THEATER VS FILM :: blanca

Brendan's: the Neonic Headquarters. Breeding ground for ideas, where creative births are celebrated. Tonight Neon and I   were discussing our upcoming projects...

Neon: I like live performances but, to me, they are nowhere coming close to the power of the video. Live shows lack closeups, I like the larger-than-life detail — faces, costuming, angles of your hand, your head.

Blanca: I think they are different. The best thing about video is that it's permanent. You can go back and watch the same performance in a million years.

Neon: That's true, Blanx but it's close ups, close ups... and more. Video has power to highlight these things: the way your hair or ribbons in your costume trail behind you as you glide, or bursts of sparkles as you shimmy, or the way various parts of the body articulate your movements. Live show serves you only the "big picture," relies on you to notice the beauty of details, but video is another layer of art that processes the beauty for the viewer and distills it into a perfect essence. Not valid - the idea of the "loss" of whatever when a live show is converted into a 2-d video. It's another medium, another art, another reality - if it takes anything away, it brings in even more.
It's theater vs film - I crave the fullness of illusion that only film can deliver. Live vs recorded music - I crave sound effects and environments that live music can't deliver. Live is good, but dead is better, Blanx, and it... lives forever.

Blanca: Mmh... they are just different. Sometimes close ups keep you from seeing the big picture, from seeing the choreographer's vision or from appreciating an entire design or pattern. They are just totally different mediums like, say, painting and sculpting... The "toolbox" and capabilities of each medium are unique. I think there are at least two ways to approach dance video: one as a medium to preserve a live performance, trying to keep it as close as possible to the original; the other, like you see it: as a powerful medium that can go where no human being can go. For instance, no human could watch one performance from different perspectives the way multiple cameras can. That's the magic of film. I would say it's more of a visual experience. Theater is more of a body experience because you are surrounded by it. When you are there and experience what the artist intended you to see... it can be so powerful. Lighting on stage can be incredibly magical. Perspective, the use of space... when you combine all the right elements and the live energy of a staged performance you can be transported to other dimensions. The illusions that can be presented through theater are mind-boggling. Its potential for communicating emotions is one of the most inspiring things I've found in life.

Neon: I totally don't relate to this.

Blanca: Maybe because you are more of a people's person... you relate more to people on a personal basis. I relate to that a lot but also relate to human beings in a more universal way. The space that exists between performers and audience allows the artist to create a separate universe... so foreign, so otherworldly... and yet, it feels like it's part of you because you don't focus on the performer as an individual, he/she becomes a symbol or an archetype.

Neon: Yes, I think I'm a true cabaret dancer.

Now the question is: will Aysh and I be able to convince Neon that staged shows are worth exploring?