Theatre vs. Film

Most people involved with the dramatic arts will at some point wrestle with the dilemma of whether to more seriously pursue film or theatre.  It doesn’t matter if you’re an actor, a director, a writer, or a technician; it’s a decision for everyone.  And although some people are able to successfully bounce back and forth between both worlds, the choice still brings major ramifications.   

Aesthetically, they both have their strengths, so I think it’s difficult to say one is more attractive from an art perspective.  Film has close-ups.  Theatre has soliloquies.  Both reveal the inner life of the character.  Film is great for the verisimilitude that can be created.  Conversely, the absence of reality makes theatre ideal for capturing abstract notions.  In theatre, a director can rehearse with actors for weeks, but in the end, he must trust them to deliver on stage over multiple performances.  In film, the director only need to coerce the performance from an actor once, but the camera never lies, so he has to get it exactly right and usually under extremely stressful circumstances. 

The Case for Film

Although I’ve spent most of my life producing theatre, I’ve always been drawn to film’s power to reach audiences.  Film is simply cheaper and easier to consume.  For directors, film also offers the opportunity to produce something persistent.  In theatre, the playwright’s work is captured for eternity, but the director’s work, the production, is ephemeral.  Theatre just cannot match film’s ability to reach audiences widely and over time.  As Woodrow Wilson reportedly said after screening Birth of a Nation, “It’s like writing history with lightning.”

The Case for Theatre

On the other hand, it’s much more difficult and expensive to produce film.  So with the greater financial risk, more voices get involved in the production, the material becomes “safer” and it becomes increasingly difficult to take artistic, social, or political risk.  So theatre tends to run slightly ahead on the risk curve when compared to film.  And to counter the audience reach claim, theatre closes the audience feedback loop.  It’s much easier, to involve an audience in some form or another, throughout the creation cycle, and use their feedback to affect the creation.  In film, by the time you get audience feedback, it’s usually too late or too expensive to make any major changes.

My Take

After debating this question for a long time, I finally settled on pursuing film.  For starters, I’ve already got a background in theatre.  Once I pickup filmmaking as well, I have both in my arsenal.  I can use the medium that best suits the story.  The potential to reach and influence larger audiences over time is also extremely attractive.  Film also offers more opportunities to make a living than theatre, and that’s a reality that cannot be ignored.  Finally, I think that film is more of a director’s medium, while theatre remains a writer’s medium.  In theatre, you go see Shakespeare’s Hamlet.  However, in film, you go see Spielberg’s newest film.  I’ve long realized that I’m more a director than a writer, so I think it’s only fitting that I’m slowly being drawn more towards film.

~ by soham on August 30, 2006.