I keep on saying that comparing theatre with cinema is a donkey work. They are simply different and no one can prove which of the two (theatre or cinema) has more advantages or is of greater value. Of course, every person has his own preferences among various kinds of modern entertainment, but there is no use comparing the art forms mentioned above. Have you ever tried to compare a hand with a leg, to figure out which one is more useful? Do you find such a task sensible? The same thing happens when we begin to place theatre against cinema. These forms of art were born in different epochs, by different generations. But they both reflect people’s needs and demands though they employ different techniques, abilities, professional skills of actors as well as they have different aims and origin. Theatre gave rise to many other kinds of entertainment including cinema so it would be too ungrateful for cinematograph to disparage its own ‘mother’. Nevertheless, some people draw the line between theatre and cinema. Theatre tends to be more, let me say, aristocratic and exalted while cinema is aimed mainly at gross audience. Naturally, it is a debatable distinction; however it has a full right to exist.
Nowadays theater seems to be very prestigious. Adults prefer to go there while teenagers like to go to the cinema. The play of an actor can be understood by adults because they are more experienced than children are. They can find the life of an actor to be similar to their own lives or to catch the sense of the thing they are interested in, e.g. any life situation can exist in the performance and a person can find the way of decision his problem.
Well with the invention on the digital camera and home pc I am sure Marx would give a perfect reason as to why cinema is a truer art. The stage will always be the stage (despite elite directors attempts to get funding for extravagant shows) but the camera is knowhere to Be found, you can be in space or in anotherworld . From tarvosky to Kubrick no one can say cinema is cheap entertaintenment infact Cinema stands before time always judged where as the theatre can get away with pompousity and middle class pretentious drivel as their is no rewind feature or playback. It stays with the audience and as a result of society crap Theatre becomes good simply because a majority have decided.
Absolutely so! People tend to have different preferences though it doesn't mean that any of these two visual arts compete with each other. As for me, I prefer going to the theatre. Though, for the last month I have been to the cinema twice but haven't been to the theatre. Of course, more people go to the cinema just because it offers more visual entertainment through visual effects, whereas theatre offers more speech and real eye-contact.
I feel that it is wrong to discuss the subject in this way. Theatre and Cinema do not compete because they are two different kinds of visual entertainment art. The word entertainment doesn't mean only for fun. One comparison: for me it's like giving a lesson to students, being with them, right there in the classroom... - it's the theatre; but if I film a lesson that will be used by my leaners to learn, this is the cinema. Both are good. But they are different.
Everything sounds really convincing. When I am asked a similar question, I think along the same lines - these are two different arts in the same reality. Both are needed. The major difference, though it sounds strange, is in the fact that cinema, as you probably meant to say, speaks to millions at the same time whereas a theatrical performance to a few hundred. So, I need both.
