You Had Me at "Psychological Aesthetics"

Hugo Munsterberg's Photoplay Discussion

THEATRE VS FIILM 

This discussion of Hugo Munsterberg's "Photoplay" had me very intrigued in the way that theatre and film are compared to one another. As a Musical Theatre major, I feel I have some insight on this topic as well. 

I find it so interesting that at it's conception, movies were considered an "inexpensive substitute for the real theater". It's ironic to think about, because today's budget of a major motion picture far exceeds the budget of any Broadway show. This just goes to show how theatre and film have really become their own separate art forms with their own needs. 

The biggest difference between theatre and film is that film can have multiple takes whereas theatre has to be done in one try. If you think about it, a musical really is a two and a half hour "one take" film. This means months worth of rehearsal and preparation to make sure that the performance can happen without any error. Fast forward to when film enters the picture, it makes perfect sense as to why people were so drawn to the idea of multiple takes, because it could potentially cut rehearsal time down drastically. 

Another interesting difference between these two similar yet distinct art forms that this week's video covers in depth is how the audience viewing differs, as well. Interestingly enough, early cinema theatres were the same theatres used for stage shows, until over time movie theatres developed to better suit the sound systems and viewer comfort. 

I also enjoyed the idea of "the close up" and what that means in both art forms. In film, the "close up" is something that an onstage theatrical performance could never accomplish. However, there are different methods that we use in Theatre to emphasize certain parts of a performance and draw the eye of the audience. This led me to think about how stage acting and screen acting require two entirely different skillsets.