We really don't care about theatre do we?

you're making like montage is just another nifty gadget in the film director's toolbox; really it is ESSENTIAL to film, much more so than lighting and blocking is to theatre

xpost

the spatial quality of film and theater are to a large extent opposed.... the camera's "field of vision" is like an upside-down triangle, whereas a conventional stage is a bit the opposite (why it's rare for a theater director to stage a signification action in the back of the stage--harder to ensure that the audience's attention is directed to it). so they pose very different staging problems. i don't quite buy aimless's argument that this means they are different only in the method by which an audience's attention is directed. i think there is a place for ontological speculation....

slocki, it seems to me a hell of a lot of great films were made in the 1930s, and many of them were only a few baby steps away from being filmed stage productions with over-the-shoulder reaction shots and the occassional montage (thank you Sergei) to spice them up.

If montage is as ESSENTIAL as you say it is, then these films would have failed at birth, rather than becoming successful films - which, not coincidentally are still watched, enjoyed and studied today. Montage is just another nifty tool in a director's toolbox. It just happens to be such a useful tool that it gets used a lot.

30s films are usually edited pretty briskly, so it's not simply a matter of using up a reel of film shooting an integral theatrical performance. "montage" doesn't mean soviet montage necessarily--just, y'know, editing bits of film together. all hollywood films are edited together from master shots, medium shots (plan american etc.), and occasionally inserts/close ups at a rate of i dunno one shot every 10-12 seconds. (nowadays it's more like every 5 seconds but we're talking about the 1930s)

i think this is pretty important: "filmed theater" isn't really as simple as that, the fact of it being filmed and edited together in the conventional way transforms the way the story is being told. perhaps the "meaning" is ultimately the same, but i'm not sure that's true or if it even matters so much.

to get "filmed theater" you need to go back to 1895-1910 or so, like the original version of the "wizard of oz" which is basically "selected scenes from the stage play of 'the wizard of oz'"--but as i noted above the spatial aspect of film is such that a stage performance is NECESSARILY transformed if it is to be "faithfully" captured on film. those early films that don't bother with such a transformation are often incomprehensible and usually dismissed as "primtive" (that's another hill of beans or whatever).

some "fixed setup" films do sort of selfconsciously evoke a "theatrical" quality, or even overtly beg comparison to theater: oliveira, etc.--or to "primitive" cinema (angelopoulos). and certain kinds of framing (even outside the context of a long-take style) can evoke theater, "performance" too with fruitful results. but lots of fixed-setup films really don't evoke theater at all. it's impossible to imagine hou or jia films as anything but cinema--the natural settings, natural lighting, etc. are absolutely critical.

anyway yeah so i think cinema can do a lot with "theatricality" and i don't think calling a film "theatrical" is a very convincing slur (unless you're writing in 1905, maybe).

i'm repeating myself and possibly not making sense.\

XPOST

s1ocki, i didn't find aimless's post dismissive. anyways i'm not a film student or anything. i'm not sure about agree/disagree--i don't think i dismissed aimless's post or embraced it fully. i just sort of responded to it.

!!

Seen anything else? New Yorkers, Albee's Seascape?

that's probably it, coupled with the world's general philistinism. I wuv the theatre and wish i went to it more often. The last thing I saw was a monster production of Titus Andronicus before Christmas.

We need a rolling Theatre S/D thread really, but as you all say, nobody cares.

xp i care

Yes, but why? (I'm not being flippant.)

speaking of revivals, though, when I was in LA, I took my grandmother to one of the Reprise! shows, which had great original choreography and housed in a small enough theatre (at UCLA) that the amplification (live orchestra) wasn't overbearing. one of the leads, Tami Tappan Damiano, was moderately impressive too. they also do one-weekend shows with some medium-sized Hollywood types (when I was there - Working, with among others Camryn Manheim).

I basically prefer fringier theatre... partly this is the indie kid in me, but I think also that fringy theatre is more true to what the theatre is all about. It's still more expensive than I'd like it to be... why can't they just replace all actors with cheaper non-unionised Eastern Europeans?

The thing I hate most about the theatre is that in general you have to book in advance and can't just show up on whim to things like you can with other things.

when i say "beyond realism" i mean it in the most mundane way that you might not find interesting at all, that's cool. for example, in film a table is always a table but in the theatre that exact same table could be a table, a bed, an autopsy slab, a raft, a shelter, or any number of things. e.g. a Robert Lepage play i saw where a washing machine doubles up as a space ship (not as ridiculous as it sounds). there are any number of things you can "only do in the theatre" whereas the public perception is that theatre is limited in some way, compared to film. i think it's the opposite. this needs lots of examples & i don't have the time to go into it now but i'll come back to it later.

theres a bunch of interesting stuff on in london, and here in the provinces we've got "the romans in britain" next month in sheffield, dario fo's "mistero buffo" in april, and in leeds the trinidadian "three sisters" at the WYP, which i was reading about the other day.

