The differences of viewing a live play versus seeing a film

When talking about the differences of viewing a live play versus seeing a film, it is very important to mention that the play is to be preformed out on a stage while the movie or the film is to be done on a screen.

I personally prefer to view a live performance rather than watching a film on a screen because in the play performers sometimes try to add and put in things which are out of the way and not included in their script. These asides usually do not happen in movies. Therefore, it is great to see the entire episode of events live in the front of you on the stage, unlike the movie that can be edited and had different settings.

Furthermore, as an audience of the play, this can play a big role in establishing the relationship between me and the performer. Being in the presence of the performer helps me connect better with the show and gives me the intimacy and the closeness to the play where as the intimacy in the film is gained through the screen. In addition to that, in the play each event is special and different and so the viewer can feel the emotion because the characters are in the front of them on the stage. On the other hand, all performances in the movies are recorded, each event is the same, and no direct connection with the audience.

Another important reason worth mentioning is that, in the live play the performance will build on the audience response and will get stronger. Therefore, if the audiences are responsive, the performers will act in response to the audience's reaction, creating a circular response. In the movie or performance that is watched on television or theatre screen, the performer cannot be able to take action and react to the audience reactions because his/her performance is fixed in that place and cannot be changed. Therefore, if the actor is showing signs of sadness and starts crying while performing a live act on the stage, an audience will feel the actor’s emotions and start sharing the same feeling because the audience reacted in a responsive way to the act. But if the same thing happened in a film on the screen, the audience reaction would not be as emotionally as it is being on the stage.

Finally, I say that the live performance will always be hand down and better than viewing a film on a screen. My most important reasons about watching the movie on a screen are I do not need to get prepared for it and I can see it anytime. Also, wactching  a performance on a screen helps me understand some specific parts of the show that I might not be able to pick it up as fast as possible on the live play.

Almost, Maine

 

Audience Experience

When I attended the ticket window of the theatre, I was not aware of the large number of elderly people who were standing around. I thought that I was coming to see a romantic performance and most the audiences would be young couple holding hands. Therefore, I thought that these elderly people were going to see another show. When we walked into the theater, I was surprised and confused that all the elderly people there were audience of “Almost Main”.  Only few students I have seen there but I believe because they had to be there for an assignment.  After we took our seats and became quiet and attentive listeners to the performance, the show started and all of us as the audience members had our favorite scenes which were measured by our applauding, laughter, and comments all during the show.

Since each scene deals with a different characteristic of love, I found a situation that can relate to my personal life. As audience, we were taken on journey of ups and downs as the performance touches on fear of love, lost chances, in addition to friends understanding their true feelings.  Every situation in the performance reminded me of one I have personally been through or helped a friend deal with.

The performance placed special strategies on us as audience through the adaptation and activation to specific circumstances since its goal is to spur us to the real life. Therefore, my attending to the theater was very rewarding because I had the power to choose my focus and to engage emotionally and intellectually and express my response.  I had the pleasure of being a member of this theater audience because for me it was a big and true challenge to open myself to new theoretical experience and what they proffer.

Whether we talk about the show or not, I believe from a board member noting, that everyone can relate to the performance of the play one way or the other. When I got home, I discussed the show with my husband, he was very supportive and gave a lot of positive feedback and he too felt that he was connected in some way to it. All the performers feel real, regardless of the almost magical part s found during the performance. Thus, for us, the show has been a very great and challenging experience.

Finally, by the end of the show and as I was leaving the theater felt a connection with each character of the performance and I was left with a true feeling of positive attitude, pleasure, and happiness. Therefore I always reminded myself when leaving that door to be happy and leave with a smile on my face and a sense that happiness and love are all around us especially when there are sometimes in our lives when we fall in or out of love. When it is difficult at some moments, it is always bright on the other side. I truly say that this show was educational and uplifting and, as simply said as the show is itself, well done.

Vaudeville

Vaudeville was a type of variety entertainment started in United States near the beginning of 1880s and lasted until the early 1930s. Created by Tony Pastor, a circus ringmaster, Vaudeville was just variety shows and acts that would run and flow along the transition right into the next show and act, or sometimes, the actor from the preceding act will introduce the next act before the previous act finishes. Therefore, the actor may have a whole variety of different acts in addition to the strippers. Sometimes though, the first act might end up without introduction and the next act will start soon after.

Vaudeville was the best entertainment around the beginning of the 20th century in the United States because televisions were not there yet. By the mid a 1950’S, TVs came along and when they came, a lot of the early actors and entertainers on TV came from Vaudeville while some others went to musical theatre.

Vaudeville evolved from many sources, including minstrel shows, circuses, medicine shows, and burlesque theater shows, which had bawdier humor and usually included striptease. Vaudeville was started by wealthy and big business people to attract wide range of audience for profit. The vaudeville entertainers were usually a traveling company, hired by these wealthy business owners all across the US to perform at theaters. In addition, each theater possessed its own house group or band, but the actors carried their own scenery, makeup, and costumes wherever they went.

According to The World of Theatre by Mira Filner, Vaudeville used to keep their audiences in the theatre by offering them something for everyone such as musical numbers, acrobatic bits, comedy duos, and animal tricks. These clowns, acrobats, and jugglers are differentiated from their precursors who played for pure entertainment value because their physical humor and movement are part of a dramatic text with other massages and goals.

By the 1930’S Vaudeville started to decline due to the introduction of the radio and talking pictures in cinema presentation which let small time theaters offer big time performers on screen for lower price than doing it in person.

Work Cited

Filner, Mira and Claudia Orenstein. “The World of Theatre”: Tradition and innovation.

Boston: Pearson, 2006.

"Vaudeville and Broadway | Make 'Em Laugh | PBS." Retrieved on 11 Oct, 2011.

<http://www.pbs.org/wnet/makeemlaugh/episodes/history/vaudeville-and-broadway/31/>.

"Vaudeville." Musicals101.com. retrieved on 11 Oct, 2011.

<http://www.musicals101.com/vaude1.htm>.