Live Theatre?

Those merry-but-poor souls that work in theatre are frequently, if not initally drawn to the 4000+ year old medium because of the one thing that sets it apart from Film/ Radio/ Written Word/ Fine Art and so forth. Theatre, or rather, the performing arts are live. Yes, Radio is live-ish .But Theatre is immediately live. It is this thrill factor that draws so many in, and is unique, and exploited as unique in many fine dramas, and forms of theatre.

I can be forgiven then for my double take, when I caught a Guardian headline telling me that 'Sir Derek Jacobi's King Lear to go LIVE' (at 300 Cinemas).

The Donmar on the back of the success of the NT, Royal Opera House and Co has decided to expand it's reach, and I shall buy a ticket (if I can't manage to get one for the actual show).

It might be that I am unemployed and have too much time to think this over, but isn't this 'live' business a classification error?

King Lear will be live, but only if you're sitting at the Donmar. If you're sitting in Holyhead, you're seeing something that is streamed live, but which still passes as a cinematic experience, rather than a live one? There is as much more life on a big screen from action that is pre-shot as there is from action that is streamed live, surely.

Has theatre given up? Already the audience attention span has dwindled. We are programmed to expect plot points every fifteen minutes thanks to television. Artistic programmes are funded by powerhouses like Shell. And while I'm sure the National isn't going to pander to Shell. Equally it is not going to stage an imaginative Melly Still response to the recent Gulf of Mexico leak, on the Olivier Stage. Self-censorship is perhaps more prevalent than the former patriarchial kind of the the Lord Chamberlain.

And if you need to be watching what you're saying or doing, even a fraction, then it's still a fraction wide off the mark from how you should be responding to the here and now in whatever way possible, even if it upsets how some suits feel they are being creative by throwing blood money at the National Theatre. Anywho.

Most young writers, sadly have to adopt many staples of TV drama if their play is going to be seriously considered for production. Keeping the cast to a minimum, and sticking to one location, time space, and age bracket cannot continue to be challenging to write, produce, or eventually watch. Yes. Limitations often force us to be more creative, but as far as I can see 'Look Back in Anger' was staged at the Royal Court in 1956, and then every year subsequently. The play is the same, only the ironing board is replaced with an iphone, cliff is a raging homosexual, Alison is an assertive second wave feminist, and Jimmy, in a postmodern twist is Jimi Mistry, playing himself. Soon to be screened at a cinema near you.

Of course, the fundamental differences between theatre and cinema continue. However if theatre is to retain some of what makes it special, I think it needs to be locked away with itself staring into a mirror so it can see what it has been producing. This naval gazing shouldn't be so hard for an industry that depends upon naval gazing as a keystone in it's structure: it's called acting.

Cinema then, is rarely interested in putting on the 3-d glasses and seeing itself as ugly. Why? Because it already feels ugly through and through. For all the stars on the Hollywood walk of fame, and living on Mulholland, the place sure uses up enough electricity to light up the darkness every evening.

The good news is that the Donmar is also expanding its touring with this production of King Lear, visiting more venues than with previous touring productions. This is the kind of live theatre, I have no ambiguous feelings about. And is a happy ending in these times of political and economic quicksand.