Letting Slip The Dogs Of War

(Note: This post has been updated (2) as of 8:29 AM Eastern on 5 Jan. See below.)

Oh dear. How to reply to the impassioned responses contra my last post on stage versus film? I simply don't have the heart to pick each apart to reveal its fundamental errors of apprehension of both my original question stated in terms of the artwork itself — which I remind you was: "Why should live theater survive as an art form today when film seems better able to do a play justice?" — and my subsequent arguments. So let me instead link those responses, make a brief comment or two on each, and let you, dear readers, sort it all out for yourselves.

First, we have my valued comrade-in-arms in fundamental principle in just about all other matters aesthetic, George Hunka of Superfluities, who responds here. George writes, in part:

ACD has at least one thing right: that playwrights are susceptible to more than one universal, inexorable and ineluctable laws of Nature (and if not in operation, then where else?). But he treats this susceptibility to weakness in performance as if it is a bad thing generally, especially when it somehow cripples the expression of the artwork.

And,

The imperfections of theater as an art form are legion, no doubt, but in castigating those imperfections ACD fails to castigate those of film and television: their two-dimensionality and sterility, their very impermeability to audience response. In fact, ACD almost seems to see these as virtues. So far so good; the film and television director can create and control the world to an extent unthinkable off the screen; but off the screen is where we all live. We either accept it or we do not and choose to plough our chosen fields accordingly. For ACD the multiplex, for me the damp basement and a few rows of folding chairs. But you'd be amazed at the people I meet.

To all of which I can only respond: Huh?

Then we have Isaac Butler of Parabasis who responds here, and here. Mr. Butler writes, in part:

I'm beginning to have two issues with this discussion. The first is that ACD wants a concrete answer to an ephemeral question. He seems to want to know what specifically and concretely about theater's aesthetics makes it a worthwhile art.

And,

AC Douglas asked us what was unique about theater that film doesn't have, we answered that experience of watching a play, at its best, contains within it something that film doesn't have by virtue of liveness. This is what keeps us coming back. But because the answer isn't what he wanted (an aesthetic answer) he's thrown it out. It's hard to discuss with cotton in your ears.

I would only remind Mr. Butler that the question he refers to (responding to a remark made in a post by George Hunka) read in full:

So my question to George really distills down to: Of just what does that aesthetic (as opposed to the Joycean kinetic sensual) experience consist; an aesthetic experience provided by live theater and not provided by film in terms of the work itself? [emphasis added]

If it seems to Mr. Butler that I've "cotton in [my] ears" in this discussion, I suggest that's only because he's reading my text through filtered eyeglasses that permit to pass only that portion of my text which Mr. Butler wishes to see and respond to.

Next, we have a new entrant in the conversation: writer and weblogger Lisa Hirsch of Iron Tongue Of Midnight who responds here. Writes Ms. Hirsch, in part:

If the created artwork is all that counts, then why bother with interpretation or performance of anything? Why not just read the plays? Why shouldn't I just sit at home with the score of Tristan und Isolde and let it take place in my mind, instead of attending a performance or listening to one of the dozen or so imperfect and compromised CD and DVD performances I've got?

ACD, is that what you mean? Are you arguing against interpretation and performance? Or are those two Stage vs. Film postings merely the best justification you can come up with for disliking live theater?

To which I can only respond by suggesting to Ms. Hirsch that she reread both my posts on this matter — more slowly and more carefully this time, after which she may have different questions to ask, or different comments to make.

And finally, we have John Shaw of Utopian Turtletop, the only one of the respondents to attempt to address my original question directly and on its own terms; not ones determined by himself. Mr. Shaw's response may be read here. Writes Mr. Shaw:

Saying that a film of Samuel Beckett’s great play “Waiting for Godot” could improve upon a staging of it, as ACD does, would be like saying, "I like the Goldberg Variations, but Bach should have brought greater emphasis to some of the lines. I'm going to orchestrate it and double the bass line with a trombone choir sometimes and the treble line with a trumpet ensemble sometimes."

My answer to that is that Mr. Shaw has misstated his analogue case. The correct statement of that case, using Mr. Shaw's example, would posit the realizing of the Goldberg Variations on the double harpsichord for which it was written, or on the modern concert grand. In both cases, the text would remain precisely the same, and the question would be: Of the two instruments, which is better able to do the work justice?

Just so in the case of a play realized live on stage, or by film. Again using Mr. Shaw's example — Waiting for Godot — in both cases the text would remain precisely the same, and the question would be: Of the two mediums, which is better able to do the work justice?

And by now it should be manifestly clear what my answer to that question would be.

Pax, to all of you.

---

Update (12:51 PM Eastern on 4 Jan): Man-oh-man! These theater-loving folk sure are a testy bunch. Composer and weblogger Marcus Maroney of Sounds Like New fires off a full-blown salvo here, and Sensible-shoes Bourgeois New Urbanist and weblogger David Sucher of City Comforts takes aim, and fires off a quick shot or two here. I think I now need to consult a bit with my good buddy Guido on the best way to handle this business from here on in.

Update (8:29 AM Eastern on 5 Jan): For an end to all this, see here.