Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site mtgzz.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!leeper
From: leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper)
Newsgroups: net.tv
Subject: re: "Master Harold and the Boys" (really TV vs. theatre)
Message-ID: <1452@mtgzz.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Dec-85 22:38:41 EST
Article-I.D.: mtgzz.1452
Posted: Wed Dec  4 22:38:41 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Dec-85 06:21:57 EST
References: <2301@umcp-cs.UUCP> <2236@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1424@mtgzz.UUCP> <619@sfmin.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Middletown NJ
Lines: 75


 >Here with an opposing viewpoint is Jeff 'god that's good!'
 >Skot
 >
 >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.  
 
Having a bunch of fellow humans go through and mouth the same lines day
after day is a human endeavor?  I suppose.

 >It is an interaction of the actors with a live audience which
 >TV cannot capture.  
 
I was way at the back of the auditorium.  I unless the actors had
telescopic vision they probably couldn't see me, much less interact
with me.  The only human interaction I was having was the little girl
behind me who kept kicking my seat.  Now I have had really good seats
for some plays, and it does help.  But in some of the giant auditoriums
on Broadway only a small fraction of the audience is better off than if
they had the advantages that the cinematic media provide, like getting
a good look at the actor's faces.
 
 >I have to keep reminding myself that those
 >are *PEOPLE* on the stage, not puppets or electronic images.

Ah, a people-chauvanist!  Maybe if you had to remind yourself they were
people, you were in the row behind me.

 >They command more respect and give an immense effort.  
 
Some do, some don't.  Some get tired of the roles after playing them
over and over.
 
 >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 is a double-edged sword.  I could say I prefer cinema for just the
same reason.  You are seeing the best that the director could get out
of the scene in every scene in cinema.  In theater, you could easily
miss it.

 >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*.

You mean that little stage at the far end of the room?  You ought
to see a doctor about that tunnelvision problem of yours.  Or are you
saying the little girl kicking the seat is part of the performance?

 >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.

Yes, that was all very nice.  I am not saying it is all one way or the
other.  I am just saying that there are tradeoffs and I prefer to see
the actors' expressions.  They are two different experiences.  I like
both, but most people -- members of my family included -- think that a
live play is far superior.  I think that much more can be done with a
film.

				Mark Leeper
				...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper