Unnique Thheatre, Etternal Ciinema When the Internet was able to watch the first result of Tom Hooper’s movie adaptation of the musical show Cats in a trailer – Cats was originally composed by Andrew Lloyd Webber in 1978 for the theatres of Broadway - the social media community immediately made fun of it. Memes, reaction videos on YouTube…the derision became a trend. Despite reuniting famous American singers and actors such as Taylor Swift, Julie Dench, James Corden and Ian McKellen and therefore looking like a battle of egos for the spotlight rather than an actual plot, the main subject of mockery was about the use of special effects. Special effects were used to mimic feline fur on the body of the actors, getting rid of makeup and costumes. Hybrid creatures are created, half cats, half-humans and they resulted in a disturbing anthropomorphism. Why turning Cats into a movie in the first place? The particularity of cinema as an art form is that it encapsulates all the earlier art forms in itself. In cinema is found the beauty of words and writing in the dialogues or monologues - pieces of poetry sometimes, the art of photography, the sense of composition and colours from painting, music gets involved; all in one. Before cinema, theatre was an all-in-one too. Poetry, composition or balance of the stage, music, and work on lighting close to this of modern photography. The essential difference between cinema and theatre resides in the gap between eternity and the ephemeral. In a very oedipal way and somewhat narrow-minded, cinema is often seen as theatre’s advancement; since they are so close to each other, the newest has to eradicate the oldest to fully exist. Just like in the concept of Freud’s oedipal complex. This view is incredibly false: cinema and theatre are very independent from one another. One thing that leads to the adaptation of Cats into a movie was the argument of the wonderful technological tool, - manipulation linked to cinema - which could surpass makeup and costumes and turn the actors into 'cats'. It turned out the result of this technological manipulation was the very reason why the spectators despised the movie. Perhaps there is no reason to adapt plays or musicals for the big screen because they are made for the stage and the stage is special. Vice versa, cinema is not to be considered an improved version of theatre. There is simply no qualitative comparison to be made between the two. Theatre is not the unfinished form of cinema. The word ‘theatre’ comes from the Greek ‘theatron’ which means ‘the place where we look’ - just like cinema refers to the art form as well as to the place where movies are screened. However, in the theatre, the atmosphere is active; in the cinema it is rather passive. Even if nowadays, in the theatre, we are far from the atmosphere of Elizabethan theatre or ancient Greek theatre – in which people were eating, drinking, talking – theatre is still active because the spectator is a key component of the magic, as much as the actor or the director. In comedies especially, the fourth wall is often torn down. That is to say, if the stage was to be observed as a room in which life is taking place, one wall would be down – allowing more or less direct interactions between the public and the actors. Moreover, many theatre actors converge saying that performances from a night to another are never the same. The reason, they say, is because the spectators as a whole never give the same energy. They don't laugh at the same comic moments, they don't necessarily spontaneously applause in the middle of the play. In that sense, they participate in the creation of a specific play, every night. Theatre originated in ancient Greece – alongside approximately every aspect of our modern European civilizations - towards the years VI and V BC. Theatre was born in celebration of the god Dionysus, the god of wine, art, and feast. It was, therefore, a religious performance with processions, songs and dances, taking place around the temples and later in amphitheatres. From this religious performance, Greek tragedy first started under the form of choral performances: ‘(…) a group of 50 men danced and sang dithyrambs – lyrics hymns in praise of the god Dionysus.’ (Britannica). A Greek poet, Thespis, has the reputation to be the very first actor since he engaged in dialogue with the chorus leader. The great antique playwrights such as Aeschylus and Sophocles gradually added actors and diminished the number of choral performers, shifting the spotlights’ trajectory. The role of the chorus was very specific: ‘while the tragic protagonists act out their defiance of the limits subscribed by the gods for man, the chorus expresses the fears, hopes, and judgment of the polity, the average citizens. Their judgment is the verdict of history.’ (Britannica) The chorus was like the reversed concept of a mirror. Their image was creating the audience’s, they were guiding the spectators through their catharsis. Here was a little bit of history on the origins of theatre…revealing that musical theatre is particularly close to the original theatre! Musicals are often mocked for commenting what just happened in a scene thanks to a song, but it is practically what the Greek chorus was doing. Besides, the concept of a chorus, even if it is not a mandatory component of modern theatre nowadays, unveils the essence of theatre. Such essence makes theatre special, incomparable with cinema. Theatre is a form of art which is alive, and created on the moment, in front of us, but also by our own eyes, by us. It is born out of interactions. The first interaction happens between the director and his actors and the last interaction – the one between the actors and the audience gives the final push. The concept of a chorus helps to visualise this last interaction because the modern audience is the new chorus. No matter if the play breaks the fourth wall, the feelings triggered in the spectators create an atmosphere nourishing the actors. The nature of these feelings varies from a representation to another, ensuring the spectator's role as key and final. Theatre is alive, this is the main difference with cinema. Theatre happens in one place, at a very special moment and the representation is punctual as well as unique. When it is being produced, it is a human interaction. Because it is alive, the spectator cannot see the details of an actor’s face unless the actor breaks the fourth wall and come to them. Because theatre is alive, there is a need for a special deal to be accepted by the audience. This deal seals their participation in the creation too. The deal is this of accepting the illusion even if the change of settings is not hidden, even if it is noticeable that an actor plays two different roles…Theatre works its magic only if the audience accepted beforehand that they are about to be gently fooled. As for cinema, the illusion is different, complete, thanks to a distance. Cinema isn’t alive in the same manner as theatre. The screen is the distance. The illusion is more complete since cinema is pre-fabricated: the illusion has to be perfect once in front of the spectator’s eyes. This pre-fabricated aspect allows a concentration on details. The acting can be particularly subtle since the camera can establish close-ups and visit the actor’s most discrete facial expressions, emotional manifestations. This is the specific livelihood of cinema; another kind of intimacy than is encountered in the theatre space, not linked to an interaction but to a voyeur-like perspective. Cinema was born from the invention of photography and its improvements throughout the 19 th century. Nevertheless, the basic idea of cinema – or capturing movement, the illusion of movement – was already reflected upon by philosophical or scientific thinkers during Antiquity. But the
3
