CAN THEATER COMPETE WITH FILM?

Since stage plays seem to look better on film, I sometimes wonder if I'm going to see the end of live theater in my lifetime. Film has so many assets that theater doesn't have: terrific sound and lighting, and the ability to enhance the story with cuts, tracking shots and close-ups. Live theater just can't compete. It's sad to think that even stories that were written exclusively for the stage seem to play better on the screen.

Here's (above) a scene from the film version of Sherwood Anderson's play, "The Bad Seed." Below is a clip from the same part of the play, filmed off the live stage. See which you prefer.

Boy, there's no comparison is there? Even making allowance for the difference in actors and the too sensitive camcorder mics, the theater version (above) just can't keep up. The sound on a live stage is too scattered, too full of echos to compete with film sound. And modern stages are often too wide. Maybe that allows the theater to put in more seats, but it sure hurts the play. The actors feel they have to use the space since it's there, and doing that forces them to take long hikes from one side of the stage to the other. It's so unnatural.

So what can be done? The space problem is easy to solve: build smaller stages. Have fewer seats in the auditorium. Make the theater experience more intimate. Architects will hate this, because long, sweeping stages are a treat for the eye, but they hinder what's playing on the stage, so they really need to go.

The sound problem is more difficult. Obviously electronic enhancement is a good idea if it's understated, but how to you compete with film where the sound is positively beautiful sometimes? Good acoustics help, but only high-end theaters can afford it. What's the answer? Can live theater ever compete with film? I don't know, but I'll take a stab at an answer.

Let's look at what live theater does better. If you've ever watched live ballet from good seats you know that live classical dance beats film dance hands down. The thumps on the floorboards, the sweat on the dancers, etc. actually gives the dancers more presence. There's a heightened sense of vulnerability and risk that you don't get in film. Magic looks a hundred times better live, and so does burlesque. I've only seen one classic burlesque show in my whole life, but it was unforgettable. Based on the imitation live performance in the beginning of Olivier's Henry V, I imagine that Shakespeare can work as good live if you have the right actors. 

Not only that, but no film projection theater I've ever seen can match the beauty of the stage theater. You don't have to go to the Paris Opera to see beautiful stage settings, even a tiny stage theater like the one in the Golden Horseshoe Saloon in Disneyland L.A. beats most of what you're likely to see in movie houses, even in the best restored theaters.



One of the best times I've ever had in live theater occurred in a tiny, cheapo lunch theater in Soho in London. I sat there in a cramped space among other tables eating a cheap bangers and mash lunch, and I wondered where the stage was. Suddenly the lights dimmed and from behind a curtain came an earnest-looking actor shouting lines from Pinter or someone like that. It was a one act, one-man play, and he pulled it off beautifully, even though he had to brush the tables to do it. He didn't seem to mind if we ate while he was talking. It was magical! Only a few movie experiences I've had could match it, and I don't even like Pinter.

I'll bet someone more familiar with live theater than I am could inventory a lot of theater effects that could beat the same thing on film. In my opinion theater needs to concentrate on areas where it can emphasize its strengths. I don't mean theater should feature only dancing magic burlesque shows that you can watch while eating fries...I had in mind something more like...well, you know what I mean.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=--==

I should end here, but I can't resist a quick digression to other topics:



Thanks to Gabe Swaar, ace artist and creator of Dumm Comics, for this Claymation short by Will Vinton. Gabe says Will makes the kind of expressions I make, only he makes them in clay. He says the bell with all the weird expressions even looks like me! It's a co-incidence I'm sure, but one worth seeing if you're familiar with the kind of stuff I do. Check it out!



I'll also mention that Charles Brubaker just posted an interview with me on his "Baker's Baked" blog. Charles has lots of interviews with print cartoonists on there, and he manages to ask interesting questions. He got me to talk about outsourcing and what it was like to be in the studio when Nick took Ren & Stimpy away. Take a look!

http://bakertoons.blogspot.com/

WHAT I LEARNED FROM THE GODARD CLIPS

The most iinteresting thing I learned was the importance of making the audience fall in love with the stars. For Godard it's not enough that the stars look good, they have to look so incredibly good that the audience wants to shoot their spouses and sell their kids into slavery so they can make passionate love to the star.

The second thing I learned is that seducing the audience -- making the audience fall in love with the stars -- has structural importance in a film. In Godard's best films, seduction isn't part of the film, it IS the film! The seduction is the important thing, not the plot. What I'm saying here is  that Godard identified the most important element of cinema storytelling, then streamlined his plots so that only that element was emphasized. He figured out what was most important, then delivered it in the most efficient way possible. Brilliant!

The third thing I learned from Godard was that audience seduction is intellectually engaging. Seduction doesn't mean you're dumbing the film down. In the real world falling in love heightens our senses and makes us see new meaning in every detail of life. We adopt new ideas and shed old ones. Life acquires new flavor and interest. If you can make an audience fall in love with the star like Godard did, then you're awakening their intellect, not putting it to sleep!



The fourth and last thing I learned is the importance of creating an image that represents the seduction. In "Breathless" the image was Belmondo and Seberg flirting with each other on the Champs-Elysees while she sold Herald Tribunes. It was unforgettable! The audience was seduced, and now it had a lasting image to remember the seduction by.

Actually, there's a fifth lesson but I can't think of a way to compress it into a few words. I'll write about it sometime in the future when I can devote a whole post to it.



By the way, thinking about Godard reminds me all over again of what a big difference stars and a good director make! Here's (above) a couple of British actors attempting to re-create part of the bedroom scene in "Breathless." They're OK, but compare the strangulation scene here (above) to the one below...



What a difference!