Lights, Camera, Action
As I did reviews of Annie Hall and All About Eve I thought I should try and put into a more theoretical perspective the theatre vs. the film industry or the Old and the New with regards to the art form.
There are a few things to note however when comparing a theatre piece to a film: A film is a compilation of moving images on a large scale whereas a play is allowed at times to come to a standstill thereby leaving room for the actors to demonstrate in an excessive manner so as to drive home a point. This simply means that a play viewed on stage is drama at its most elevated state or in its least inspired state when it lurks in the morass. That is basically the difference between a good theatre piece and a bad one. In theatre the abstract i.e. drama takes centre stage therefore everything is heightened or excessive such as poetic symbols (words, character representations, material objects etc), the performance of the actors and the set design; all of this because there are noticeable limitations. Everything has to standout on stage in excess as a result of the minimalist setting so as to achieve the desired result. It is not the story that takes centre stage but the abstract known as drama or the production values. The story while necessary is oftentimes basic so that the production values can be enhanced whereas the inverse occurs in film i.e. the story takes centre stage because of the larger scope it acquires and the production values only serve to tell it (the story) in a particular way. This is why there are more liberties with theatre. Actors are allowed to flex their muscles and perform since they are the ones that bear the load. On stage the actor has more time to imbue (in excess) all the joys and sorrows of the character and this can either elevate the production or stunt it in the form of bathos. Just like a film everything in theatre has to contribute to the story in some way however the scope is much smaller therefore everything( the production values) is exaggerated and unrealistic most of the times and it is this that you remember most of all. In film whenever the moving images encounter breaks or stoppages that overwhelm the entire piece then it fails. These breaks and stoppages can be attributed to the most basic elements of film production: bad editing, an incomplete screenplay and a director that cannot put the pieces together. In theatre however these breaks and stoppages are welcome especially if you need to drive home a particular point. In film it is hard to disregard the external elements involved within the plot because every action causes a reaction much like life itself therefore everything has to add up within the context of the story itself without seeming superfluous. This normally means that the scope is larger than that of the theatre. In a good/great film no element of the story is disregarded or incompletely developed. If an element of the story is not developed in such a way to stand out then its place in the film is negligible and the director does not get to emphasize his point. In film once you mention it in the story you have to make it count and make it count quickly because you do not have the luxury to break off to emphasize your point; normally there are a lot of points that need to be elaborated. This is why subtlety is more important in film. In theatre you can take these liberties because the audience immediately understands the limitations particularly when it comes to technology. In theatre you can mention things in an excessive manner and get away with it. This does not happen in film to any great extent unless it is a musical (no wonder there are so few nowadays. The musical in film can simply be seen as a literal reflection of the action that takes place in the theatre only with a more expanded set design).In film interactions between characters are diluted or more realistic as opposed to the poetic grandeur normally seen in plays. When dramatic theatre pieces are made the subject of film one must always pay attention to the excessive elements that are diluted and why some of these theatre pieces are not successfully adapted to the film format is simply because of this imbued and oftentimes fanatical excess.
