Stage Versus Screen
There was a time when theatre was the only means of popular entertainment. Great writers like Shakespeare, Marlowe, Sheridan and Oscar Wilde wrote brilliant plays for the stage and some of them even famous stage actors. But that was much before the age of electricity. Now the cinema has replaced the theatre and famous stage actors have transferred their loyalty to the screen. In Europe people are trying to bring a new life to the stage and in countries like America, Russia and Great Britain the stage is once again coming to its own. But it will never have the same appeal or popularity as it had in the past.
There are obvious reasons for the popularity of the cinema. There is no aspect of human life or nature which cannot be transferred to the screen. Where is only a few dramatic situations from life can be successfully presented on the stage. It would be impossible to show a Stormy sea or a lofty mountain on the stage; but all such breathtaking spectacles can be represented on the screen. In historical plays this realism can be still more vivid. Those of you who have seen Qua V adis or Queen Bess must have seen the past 'living' before their eyes. the Rome of Nero of Nero and England of Queen Elizabeth are we created on the screen, and for a few hours we live in a world of Kings Queens, courtiers and Castles.
Apart from the historical plays and sensational stories, we have films that deal with wildlife of Africa and mysteries of science. It would be impossible to portray the life of a mosquito on the stage. But even such humble things as mosquitoes and microbes make a vivid picture. The element of sensation is introduced through thrilling adventures or sights. And all these sights and thrills are manufactured in the laboratory. Could a stage director ever produce such things on the stage? The stage entirely depends for its effect up on artificial light former well managed stage equipment or at the most cleverly painted background scenery. But these devices create a poor illusion as compared with the wind and picturesque details as presented on the screen.
Cinema has another advantage: It is brief. In the modern age of hurry we do not have time enough to go to a theatre and sit there for hours listening to long, boring dialogues. Today we want something brief and ‘cute'as American call it. A stage performance that takes from four to six hours may have pleased our ancestors, but it simply tires us. The modern picture, if it is the name, packs within its 2 hours of entertainment manifold life and variety which is stage drama will take dozens of hours to unfold itself before our eyes. The stage has invented One Act Plays to compete with the screen; but One Act Plays lack variety which is the essence of all entertainment.
But this is only one side of the picture. The stage had its days of glory and the beginning of the 20th century saw the rebirth of the stage. The verse dramas of TS Eliot created a new interest for the stage. On the continent the place of Ibsen and Shakespeare were presented with a new dramatic skill. This made a new appeal to the lovers of dramatic arts and once again people thronged to the theatre. The Cinema, no doubt, gives us cheap and varied entertainment, but it lacks the human appeal of the stage. On the stage we see men and women in the flash, but on the screen we see only tools in the hands of the directors. The screen faces are made up, the emotions are tutored and songs are sung by another person. In short, the whole thing is a grand invention in which the individual actor has more scope or opportunity to give the fullest expression to his talents. This is never be case on the stage. The actor is not hampered by the stage director. His performance is a free expression of his own personality. Many of our great actors and actresses of today who are such a success on the screen, will cut a sorry figure on the stage. If Rita Hayworth or Gregory Hepburn were presented on the stage, they may receive some ovation for their beauty but none for their acting. Such may be the case with Surya and Nargis. As a matter of fact, all successful actors and actresses should spend some time on the stage. This will give them a training which will stand them in good stead on the screen.
The screen has played havoc with the morals of our young men. The cheap sensational pictures that deal with gangsterism and naked sex exploit situations which can be successfully presented only on the screen. For instance, the bathing Beauty and The Long Beach or the pirates on the high seas cannot be shown on the stage because it is technically impossible to bring the beach or the sea on the stage. If we reintroduce theatres in our society, we will have a healthy medium of entertainment. The screen has, no doubt, certain advantages over theatre, but we cannot ignore the importance of the theatre as a means of education and entertainment.
There are obvious reasons for the popularity of the cinema. There is no aspect of human life or nature which cannot be transferred to the screen. Where is only a few dramatic situations from life can be successfully presented on the stage. It would be impossible to show a Stormy sea or a lofty mountain on the stage; but all such breathtaking spectacles can be represented on the screen. In historical plays this realism can be still more vivid. Those of you who have seen Qua V adis or Queen Bess must have seen the past 'living' before their eyes. the Rome of Nero of Nero and England of Queen Elizabeth are we created on the screen, and for a few hours we live in a world of Kings Queens, courtiers and Castles.
Apart from the historical plays and sensational stories, we have films that deal with wildlife of Africa and mysteries of science. It would be impossible to portray the life of a mosquito on the stage. But even such humble things as mosquitoes and microbes make a vivid picture. The element of sensation is introduced through thrilling adventures or sights. And all these sights and thrills are manufactured in the laboratory. Could a stage director ever produce such things on the stage? The stage entirely depends for its effect up on artificial light former well managed stage equipment or at the most cleverly painted background scenery. But these devices create a poor illusion as compared with the wind and picturesque details as presented on the screen.
Cinema has another advantage: It is brief. In the modern age of hurry we do not have time enough to go to a theatre and sit there for hours listening to long, boring dialogues. Today we want something brief and ‘cute'as American call it. A stage performance that takes from four to six hours may have pleased our ancestors, but it simply tires us. The modern picture, if it is the name, packs within its 2 hours of entertainment manifold life and variety which is stage drama will take dozens of hours to unfold itself before our eyes. The stage has invented One Act Plays to compete with the screen; but One Act Plays lack variety which is the essence of all entertainment.
But this is only one side of the picture. The stage had its days of glory and the beginning of the 20th century saw the rebirth of the stage. The verse dramas of TS Eliot created a new interest for the stage. On the continent the place of Ibsen and Shakespeare were presented with a new dramatic skill. This made a new appeal to the lovers of dramatic arts and once again people thronged to the theatre. The Cinema, no doubt, gives us cheap and varied entertainment, but it lacks the human appeal of the stage. On the stage we see men and women in the flash, but on the screen we see only tools in the hands of the directors. The screen faces are made up, the emotions are tutored and songs are sung by another person. In short, the whole thing is a grand invention in which the individual actor has more scope or opportunity to give the fullest expression to his talents. This is never be case on the stage. The actor is not hampered by the stage director. His performance is a free expression of his own personality. Many of our great actors and actresses of today who are such a success on the screen, will cut a sorry figure on the stage. If Rita Hayworth or Gregory Hepburn were presented on the stage, they may receive some ovation for their beauty but none for their acting. Such may be the case with Surya and Nargis. As a matter of fact, all successful actors and actresses should spend some time on the stage. This will give them a training which will stand them in good stead on the screen.
The screen has played havoc with the morals of our young men. The cheap sensational pictures that deal with gangsterism and naked sex exploit situations which can be successfully presented only on the screen. For instance, the bathing Beauty and The Long Beach or the pirates on the high seas cannot be shown on the stage because it is technically impossible to bring the beach or the sea on the stage. If we reintroduce theatres in our society, we will have a healthy medium of entertainment. The screen has, no doubt, certain advantages over theatre, but we cannot ignore the importance of the theatre as a means of education and entertainment.
