shakespearemom

Writing in the Maelstrom

&
 

Sep 20 2008

Film vs. Theatre

Published by shakespeare at 7:00 am under Theatre, Writing Edit This

I created a new category this morning, primarily because I find myself drawn more and more to discussing theatre. I am currently working on a novel, yes, but my plays are calling me (a common occurrence). Theatre, in general, is more on the cutting edge of literary movement than most other genres. Its edge or newness is often not too marketable, but that matters less than it would for films, for instance, which are pretty much all about marketability to a general audience (Indy films being the exception).

And yet my love of theatre stems not from its edge, but from its other qualities, namely its limitations. In a film, one can do almost anything. One can add special effects, sounds, and music; one can film almost anywhere, even in unsafe places, as long as one has permission. A film can cast hundreds of actors (war scenes, etc.), and directors can set up scenes in every possible way, rehearsing and doing take after take to get the scenes perfect (one would think there would be fewer mistakes doing it this way, although that has not been my observation).

With theatre, limitations are the norm. Very few plays are given the budget for spectacular sets (think Les Miserables, Phantom of the Opera). Most theatres can handle perhaps three separate spaces, and designing a fixed set within those bounds is very difficult for a tech director. Thus, ideally, a playwright needs to put all the action in 1-2 spaces (one is best). And having only one set limits the action extraordinarily. Cast numbers are severely restricted, as well. And all of the action happens live…mistakes are mistakes, and forgotten lines, costume malfunctions, set problems, etc. are noticed by many.

With all these limitations, one might wonder why I’d prefer theatre. Sure, films are more expensive, yet they can DO so much more, right?

Not so. It’s the very nature of theatre that I love, as an actor, a playwright, and an audience member. I know that anything can happen, and when it does, I am right there. I am not acting to a camera lens, but to live people, who are watching every move, listening to every word, and reacting to everything immediately. The only thing that beats the thrill of acting in front of audiences is watching one’s own words acted on a stage, seeing what one has written spark reactions, laughter, tears, gasps. And I adore the limitations. It’s like writing a sonnet instead of free verse–the structure forces one to think harder, to fit things in so they can work onstage.

I guess I need to stop writing this blog and go write for real (though this is real writing, too). The call back to my plays is stronger than I thought. I need to get this novel done so I can get back to my plays!

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
Possibly-related Articles:                                        (auto-generated)

3 Responses to “Film vs. Theatre”

  1. fliton 20 Sep 2008 at 8:26 am edit this

    I’m really looking forward to trying to write a play …. although I don’t know that I would if I didn’t have Ross and Stephanie to help me… ’twill be a first for me.

  2. stephanieebarron 20 Sep 2008 at 10:18 am edit this

    Plays count as literature or Shakespeare wouldn’t still be taught in school.

    I’m not knowledgeable to do so myself.

    Go with where your passion leads you. Passion can lead you to your best work.

  3. Tamsen Butleron 20 Sep 2008 at 5:36 pm edit this

    The best thing is seeing one of your productions come to life…I’ve done that a couple of time and there is nothing like it in this world.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Some Today.com contributors may have received a fee or a promotional product or service from a manufacturer for promotional consideration, while others receive no consideration at all. Each contributor is responsible for disclosing any such promotional consideration.