This would also explain why films are more successful commercially and why the dramatic works of the theatre are more successful artistically. This is discussed in my review of All About EVE (1950) where the theatre becomes a reference point for the film industry when seeking to enhance its artistic appeal. This is why several actors in the movie industry were once required to prove themselves by first performing on stage. The commercial success of the film industry in Hollywood has relegated the theatre to a backdoor alley for the privileged few who can appreciate its excesses. With the advent of Hollywood commercial success in the performing arts has been measured by it ever since. It is more convenient for how often can individuals be performing the same material at the same standard over and over as is done in the theatre. When it does come to an end the play is almost forgotten unless the theatre houses run the show all year round. In film an actor shoots for a couple of months and then is immediately released to play other parts for now it is preserved in print for as long as is possible and it can be viewed when the time arises with the advent of the VHS cassette, the DVD and Blu ray. The theatre is not dead but it has been sufficiently relegated to an exclusive elitist element that relishes its own decadence. As stated before the theatre remains relevant solely because an actor is still judged by his or her ability to command a live audience. The average man of today will not be so captivated by theatre productions once the film industry takes hold unless it makes him laugh. Wherever theatre production now thrives it is a sign of poverty in the arts industry. The film industry offers more opportunities for actors to ply their trade. The television is an offshoot of film which is captured on print but is supposedly performed before a television audience. Some of these television shows dance to their own tune oblivious of the cynicism and contempt that they breed. With crass commercialism, associated with the film industry and television, the theatre still holds its own since audiences seek the cushion of the bygone era when the abstract that is drama thrived. Commercialism in the arts also relegates some films that pride themselves on expressing solely dramatic qualities inspired by the art form developed in the theatre. If all else fails one should do like the song in Singin’ in the Rain says and ‘Make ‘em laugh’. This is why films can no longer be so bogged down by pathos that they do not give the audience some cheer or a proper reason for such an excessive portrayal; this comes in the form of a context that is a bit removed from the tragedy and moves on with or without it (the personal situation of the character). You will no longer have plays speaking about a man who accidentally has sex with his mother and then goes blind as in the play Oedipus Rex or the character of Greek hero who would murder his children as a result of madness cast upon him by the gods as in the tales of Heracles. Shakespeare, today, seems to be famous for the wrong reasons. His bloated poetry presented in the form of dialogue for the characters onstage is one reason why plays appear so excessive and burdensome to the average man of today such as me. Shakespeare is praised as being one of the greatest writers of all time however that was only for his time when the theatre was the sole form of amusement for patrons of the arts and the madding crowd. As highly regarded as he is anyone with Shakespearean aspirations and style of delivery would crumble and appeal to only the most decadent of patrons. If you do not appreciate Shakespeare today you are seen as common or lacking in refinement by the ruling classes who like the ruling classes before them saw only salvation in the past and were so unprepared for the future. One benefit of commercialism is that it refines the dramatic element and makes it more accessible. Shakespeare in Love (1998) featured the bloated poetry of Shakespeare but the context of the film was developed outside of the theatre and so we were able to understand that the body does not lie despite sententious phraseology that rarely has much meaning but to appeal to one’s spiritual side. Poetry which preceded the performing arts must have been viewed in the same light for it too seemed a bit excessive until it was refined by the performing arts who assumed that the basis of human expression was in the form of poetic oeuvre. Works by Homer and Virgil or the poets of Asia would have been revered in their time but as time progressed the theatre arrived in a form that simultaneously preserved and advanced the mode of expression especially as the crowds became larger; some with only a passing interest in the art form. One can imagine being in the old days hearing a orator recite Homer but how many people would that attract but a small group. The skills of the orator or storyteller would forever be revered although it is a profession attributed solely to more mature individuals. If one was able to set up a stage with actors playing the parts of characters in the poem and then place them on a platform before the crowd one can just imagine how the passersby would gravitate to this landing and so the poetry of Homer became more accessible. This is why Shakespeare adapted his plays from famous stories and expanded it and gave them more detail through visual cues. He along with his other playwrights still clung to the poetic tradition which only faded over time when people began speaking plainer language. With the advancement of capital the need to preserve the performing arts came with the growth of the film industry and with photography. When it is preserved it can be manipulated and so add to the manipulation of the audience who will get the impression that this form is more reflective of a fictional world. The novel in prose ran counter to poetry as well however it was limited since not many would be able to identify with the descriptive elements of the plot which are visual cues. It still has an abstract element that can only be visualized more accurately by the average man onstage or in the cinema for the visual abstract created by the author is given a more distinct palate by the filmmakers or the theatre production. Film too can be abstract however being abstract is the essence of art. If it were not abstract art would be too plain to be distinguished as a medium especially as it is determined by a subjective interpretation of an objective element. If art did not have an abstract or a mystery then it would not make our world seem that mysterious. If the truth becomes known then there will be no need for the abstract. The abstract suggests that something is subjected to various interpretations and these various interpretations can cloud the truth. Art is impressionistic and so film too will not be able to tackle all the issues of reality. There will always be those that are simply not taken with art because it merely clouds the issue however most subjects in history, philosophy, religion and science are subject to different interpretations which suggests that there is always an inscrutable element that can never be resolved into objective truth. The same applies to the performing arts. Artists have been known to exaggerate their environment and so cloud the truth for dramatic effect; this also apples to film and the theatre as an art form. This inscrutable element is mostly linked to the infinite which cannot be fathomed by the finite possibilities of mankind. This theme was brilliantly explored in 2001: A Space Odyssey. The infinite results in the defeat of many art forms since the infinite always imply the possibility of expansion. When something can no longer expand it has accepted its limitations and will therefore stagnate and fade. The infinite is why film has been able to reach a wider audience than the theatre for the environments it creates promises an added dimension for the imagination to explore. This inscrutable element is therefore essential because it still requires the audience to imagine. Without the imagination therefore art is dead. It is the imagination that has resulted in our greatest failures and greatest successes. When film builds upon the premise of the theatre it must therefore still reveal its own limitations with regards to a particular subject yet still add a new dimension to art’s possibilities. The imagination trumps logic when you are unable to predict the future, comprehend the present or accurately portray the past.
