Raw Energy and Glorified Glamour

Theatre and Cinema

‘The theatre fulfills, whereas the cinema is empty’ – Marie Trintignant, French actress.

Theatre and cinema are two sides of the same coin. As cinema evolved from theatre, with the camera being its recorder; theatre continued to deliver in more or less the same pattern. Acting, sound, costumes, locations, direction, production, audience are somewhat similar variables in both cinema and theatre. Having the key variables in common, then how are these two mediums of mass communication, entertainment different from each other?

 Taking into consideration the contemporary cinema and rising number of multiplexes, cinema has a wider outreach. Cinema has become the primary source of entertainment to a large number of audience as compared to theatre in the older times. Today, most of the people prefer going out for a movie than for a play or performance. Cinema also caters to a massive audience simultaneously and in different geographical locations. Theatre too, can be performed simultaneously; however, its production costs will be expensive. As camera records in the cinema, broadcasting it through satellites and other technologies available, has become easier as well.

Talking about the acting and performance techniques in cinema and theatre, there is a distinct difference. In theatre, the actor and the whole team have to give their best and undivided energy during the performance. On the other hand, in cinema, the actor, the cinematographer, the light-man, etc. always has the liberty to go for a re-take.

Theatre in reality is multi-dimensional than films. For example, the smell of flowers, used in the theatre play reaches the audience as they are right there for real. Whereas, in films, the smell of flowers won’t reach the audience as it is a recorded medium projected from a film. This is because in theatre, direct contact is made with the audience. In films it is indirect.

A theatre actor can perform several roles in play. Indeed, a film actor can do the same. However, for a theatre actor the process of transition between characters is rapid, and that in cinema is slower. Also, cinema has a lot of scope for detailing, in acting, sets, locations and overall misc-en-scene. Conversely, in theatre, detailing is limited as it is performed in a limited space of the stage. Location becomes essential in cinema to convince the audience; whereas, a theatre actor with minimal props and set, can create the illusion with his acting skills and mime.

A theatre actor has to be loud in his expressions in a performance, as they need to reach out to the audience sitting in the last row of the theatre. It is not the same in cinema acting, the actor has to mellow down and is subtle in cinema. Narratives in theatre are usually verbal (minus mime) to convey the story. In cinema, with various camera angles and misc-en-scene, a story can be told with lesser use of words.

Theatre has an ancient history attached to it, and cinema is comparatively new. However, with technological advancements and digitalization, cinema is successful in creating varied illusions by using editing techniques, montages, VFX, etc. In theatre, the director can play with the time and space elements to create illusions.

I feel, cinema is a process and theatre is a product. And as Marie Trintignant said, theatre has more energy and power and is fulfilling, and cinema is empty ad quite artificial to me. 

~ Aishwarya Walvekar