Having said that, certain pieces are enhanced by the big screen: dance has been successful in the 3D format (Bausch, Wim Wender's tribute to the goddess of German Dance Theatre brought the audience right into the thick of her Rite of Spring and Matthew Bourne's Swan Lake gains an intimacy, ironically, by being blown up to a bigger size). And, frankly, there's little chance of my visiting La Scala to see Roland Petit's Notre Dame de Paris in the near future. A satellite link and a HD screen are my best bet.
Unlike comic book author Alan Moore, who doesn't regard cinema as being all that (comic book authors might be a little sensitive about who gets called "high art" but the state of the current blockbuster industry does support his complaint), I am enthusiastic about cinema - I am currently trawling through the Glasgow Film Festival Brochure in hope of deciding whether I want to follow the James Cagney season of fight for Joss Weedon's Much Ado About Nothing. Part of a generation that learnt about international cinema due to staying up late to watch Channel 4 in hope of some naughty bits, I don't just see it as a parasitic art that devours talented actors from the stage and diminishes the complexity of human existence by replacing recognisable body shapes with a minimal range of glamorous cyphers.
That said, the context of theatre and cinema are very different. Going to the cinema involves eating large amounts of junk food - which compensate for the scripts which would be laughed out of the theatre - sitting behind a two year old child who decides to bellow throughout and not hanging about afterwards. It also connects me to a far larger audience, a more common experience and is cheaper and more comfortable than a night at the ballet.
Theatre, on the other hand, is all about the unrepeatable moment, the proximity of the performer, the ways around naturalism, the immediate chat over post-show drinks and the sense of being part of a local audience.
The Festival Theatre, however, isn't necessarily the place where I go for that. It's got a sense of scale, and importance, and I travel there because they put on the big names. If part of my reason to go to theatre is to learn more about theatre - and it is - then getting to see Verdi's Nabucco is important, regardless of whether it is live or screened.
I shall conclude with a few unanswered questions in the best tradition of post-modern scholarship - if I keep this up, someone will have to offer me a PhD.
How do theatre companies view these showings - are they an event in themselves or an attempt to enchant new audiences, who might then go and see a live performance? Is the direction adapted to the screen, or do the acts turn out their usual repertoire of expressions and moves? And is the emotional impact - and atmosphere of the screening - more akin to the popcorn popping multiplex or the seriousness of a night at The Arches with David Hughes Dance?
Listings
No comments :
Post a Comment