Film was a distinctive art form because one must always have a storyboard with a layout of how the story will progress. This storyboard comes in the form of sketches, photography or in the form of a screenplay modeled off practices in the theatre. The urge to make this storyboard roll over and appear as if it is seamless is the essence of filmmaking. Writing on a piece of paper and having people simply recite onstage is no longer enough. The still art form also becomes influential film and you get to understand how dynamic film really is as it absorbs all other art forms. The crafts of old must be expanded through its preservation in another medium that is less reliant on bloated dialogue, stand up comedians, high pitched singing and individual dilemmas that only reinforce that tragedy is the essence of man’s existence. For this to be seamless a larger context must be recreated so that an audience can get a sense of the characters true place in an environment without it being forced down their throat by a soliloquy etc. The art form of the live performance will not die it will simply be subsumed under film. There was a time when action for a film took place on the sets created on the studio lots. Overtime they shot films in open locations so as to expand the potential of the art form and provide a more suitable backdrop for the environment. I recently did a review of Annie Hall and one can see how Allen uses dramatic techniques of the theatre to make you feel as if you are a part of the performance as they would do in a play as he speaks directly to you the viewer. The context however was not the stage but his own mind or the movie would not make sense. If these experiences were ever to resonate with the audience then he had to personalize it in the form of ‘mental masturbation’ and this personalization had to be given a context where it can be accessible to the average moviegoer through visual images. It takes place in his mind because his mind is the most logical place for the action to take place as he is recollecting moments in his life with a humourous twist. The only moments when Alvy, the lead, appears onstage is when he is doing an act for a live audience.
It is the same with film since the theatre cannot reach everyone once populations start to increase and people demand a more vivid recreation of the surroundings. In time film will be replaced by something that can capture our imagination more effectively. It remains to be seen what that art form will be. It will occur in a fashion similar to how film replaced the theatre: film will not appeal to everyone or people will only have a passing interest in the art form. The better quality of some dramatic films will become a treasure trove for none but the aficionados who will appear to be affected by dotage in praising a dead art form which will only serve its purpose by influencing the birth of a new art form. People are now gravitating to expressing their own subjective interpretations of the past or contemporary society. The idea that art is subjective is beginning to take hold. No one person can presume to have a stake to another one’s imagination. When film came along it was seen by the purists in the theatre as an exercise in futility or a vulgar expression for those with no artistic credibility. The question is: Will filmgoers now pass judgment on these art forms that are emerging which will eventually supplant it? Film however remains much more dynamic for technology is involved and technology is constantly changing. Film will soon be shot exclusively in 3D and HD. Film has shown that it is capable of absorbing the essence of other art forms which are too bloated to be absorbed by the average individual such as the dramatic elements in the theatre. As I will say again: the imagination trumps logic when you are unable to predict the future, comprehend the present or accurately portray the past.
No comments:
Post a Comment