I know it's 5 in the morning here in the UK, but bear with me on this. I've been involved in a minor Twitter debate tonight with a couple of friends who disagree partly with my views on theatre and film. One of them (who disagrees with me on the film matter) actually studies a film related course at our uni, while I have done English Lit at A-Level and have both acted on stage and done camera and writing and editing work for films.
Basically, last night (or tonight if you want to be pedantic) I went to see a performance of the play Closer at my student union. The play was written in the Nineties or early Noughties, I believe, and later adapted into a film with Jude Law and Clive Owen a few years ago. I saw the film first, and have the DVD, and after seeing the play tonight performed by students (one of whom I know) I have to say I prefer the play. But during the performance, a thought struck me, as we saw some of the more intimate scenes. Also bear in mind, the play was in a fairly closed space, with a stage section and a lower section right by the front row (where I was seated).
What I thought was that when you see a play, you are intrinsically much more connected, emotionally, to the characters and to what happens on stage. The reason for this is because the actors are physically there, you could almost reach out and touch them. And because they're so close, and so real, it makes the audience feel so voyeuristic, as if we're simply intruding on the private lives of these people, these characters. Note that I had that same feeling every time one of the more emotional scenes came along (Larry and Anna arguing, Dan kissing Alice, the opening in the hospital, etc.). This is something I've felt often when I've seen plays, and even acting in them (I was in The Crucible a few years ago, and it was performed in a small drama studio, in one scene I was seated while acting less than two feet away from the audience).
In films, we don't have this. I feel like the screen itself acts sort of like a barrier, as if it's seperating you from what's going on. On the one hand, it's similar, like looking through a window, but at the same time what we see is limited and controlled, we may only be able to see one character's speech or reactions, whereas in a play you can see everything in the scene.
Here's what one of my friends had to say about the subject:
"I feel like the fact the actors are there makes it artificial.. With a film you feel like you're in their world"
Obviously this is a short comment meaning something larger, this is Twitter we're debating through after all. I have to say though, I personally feel the opposite is true instead. Since I had this feeling during Closer, by the way, it's worth mentioning that part of the play is specifically meant to make you feel uncomfortable and whatnot. One of the characters is very emotionally unstable, for example, and the entire premise of the play revolves around four people effectively ruining each other's lives through their relationships with each other...
So, what I want to know is what do you think? Do you agree that theatre makes you more emotionally invested in characters, or do you agree that film does so instead? What are your thoughts on the idea of looking into a character's life, and so on?
EDIT: Also, if you vote in the poll, then can you PLEASE post your view as well? I add the poll for an easier rundown of opinions, but I want to know details and reasons, not just 'Yes' or 'No', thank you.
EDIT 2: As another note, can people also say what their thoughts would be if the theatre scenario was a choice? Because there is a massive difference, I feel, in experiencing this in a small closed space like a drama studio, and a big open classical theatre. Hell, I've even known of plays at my university that have taken place in people's houses, in really small environments, and there's the aforementioned Crucible where I was two feet away from the audience, yet I also saw a great performance of Rent where it was in a more traditional stage setting...
Basically, last night (or tonight if you want to be pedantic) I went to see a performance of the play Closer at my student union. The play was written in the Nineties or early Noughties, I believe, and later adapted into a film with Jude Law and Clive Owen a few years ago. I saw the film first, and have the DVD, and after seeing the play tonight performed by students (one of whom I know) I have to say I prefer the play. But during the performance, a thought struck me, as we saw some of the more intimate scenes. Also bear in mind, the play was in a fairly closed space, with a stage section and a lower section right by the front row (where I was seated).
What I thought was that when you see a play, you are intrinsically much more connected, emotionally, to the characters and to what happens on stage. The reason for this is because the actors are physically there, you could almost reach out and touch them. And because they're so close, and so real, it makes the audience feel so voyeuristic, as if we're simply intruding on the private lives of these people, these characters. Note that I had that same feeling every time one of the more emotional scenes came along (Larry and Anna arguing, Dan kissing Alice, the opening in the hospital, etc.). This is something I've felt often when I've seen plays, and even acting in them (I was in The Crucible a few years ago, and it was performed in a small drama studio, in one scene I was seated while acting less than two feet away from the audience).
In films, we don't have this. I feel like the screen itself acts sort of like a barrier, as if it's seperating you from what's going on. On the one hand, it's similar, like looking through a window, but at the same time what we see is limited and controlled, we may only be able to see one character's speech or reactions, whereas in a play you can see everything in the scene.
Here's what one of my friends had to say about the subject:
"I feel like the fact the actors are there makes it artificial.. With a film you feel like you're in their world"
Obviously this is a short comment meaning something larger, this is Twitter we're debating through after all. I have to say though, I personally feel the opposite is true instead. Since I had this feeling during Closer, by the way, it's worth mentioning that part of the play is specifically meant to make you feel uncomfortable and whatnot. One of the characters is very emotionally unstable, for example, and the entire premise of the play revolves around four people effectively ruining each other's lives through their relationships with each other...
So, what I want to know is what do you think? Do you agree that theatre makes you more emotionally invested in characters, or do you agree that film does so instead? What are your thoughts on the idea of looking into a character's life, and so on?
EDIT: Also, if you vote in the poll, then can you PLEASE post your view as well? I add the poll for an easier rundown of opinions, but I want to know details and reasons, not just 'Yes' or 'No', thank you.
EDIT 2: As another note, can people also say what their thoughts would be if the theatre scenario was a choice? Because there is a massive difference, I feel, in experiencing this in a small closed space like a drama studio, and a big open classical theatre. Hell, I've even known of plays at my university that have taken place in people's houses, in really small environments, and there's the aforementioned Crucible where I was two feet away from the audience, yet I also saw a great performance of Rent where it was in a more traditional stage setting...
