Stage vs Screen
Aug. 4th, 2011 04:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
juriousWell... this is unheard of, I think... thus far this year theatre and film are drawing on my tally. :) I've been to the theatre three times and I've been to the cinema three times. I doubt that this has ever happened before. And it is entirely possible that, by the year out, theatre might win. Who knows?
As it stands:
I haven't spoken much about theatre before so, hell, why not?
Like most kids from my area, with my background and upbringing, the only familiarity I had with the theatre before secondary school was that of the pantomime - and then I only got to see that because my late nan used to take my sister and I because, I can tell you for certain, my parents never would have! I used to enjoy it - it was colourful, silly, and *real* - as in all there in front of you. It kept one's five-year-old self quite entertained. :)
It was only with the ascension from junior to secondary school that more (shall we say?) "serious" theatre began to show its existence to us TV-fed kids. It went hand-in-hand with English study it seemed and thus we were introduced through our hormonal teenage years to the likes of Shakespeare and, if we were lucky, a few other playwrights (J.B. Priestly, in my case... possibly others I've forgotten). And I think we enjoyed those trips to the theatre when they intermittently occured. They were different, they were interesting and, though we saw some awful plays ("Romeo and Juliet" with the Montagues as aliens, set around a climbing frame! God please never again!), we also saw some cracking productions (a fabulous take on "An Inspector Calls" and *Christopher Eccleston* as Hamlet - fuck yes! There can be something on offer in the more northern reaches of this island once in a while!).
However, there was always this sense that you were partaking in something not of your class, that sensation that you are not wealthy or well-educated enough to be sat watching a live performance in a golden-gilted auditorium (well, they seem to be gold-gilt more often than not... but not always...).
Maybe that's why, even now, whilst I'm much more comfortable moseying off to see a play in Oxford or London (or in one case, in 2009, New York!), other people I know look at me gone-out like I'm doing something that doesn't quite suit me or my station in life. Does anyone get what I mean? There's this preconceived idea of who theatre is made for and, though it doesn't exist everywhere, it generally hangs about like an insidious miasma in the air and clouds peoples' perception of it. Hence probably why it is still avoided by many people who would, if they gave it a chance, thoroughly enjoy themselves. (I'm determined to get my mother to see a play one of these days - determined!) I mean, let's face it, when it costs £13 to go see a 3D movie at Odeon Lincoln, it's not even that much more expensive to see a play - sometimes it's cheaper! And when you see a show, you see something unique - it might run for four months, but each performance is different; it'll never happen again. And you never need to look like a complete twat wearing 3D specs in the theatre because, hey, those people on that stage in front of you are already in three dimensions! ;)
But speaking for me personally... well, I don't know what it is exactly about theatre that I like so much. I think it's the fact that it's live, it's personal, it's *real*... and it engages your imagination like no multi-million dollar blockbuster does. (Well... maybe that's just me.) I'm still too darn poor to go very often but when there's something worth seeing - be it a specific play, a specific troupe, a specific production, etc - I do my best to make the effort and have some fun away from the real world for an evening (or matinee... occasionally...). Theatre has, this year, been responsible for rescuing my artistic soul from limbo - I've not drawn so much in years! It's introduced me to new people, new places, and (I hope) broadened my horizons a little. That's why I want to see more.
I'm not going to ramble about cinema. Why should I? Yes it's moving and beautiful and gives one a bit of escapism but... it's not the same. It's not *personal*. I have a philosophy that we all see a different film when we watch the same one, but at the same time, we're all watching the same footage. It's not so intricately personal as theatre where a slightly different play is performed on each night that it runs, and, even if you and some friends go to the same night, depending on where you're sat and how you interpret things, you each arguably see a different play. In fact, there's potentially an infinite amount of different plays to be seen even on one night.
Anyways, to wrap up this ramble, speaking for myself, 2011 may well be the year that theatre gives cinema the first beating in my life. I know that my sister and I are going to see Fiennes in "The Tempest" in September. That still leaves time for another film to match the tally, if there is indeed anything else worth seeing this year. But then I'm sure I could fit in another play or two and maybe, come new year's eve, be able to say that "I've seen more theatre than film this year!" and revel in how much more geeky a person that makes me. ;) (I certainly want to see Grantham Dramatic Society's "Going Postal" at the end of November/start of December - a Discworld play just a few minutes down the A1? Yes, I think so!)
