Theatre Challenges

During last years the Theatre has had to meet three challenges – from radio, cinema and television. All three produce drama of a sort; all possess important advantages.

As a rule it does not cost as much to see a film as it does to see a play; and films can be seen in a great many places that have never known a theatre. Radio and television can be enjoyed at home, with a minimum of effort, turning the living-room into a play house. And all three, because they are produced for a mass audience, can offer cast of players that only the best theatres could afford.

Many people tell that with their television sets at home and an occasioned visit to the movies, they no longer need the Theatre and do not care whether it lives or dies. Such people do not understand that the Theatre is the parent of these new dramatic forms. Without a living Theatre where writers, directors, designers and actors could learn their job, movies and television plays would be very crude indeed.

However, as these mass media do some things better than the Theatre, they might be said to be narrowing but purifying its outlook. An obvious example is the disappearance from the stage of the old spectacular melodrama with its sinking ships, houses on fire, horses racing – simply because this can all be done much better by the film studios. And it is clear that what succeeds most in this medium is drama consisting of intimate scenes between two or three characters: carefully rather than richly written and acted. It is happier with rather small but intensely sincere parts and performances than with extremes of comedy and tragedy acted by impressive personalities.

But there are equally important and more subtle results of this competition. For instance, because the best film dialogue tends to be laconic and rather dry, a certain richness of speech has returned to the Theatre, thus making the most of what it does best.

In a very good restaurant we have a dinner that is specially cooked for us; in a canteen we are merely served with standard portions of a standard meal. And this is the difference between the living Theatre and the mass entertainment of films, radio and television. In the Theatre the play is specially cooked for us. Those who have worked in the Theatre know that a production never takes its final shape until it has an audience. With films, radio, television, the vast audience can receive what it is being offered. But in the Theatre the audience might be said to be creatively receptive; its very presence, an intensely living presence, heightens the drama. The actors are not playing to microphones and cameras but to warmly responsive fellow-creatures. And they are never giving exactly the same performance.

It is the presence of an audience that teaches an actor the essential art of “timing”. If in comedy the speeches are badly timed, if the actors try to get too many laughs instead of checking little laughs in order to build up a huge roar, the keen edge of the audience’s attention will be obviously blunted, and the production will not succeed. An actor with talent and long experience always has a wonderful sense of what can be done with an audience; half commanding and half cajoling it to enjoy every moment of his performance. With a very few exceptions, the best performers on film and television are actors and actresses from the Theatre, which has taught them their art.

The Theatre has existed for two and a half thousand years and it is the ancient but ever-youthful parent of all entertainment in dramatic form.

V. a) Comment on the title of the text. Find in the text the arguments proving that the theatre of nowadays meets several challenges and they all possess certain advantages over it.

b) Pick out the arguments showing that the theatre possesses certain advantages of its own over cinema, television, and the radio. Analyse these arguments. Choose those which you find convincing.

c) Disagree with the hypothesis that the theatre is dying and is not important nowadays.

d) Do you agree that the theatre possesses an advantageous position over cinema and television in the field of entertainment? Give your reasons.

VI. Make up dialogues. Try and persuade your opponent to share your point of view. Suggested characters and situation:

· Mrs. Charlotte Mannon, an actress, who began playing small parts with a stock company and soon was interpreting leading roles for the troupe. Acted in many plays both classical and contemporary. Immensely fond of emotional roles as they permit the unleashing of one’s feelings. Considers that important, as people of civilization are constantly holding themselves in. Likes to feel the audience in the playhouse. Thinks she can’t play any part to the microphone.

· Mr. Harris Marshall, a cinema producer, who is making a new film. Wants to get some talented actress for the leading part. There can be no delay. Thinks cinema is the only art worthy of devotion. Knows all its advantages; is fond of close-ups and camera tricks. Believes in plays the action of which covers a period of years, believes in those plays which carry the characters through important phases of their life, showing their development. Thinks only cinema can reveal the character fully.

Mr. Harris Marshall comes to see Mrs. Charlotte Mannon. He wants to persuade her to play the leading part in his new film. Knowing that she doesn’t have much faith in the cinema he has prepared a lot of arguments to show its advantages.

VII. Suggest your own characters and situations and discuss different kinds of entertainment (cinema, television, radio, video, etc.)