movie is frozen forever: Brando is always going to rip his shirt and scream “STELLLLLLA!”, but another actor might do that scene very subdued, and another might do it in a way that makes Brando seem subdued, and while some productions and performances are definitely better than others the great thing is that it’s possible for the same play to be produced three times using the same script and one seems like a dark-comedy (because that’s what the actors and the director are hitting), the next seems like a Greek tragedy, and the other one seems like a morality play, and they’re all great and no version is necessarily wrong or right. It’s very fluid, it evolves, it’s alive and malleable, unlike a movie which, no matter how great it is, is never going to change (Karl Malden is ALWAYS going to play Mitch as a nice naive Mama’s boy for example).

The difference in a good movie and a good piece of theatre is the difference between a beautiful painting of a landscape and the actual landscape. Which is better- well, that’s personal choice, but both are beautiful in a “the same:completely different” sort of way.

On the disposable income factor, I feel your pain. I love live theatre. I’d go every week if I could. Unfortunately professional theatre, even repertory companies and “no big names” touring companies of Broadway shows, are getting ridiculously overpriced. Case in point: I wanted to go see Les Miserables in Atlanta next month: the best price for decent (not good, just, acceptable) seats is $115; the $50 seats are in ‘the gods’ (theatre jargon for back of the back and top of the top section). I don’t dispute that it’s worth it or that they have to charge that much, but that’s just way too much for people who aren’t well off.

Your best bet is amateur productions, some of which are godawful and will almost kill your desire to ever see another play and some of which are absolutely amazing and make you wonder why these people aren’t professional working actors. But the great thing is that good or bad, see the same play again and it will be a new experience- it’s a “you never step in the same river twice” thing.

9

This. I enjoy just about anything live- from a kindergarten play to Broadway. It’s the intimacy, the excitement, the simplicity or the grandeur. It’s just a wonderful experience.

10

Why go see a live concert when you can listen to a recording?
Why read a book when there is a movie you can see?
Why bother sharing a bed with another person when you have porn?

11

According to Wikipedia, the oldest surviving play is called The Persians, from ancient Greece, year 472 BCE. Long after the electricity and the lights go out on this planet, there will still be humans performing in plays. There is a kind of magic that takes place while watching actors in a live performance that one simply cannot compare with gazing at Tom Cruise’s 20 ft. nose hairs up on a big screen. The theater is, IMO, more desperately needed than ever, considering the biggest movies now are based on big 'splosions, spacemen/toys, and CGI creatures.

12

Why have porn when you have an imagination?

The OP is meaningless based on the very first sentence. If you haven’t seen live theater, you have no basis for asking any questions about why it exists.

As for price…free theater is available just about everywhere. Or very cheap theater at least. Go to a high school play or a college presentation.

My favorite play experiences have been summer theater down in a local park, where the farthest seat from the stage is maybe 30 ft. Nothing like Shakespeare from touching distance.

13

I am not a theatre goer myself but my parents were. I remember how 30 years ago they went to see Mickey Rooney in “Hellzapoppin” and Mom just raving to her mother about how great and energetic Rooney was. I never heard her so enthusiastic about any film or tv show she watched.
That says it all about the effect plays have on their devotees.

14

Before I was in my first play, that’s what I thought too. But “projecting” is not shouting. It’s speaking louder, while still speaking normally. It’s a weird amalgam that sends your voice further without it sounding like shouting. Most theatres have decent acoustics designed to aid this, and larger productions use microphones in various subtle ways.

15

That’s an interesting point. I’d never thought of that:)

16

Well, in my opinion, theater could no more disappear than language. The only difference between a grandfather telling his grandchild an animated story and a shakespearean actor doing Hamlet is of scale.

There is a connection in theater that isn’t present in film. Especially, when, as others have said, you’re in a much more intimate space. Many plays are performed in venues that seat 100 people or less. Believe me, you see faces in those places.

I sense in your question some assumptions about theater, that it’s necessarily attempting realistic sets and productions, that the audience should be absorbed wholly into the story and so on. Sometimes this is true. Sometimes it’s not. Brecht came up with a whole bag of alienation effects to try to get people from getting sucked into his stories. It all depends on what messages the artistic staff and the actors are trying to convey.

Towards A Poor Theatre by Jerzy Grotowski discusses the limitations of theater in regards to film and what theater should leave for film and what remains for theater to explore. I highly recommend it for people interested in your question

17

I would go even further and say to a real extent seeing the same version on five different nights can be eye-opening.

18

Or at least spitting distance. You might not want to sit too close.

19

I don’t understand what you mean by “intimacy” and “connection with the audience”. Are you able to explain it to me?

I get that you’re trying to help me understand your point, but I haven’t seen any live music and don’t know why it would be preferable to a studio recording. Sorry :confused:

20

If you want to find out I suggest you look into local free theater. At least around here, there’s a lot of it in the summer. If you have a university or a community college nearby, they may have free productions. Or some community theater troupe may do the odd free show occasionally (and community theater’s not usually all that expensive for regular shows.) If you’re out in the boonies, that’s probably not an option but any decent sized city is going to have at least some free theater. I’m not in a bustling metropolis but I know there’s at least a dozen free outdoor shows every summer pretty nearby.