Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sfmin.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sfmin!jeffj
From: jeffj@sfmin.UUCP (J.S.Jonas)
Newsgroups: net.tv
Subject: re: "Master Harold and the Boys" (really TV vs. theatre)
Message-ID: <619@sfmin.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Dec-85 17:23:00 EST
Article-I.D.: sfmin.619
Posted: Mon Dec  2 17:23:00 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 3-Dec-85 20:13:48 EST
References: <2301@umcp-cs.UUCP> <2236@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1424@mtgzz.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Summit N.J.
Lines: 54

In article <2301@ucmp-cs.UUCP) Charley Wingate writes:
>In article <1424@mtgzz.UUCP> leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) writes:
>[In reference to my expressed desire to see the play in person]
>
>>I think that it was more effective as a television performance than it
>>would be as a stage play (heresy, I know).  I think that you would lose
>>much of the facial expression seeing it as a play.  I saw SWEENEY TODD
>>twice on the stage and once on cable.  It was best on the cable for
>>the same reason.
>
>On reflection, Mark has a point.  I remember fanatically watching "Nicholas
>Nickleby" on PBS.  I'm fairly certain that I could not have survived the
>play in person, and I do think a lot of expression (and just being able to
>see things) came through better on the tube.  Anyone think of other
>examples, or have an opinion on the practice in general?

	Here with an opposing viewpoint is Jeffrey:

	I saw Sweeney Todd on Broadway and cannot even believe that you are
comparing that *EXPERIENCE* with tv.  Going to a show with REAL LIVE ACTORS
is a human endeavor.  It is an interaction of the actors with a live audience
which TV cannot capture.  I have to keep reminding myself that those are
*PEOPLE* on the stage, not puppets or electronic images.  They command more
respect and give an immense effort.  On stage, you cannot stop and re-take.
The result may not be as polish as a TV production which can be edited
and photographed to focus your attention where the director wants you
to look.  But in the theater, nobody tells you where to look.  You have
to decide yourself where the action is (it can be anywhere on the stage,
offstage, or even in the audience).
	That's where the big difference lies.  A TV, even a big screen
projection TV only fills part of your field of vision.  Movies are
better, but in a play the ENTIRE ROOM is modified *EXPRESSLY FOR
EXPERIENCING THAT PARTICULAR PLAY*.  SWEENEY TODD went to extremes
by placing a foundry around the curtainless stage.  I often
examined the pipes looking for images, since it was portraying
something to set the mood and create some imagery.  And I
cannot believe your stereo can do justice to the factory whistle
(which was ear-splitting on purpose).  You are surrounded by
the set and are immersed in the atmosphere.  Anyway, going
to the theater is supposed to be FUN.
	Another example: CATS blurs the boundary between stage and audience
by having a stage that blends into the audience, and having the
cats prowl throughout the audience throughout the play.  They enter
and exit from all directions, even from the audience.  The action is all
around you at all times.  Barnum had the clowns/jugglers/etc circulating
through the audience only before the play.  But the point is:
even a holographic TV cannot provide that interaction and involvement.
It is flat, or barely 3D, and only in front of you.  It cannot surround you,
but then again, you don't miss anything by going to the bathroom (just
use that pause button).
	'nuff said

				Jeff 'god that's good!' Skot
				{ihnp4 | cbosgd | mcnc ...} attunix ! jeffj