Author Topic: Live Performances vs. Televised/Filmed Performances  (Read 1936 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

dallas10086

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
  • Current Gig: Freelance PSM; currently Charlotte Squawks 12
  • Experience: Professional
Live Performances vs. Televised/Filmed Performances
« on: Dec 06, 2013, 03:09 pm »
A great point came up in the Sound of Music Live! thread:
Is this helpful of theatre? Or is it troubling to see live performances on television when people aren't necessarily leaving their homes to see live theatre?
A friend of mine and I come back to this discussion often, since there's been a surge in televised/film productions within the past couple of years - Fathom Events televises live productions of Met Opera into movie theaters, as well as (if I remember correctly) performances of Company, The Nutcracker, and Memphis, among several others. For those of us outside of NYC where most of these original performances are held, it's a gold mine - I get to see performances at a reasonable rate that otherwise I would have to spend money on not only a show ticket but hotel and airplane tickets, driving my cost of seeing the performances live substantially.

Does broadcasting the performances somehow demean them or lower their artistic level? Do they hinder industry professionals or help them? Is this going to be the new standard to make the arts more accessible to the masses? Or will it make them too lazy to see the real thing onstage?

nick_tochelli

  • Loved and Missed.
  • Permanent Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 448
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Nick Tochelli's Blog: The Backstage Ballet
  • Affiliations: AEA, SMA
  • Current Gig: PM- Godlight Theatre Company/Inside Sales:Barbizon Lighting
  • Experience: Former SM
Re: Live Performances vs. Televised/Filmed Performances
« Reply #1 on: Dec 07, 2013, 09:57 am »
Well in terms of a regular broadway show being recorded and being aired it most certainly doesn't hurt those involved. they essentially collect a double paycheck plus royalties. I somewhat enjoy that I am still collecting royalties on a documentary I was "in" during a 2009 tour. I never made it on screen except maybe in the background once, but I still seem to get a check once a year.

As for devaluing live performances...it's nearly impossible to say. There are hardcore Broadway fans who were upset because it wasn't like a live performance and they'll go continue to support Live theater. There are those who maybe hate live theater for one reason or another but maybe this opened their eyes to it. Maybe Broadway gained a few more fans. We may have also gained a new Julie Andrews who is sitting in some no name town who just got influenced to pursue a career in musical theater. Maybe the next Baz Lurhmann was watching. Who knows.

The danger will be if this continues and it broadcasts current running productions on Broadway that's going to cut into the bottom line. "Why do we need to go to NYC and spend thousands of dollars when we can curl up at home and watch a show?" well, producers will need to jack ticket prices again and make Broadway shows even more expensive. This is the same problem the NFL has with their live crowds. Going to an NFL game is way more expensive than Broadway and it takes up way more time. Stadiums are having to put in free Wi-Fi, and provide fantasy football updates so people get a more "in home" experience while out at the stadium.

I don't really view this as a bad thing for live theater. For now.

PSMKay

  • Site Founder
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1357
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
    • http://www.smnetwork.org
  • Affiliations: None.
  • Current Gig: SMNetwork *is* my production.
  • Experience: Former SM
Re: Live Performances vs. Televised/Filmed Performances
« Reply #2 on: Dec 15, 2013, 03:55 pm »
So I've been considering this for a while, even before this thread came up. Believe it or not, my thinking was actually triggered by Lady Gaga's video for "Applause." It struck me as odd that a video about applauding does not show a single shot of an audience. This led to some thought about the difference between passive & active consumption, particularly in American entertainment.

Television is the most passive of media forms. There is no interaction expected from the audience, and the viewers have grown accustomed to accepting the standard television format of content/commercial alternation. However, theatre mandates a live audience. The audience at a live performance has a very critical role, both in terms of their response and their silence as a group. The responses of an audience inform the rest of those present on proper/improper reactions to the events portrayed.

This also led me to consider the importance of the audience in more restrictive states. Back in the communist era of the USSR, theatre productions would run as "dress rehearsals" for months on end and never actually open. Opening would subject them to review by the government censors, but as long as the shows were running as "rehearsals" they were able to get their message out to as many people as possible. It seems very "first world" to me that American culture has grown so disconnected from the crucial presence of the audience, when other cultures have had to go to such lengths - and recently at that - to make sure it survives.

Attending a big rock concert or a sporting event will not have the same effect as attending a live theatre performance with a smaller group. Live theatre teaches the audience that even their silence has an effect - a lesson that I think is absolutely mandatory and sadly missing in the modern American consumer/viewer.

 

riotous