[Max Goodman]

Theater, as I think Philip is trying to suggest, requires imagination.

In the theater there is two-way communication. Audiences affect what happens on stage.

A member of a theater audience is freer than a film viewer to choose what part of the action to focus on; there's no camera watching for us.

Each performance in the theater is a unique experience that can't be repeated.

These are the differences that spring most quickly to mind. I'm sure there are others.

[Philip Quinlan]

Hmmm

The scale is vastly different, too. With a stage play, there is no need for "the camera" to move, because, generally, there is only one focal point in any case.

Modern style also seems to favour simple, unchanging (but for lighting maybe) sets which have to do duty for all the scenes. That was the case with the Stoppard, anyway.

I suppose "theatre in the round" is now a bit passé, but I found that somewhat more immersive.

Philip

[Jerry Glenn Hartwig]

Film has advantages, in which actors can be prodded into many takes, and different interpretations can be recorded, then a preferred recording selected and edited to one seamless performance. Everything is controlled and, once completed, there are never any mistakes in performance.

I think recent generations are spoiled by what technology offers to the point live performances come off as flat. There are some excellent live performances available to the public, but they do require a bit more suspension of disbelief, and a willingness and capacity for greater imagination, such as reading requires. Audiences are no longer required to provide them, however, since technology provides such realism, so a large group of people never learned to do so easily.

It's easier to let the film maker do the work for them.

[Jan Iwaszkiewicz]

Holly,

Why would you walk out of 'Zulu'?

Jan

[Jayne Osborn]

My favourite film of all time is The Shawshank Redemption and a few months ago I saw the stage version in London - sadly on its last night; it didn't do well, for some reason.

When I first saw it advertised I was intrigued: HOW ON EARTH are they going to be able to portray this story on a stage? It was brilliantly done, however, with even some humorous asides to the audience! Most enjoyable and I'm glad I went.

As Kevin said, it's amazing what they can achieve on a stage, though I also agree with Jerry that you have to be willing to suspend your disbelief. (And not mind when the stage goes dark while they shift scenes wearing dark clothes, which is all part of the 'live' experience IMO.)

[Holly Martins]

I was enjoying it up to the point where the Zulus storm the British stronghold, but the grossly extended scene with endless natives being shot and bayoneted by soldiers sickened me.

[John Whitworth]

Stink of artifice? Well of course it's artifice. It's a play, you know. My favourite film is 'Some Like It Hot' and that's about as artificial as you can get. Do people really watch Marilyn Monroe to see something 'real'?
Oh, and my second favourite film is either 'Terminator' or 'Alien'. And I'll tell you what. I don't actually believe it's happening.

[Michael Cantor]

Why prefer live drama to film? Hell, why prefer a live concert - with all the possible flubs and acoustical problems - to a masterfully made and cut, flawless recording, on an excellent sound system?

Because of the immediacy! The roar of the greasepaint, the smell of the crowd. Because of the sense of being there, of seeing what's happening, of watching actors and musicians work and react and communicate through looks and shades and body language. Because, when I'm watching a live drama I control what I see and hear and think - I'm not steered by a director's decision on when to show a reaction shot, when to draw back, when to use a close up, how to use the background music. Because live drama and film are different art forms and you don't watch or judge them the same way.

[Holly Martins]

Because live drama and film are different art forms and you don't watch or judge them the same way.

It's not comparing apples with oranges - I think it's quite possible to compare Olivier's stage Othello with his film version - if you happen to have seen both. It's a paradox, of course, that 2-D films can be more realistic and involving than 3-D theatre. I always find myself ignoring the main characters in a mediochre theatrical production and concentrating on what the maid is doing - you can't do that at the pictures.