I love the crucible, but the last thing i saw there was a hmmmm version of "much ado about nothing"

saw the history boys too in sheffield which was excellent, although i thought the set was a bit showy.

i dont understand going to the theatre in london, from what my parents go through it seems as though you have to book tickets a year in advance or something?!?!! up here i just turn up generally.

mind you, that yforward planning allowed me to see the full 9 hours of "coast of utopia" at the national which was pretty fucking special, if a bit harsh on yr ass

ok - i think the the table thing is an example of something that opens out wider possibilites for theatre, i dont mean it just like "props in the theatre can be many different things and that's why it's important" but as i said i'll give more examples later.

a few times a year the theater i work at hosts these vast scripted showcases put on by a kids' dance studio that rehearses in their own space for months; holds a single dress rehearsal in our theater, during the real-time runtime of which i design+program the lights+fx; then opens the following night. always a lil fraught and becomes more so if i have a conflict and have to deputize someone (last time i did this i did not see the results of course but afterwards the studio's formidable auteur demanded a reduction). cannot work this weekend's show because am starting rehearsals up the street for my own prod of the tempest, but was able to design the show at dress tonight accompanied by my substitute for the operation, ben, a much sharper guy and faster learner than last time who is very interested in and excited about the work and whom i'm not worried about, but whom i have had to train up for this v quickly. as we passed thru the office on our way into the house, the theater's exec director stopped us to say meaningfully, under his breath, "ben is an experienced theater tech." ben has run lights for our last few concerts, so we nodded knowingly and said "of course he is." we entered the house and climbed to the tech table. thirty seconds after the show's director sat down next to us and i made introductions, ben neatly clicked a pen open over his copy of the script, looked at the first lighting cue, and in a v winning dot-every-i just-checking kind of voice said "what's 'upstage' mean again?"

― difficult listening hour, Thursday, May 12, 2022 10:23 PM bookmarkflaglink

update: this guy (not really named ben) is now my constant collaborator and has entirely taken over designing these dance shows; could not live without him.

Go Ben go

I've been thinking about trying to go to the theatre regularly in London w/o seeing any adaptations or revivals. Could be a fun challenge!

i was in the West End yesterday and passed by VANYA starring andrew scott and i was like wow, i didn’t know about that, i’ll see andrew scott in uncle vanya and i crossed the street to read the notices and finally realised it’s a ONE MAN SHOW inspired by uncle vanya and instantly i lost all interest can you imagine

Been going on about an album of Patti Lupone cabaret performances from 1980 called Live at Les Mouches an another thread but maybe this is a better place. From earlier today before the slowdown:

Bruce Springsteen - Classic or Dud ?

This thing has such a cult there was even a reanactment tribute: https://playbill.com/article/diva-talk-chatting-with-lupone-at-les-mouchess-leslie-kritzer-plus-rogers-evita-on-disc-com-135109

From the other thread:
Been digging a live version of “Because the Night” by Patti…Lupone. She makes it sound like an outtake from The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

― The Ginger Bakersfield Sound (James Redd and the Blecchs), Saturday, 9 March 2024 11:50 (yesterday) link

From this:
https://playbill.com/article/patti-lupone-at-les-mouches-vintage-lupone-club-act-arrives-in-stores-nov-11-com-155028

― The Ginger Bakersfield Sound (James Redd and the Blecchs), Saturday, 9 March 2024 11:57 (yesterday) link

Which was a midnight Saturday cabaret show she was doing in 1980 while she was in the midst of doing Evita.

― The Ginger Bakersfield Sound (James Redd and the Blecchs), Saturday, 9 March 2024 11:59 (yesterday) link

From old cassette tapes! Pretty appropriate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMRF7PiJBAs

I found some weird casting things while I was deep down that rabbit hole yesterday. Maybe I will post, perhaps on a new thread.

Good in-depth review of the Jeremy Strong / Michael Imperioli Enemy of the People on Broadway. Interesting that it barely discusses the staging, where other shows directed by Sam Gold usually have conceptual tricks that overshadow the story and actors.

i wrote about "An Enemy of the People," those enviro-protests i somehow missed, Amy Herzog's Ibsenism and the gently troubling poems of Tomas Tranströmer, the allure of Jeremy Strong, and the inconvenience of telling the truth. https://t.co/JAekaWfHFS

— Vinson Cunningham (@vcunningham) March 22, 2024