With visitng the cinema often costing more than at least the amdram performances, I don't see why I shouldn't choose to see a play rather than a movie, the latter which will no doubt be on DVD in 8 weeks anyway... ;)
--x-posted to http://jurious.livejournal.com/
As it stands:
| Theatre | Cinema |
| A Midsummer Night's Dream (January 2011) Studio Theatre Club, Abingdon | Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 (January 2011) |
| The Man Who Was Thursday (May 2011) Studio Theatre Club, Abingdon | X-Men: First Class (June 2011) |
| Richard III (July 2011) At the Old Vic, London | Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (July 2011) |
I haven't spoken much about theatre before so, hell, why not?
Like most kids from my area, with my background and upbringing, the only familiarity I had with the theatre before secondary school was that of the pantomime - and then I only got to see that because my late nan used to take my sister and I because, I can tell you for certain, my parents never would have! I used to enjoy it - it was colourful, silly, and *real* - as in all there in front of you. It kept one's five-year-old self quite entertained. :)
It was only with the ascension from junior to secondary school that more (shall we say?) "serious" theatre began to show its existence to us TV-fed kids. It went hand-in-hand with English study it seemed and thus we were introduced through our hormonal teenage years to the likes of Shakespeare and, if we were lucky, a few other playwrights (J.B. Priestly, in my case... possibly others I've forgotten). And I think we enjoyed those trips to the theatre when they intermittently occured. They were different, they were interesting and, though we saw some awful plays ("Romeo and Juliet" with the Montagues as aliens, set around a climbing frame! God please never again!), we also saw some cracking productions (a fabulous take on "An Inspector Calls" and *Christopher Eccleston* as Hamlet - fuck yes! There can be something on offer in the more northern reaches of this island once in a while!).
However, there was always this sense that you were partaking in something not of your class, that sensation that you are not wealthy or well-educated enough to be sat watching a live performance in a golden-gilted auditorium (well, they seem to be gold-gilt more often than not... but not always...).
Maybe that's why, even now, whilst I'm much more comfortable moseying off to see a play in Oxford or London (or in one case, in 2009, New York!), other people I know look at me gone-out like I'm doing something that doesn't quite suit me or my station in life. Does anyone get what I mean? There's this preconceived idea of who theatre is made for and, though it doesn't exist everywhere, it generally hangs about like an insidious miasma in the air and clouds peoples' perception of it. Hence probably why it is still avoided by many people who would, if they gave it a chance, thoroughly enjoy themselves. (I'm determined to get my mother to see a play one of these days - determined!) I mean, let's face it, when it costs £13 to go see a 3D movie at Odeon Lincoln, it's not even that much more expensive to see a play - sometimes it's cheaper! And when you see a show, you see something unique - it might run for four months, but each performance is different; it'll never happen again. And you never need to look like a complete twat wearing 3D specs in the theatre because, hey, those people on that stage in front of you are already in three dimensions! ;)
But speaking for me personally... well, I don't know what it is exactly about theatre that I like so much. I think it's the fact that it's live, it's personal, it's *real*... and it engages your imagination like no multi-million dollar blockbuster does. (Well... maybe that's just me.) I'm still too darn poor to go very often but when there's something worth seeing - be it a specific play, a specific troupe, a specific production, etc - I do my best to make the effort and have some fun away from the real world for an evening (or matinee... occasionally...). Theatre has, this year, been responsible for rescuing my artistic soul from limbo - I've not drawn so much in years! It's introduced me to new people, new places, and (I hope) broadened my horizons a little. That's why I want to see more.
I'm not going to ramble about cinema. Why should I? Yes it's moving and beautiful and gives one a bit of escapism but... it's not the same. It's not *personal*. I have a philosophy that we all see a different film when we watch the same one, but at the same time, we're all watching the same footage. It's not so intricately personal as theatre where a slightly different play is performed on each night that it runs, and, even if you and some friends go to the same night, depending on where you're sat and how you interpret things, you each arguably see a different play. In fact, there's potentially an infinite amount of different plays to be seen even on one night.
Anyways, to wrap up this ramble, speaking for myself, 2011 may well be the year that theatre gives cinema the first beating in my life. I know that my sister and I are going to see Fiennes in "The Tempest" in September. That still leaves time for another film to match the tally, if there is indeed anything else worth seeing this year. But then I'm sure I could fit in another play or two and maybe, come new year's eve, be able to say that "I've seen more theatre than film this year!" and revel in how much more geeky a person that makes me. ;) (I certainly want to see Grantham Dramatic Society's "Going Postal" at the end of November/start of December - a Discworld play just a few minutes down the A1? Yes, I think so!)
With visitng the cinema often costing more than at least the amdram performances, I don't see why I shouldn't choose to see a play rather than a movie, the latter which will no doubt be on DVD in 8 weeks anyway... ;)
--x-posted to http://jurious.livejournal.com/
