So, Where Were You When I Needed You?
(Note: This post has been updated (2) as of 4:29 AM Eastern on 15 Jan. See below.)
Variety theater critic and weblogger Steven Oxman of Theater Matters weighs in on the live theater versus film conversation (previous posts may be read here, here, and here) with — mirabile dictu! — an apposite response to the original question posed; viz., In terms of the artwork itself, why should live theater survive as an art form today when film seems better able to do a play justice? Even though, as far as it concerns me, I've previously called a halt to discussion on the matter, Mr. Oxman's post is so on-track in terms of its addressing the issue set forth in my question that I can't resist responding.
But before getting to the on-track part of Mr. Oxman's thoughtful post — and I'm here referring to his comments and tantalizing implied promise of a discussion of theatricality as it applies to the original issue raised — let me first try to dispose of a basic misunderstanding so that it won't intrude into any possible subsequent discussion. And that is the attempt by Mr. Oxman to posit a certain equivalency between a concert of classical music and a stage play in terms of their live versus recorded modes of presentation and apprehension.
Writes Mr. Oxman (imagining, no doubt, that I've neatly managed to hoist myself with my own petard):
So the winner for best answer to A.C. Douglas's question — "Why should live theater survive as an art form today when film seems better able to do a play justice?" — comes from... A.C. Douglas.
In my previous posting, I asked him: "Do you go to see live music, even though the studio can do it 'better'? If so, why?"
He sent me an email with a quick statement and a link to a post of his from last August: "[N]o, with classical music (the only music I involve myself with) the studio*cannot* 'do it better.' For an explanation why, see: The Live Classical Music Concert"
And here Mr. Oxman then quotes correctly from that post of mine in which I say that,
"[a] recorded performance [of classical music] is a musical experience quite different from the musical experience of a live concert. [...] I mean the two experiences are two different musical experiences. One hears music differently in a live performance, and that hearing simply cannot be experienced via a reproduction no matter how good the reproduction may be in both recording and playback....
Mr. Oxman then suggests:
Seriously, replace the "musical experience" with "theatrical experience," and nobody responding to Mr. Douglas's query has said it better. Now, I suppose he thinks these are fundamentally different, but I really don't see how.
Well, Mr. Oxman supposes correctly. I do indeed think they're fundamentally different, and to see precisely in what that difference consists, I suggest to Mr. Oxman that he apply consistently his own formula in my above quoted graf. If he does, just how will he make the appropriate theatrical substitution for "music" in, say, the sentence that reads: "One hears music differently in a live performance, and that hearing simply cannot be experienced via a reproduction no matter how good the reproduction may be...."? Would he then say, "One hears the text differently in a live performance, and that hearing simply cannot be experienced via a reproduction no matter how good the reproduction may be...."?
That's exactly what he would have to say in order to be consistent. For when I said in my above quoted graf that one hears (classical) music differently in a live versus recorded performance, I meant one hears the music differently qua music. When heard recorded versus live, a certain portion of the music's fundamental sense as music (as opposed to nuances and subtleties of interpretation) is in some degree altered, or even lost (I here omit my explanation in my original post wherein I dealt with the matter of how experienced concert-goers compensate, consciously or unconsciously, for that alteration or loss). With a play, however, its fundamental sense determined as it is by a series of ordered words, which is to say, its text, the fundamental sense of that text remains precisely the same whether heard live in the theater or recorded in a film, and the words and sentences retain their exact same fundamental sense and meaning as language in both mediums. The fundamental sense and meaning of the word-order "To be or not to be" is precisely the same whether spoken live on stage or reproduced in film (or read on the page, for that matter).
Although music is commonly referred to metaphorically as a language, it's a language of a unique sort that by its very nature bypasses the intellectual processing centers of our brains, and speaks directly to our centers of feeling where the gestalt of its fundamental sense and meaning as music (again, as opposed to nuances and subtleties of performance and interpretation) is first "understood," instantly and all at once. A musical phrase uttered by, say, the trombones has a fundamental musical sense markedly different from the very same musical phrase uttered by, say, the bassoons. Similarly, a musical phrase uttered by the trombones in a live performance loses something of its fundamental musical sense in a reproduction as at the present state of the art a reproduction can, at very best, be but an excellent simulacrum of that utterance heard live. We still recognize the fundamental musical sense, the "meaning," of the phrase as uttered by the trombones only because all else of that reproduction — its context — is also a simulacrum. In short, at the present state of the art, hearing a reproduction of a classical musical performance can never be the equal of hearing it live, much less better that live hearing.
That's not the case with an artwork such as a stage play which is dependent on spoken language, as spoken language depends entirely on rigorous intellectual processing to even be recognized as language rather then word-salad gibberish, or even random noise. Once recognized as language, the brain must then identify and rigorously process the meaning of the words and the grammar and syntax of the sentences strictly and precisely to permit just the fundamental sense and meaning of the word-order to be understood, and only then can that word-order be passed off to the centers of feeling where it must then be "re-understood," so to speak, in non-intellectual terms to form its gestalt.
Because of that strict, precise, and rigorous intellectual prerequisite processing of spoken language, its word-order must be strictly and precisely formed in exactly the same way whether presented live or recorded to produce the same fundamental sense and meaning in both mediums. If it's not so formed, nonsense — or more correctly, non-sense — in terms of what was intended results in the recorded medium. At the present state of the art, the reproduction of spoken text in terms of its fundamental sense is the complete equal of that same text spoken live which is not true of the analogous case in classical music. As I above noted, the fundamental sense and meaning of the word-order "To be or not to be" is precisely the same whether spoken live on stage or reproduced in film.
So, first, my question to Mr. Oxman is: Will you allow the validity of the above distinction? If not, before going further we have to hash out that business as I sense that left unsettled it will come back to bite one or both of us in the ass in any further discussion. If, however, you'll allow the distinction's validity, and take it as a settled matter, at least for the argument's sake, then I beg that you'll proceed by answering in some detail your own question, "What is theatricality?" for it strikes me that understanding the concept of theatricality just might be the key to deciding the original issue in hand.
Update (4:42 PM Eastern on 13 Jan): Steven Oxman responds. I have no useful or illuminating answer to that response.
Update (4:29 AM Eastern on 15 Jan): Due to an occurrence beyond my control, my comment in the above update is hereby rescinded, and my answer to Steven Oxman's response, regardless of that answer's usefulness or illumination or its lack of same, can be read here.
