The arts made exclusively accessible
This week, we saw the desolation of Benedict Cumberbatch when he pleaded with fans not to film him during his much coveted performance as Hamlet at the Barbican. This request made headline news, but it's all pomp and capitalism.
Man of the moment, Benedict Cumberbatch isn't the only actor to have gotten all mardy over audience behaviour during their theatre stints - I'll cover this suspiciously set-up plea in another blog post (yes, I'm being clickbaity *whistles*). We all remember Helen Mirren charging outside the confines of the venue just to shout at buskers and Kevin Spacey stopping mid flow to berate a phone user.
These actors spend their lives in front of cameras. Making films and TV shows is their bread and butter; but also press junkets, red carpet events, staging paparazzi shots or simply going about their business. Add to this the compulsion to sell their private lives to the press in order to increase their value, as well as having their professional lives forever encapsulated on celluloid. A camera is an extension of them, so why the beef when paying punters and fans want to record their idols when they see them in the flesh? They're used to those little red lights everywhere else, why can't they just apply that level of professionalism when performing in front of a live audience - what difference does it make? As long as they're being considerate to others, what's the problem? It's not loud, it's not bright and it's not as disruptive as stragglers, toilets breakers, eaters/drinkers, talkers, sniffers and coughers.
Surely a booming sneeze would be more disruptive to the intensity of the scene and break an actor's concentration, but no it's harmless filming that beloved Benedict has a problem with.
As much as I think viewing the world through a screen is de-socialising us and takes the fun out of being there, it's a known beast that will only get worse as we become increasingly digital dependent. Despite not being able to enjoy a performance by a musician, actor, sports personality, dancer, etc without a panoply of devices being held aloft for the optimum audio visual position, what it does is capture something unique and make it available to everyone.
Before Hamlet opened for previews, I remember the director Lyndsey Turner telling The Guardian she wanted to make Shakespeare and his seminal play accessible. Hence the modern day clothing and opening with Hamlet's suicidal soliloquy, before we've even touched on the murder of his father.
If she was really committed to making Shakespeare accessible, she would put Benedict's star power to good use and tour the country with it - taking it out of London and helping struggling theatres put bums on seats. By keeping it London-centric, you're marginalising people who don't live in or around the capital.
Let's break this down. To get into London from the home counties would cost between £20 and £50, then there's the cost of food and drink, around £10 to £200, depending on your preferences. If you live in a backwater, you may need to stay overnight so add an extra £50 to £500 for a hotel. And that doesn't even factor in the ticket price, which ranges from £10 to £125. If you're a skinflint, a night to watch Cumberbatch tread the board sans ruffles could cost about £90. This isn't an insignificant amount of money. Then to stop that person, who may be stretching themselves to be there, from recording it is incredibly selfish.
The beauty of our digital world is it knows no boundaries. It doesn't discriminate based on how much you're paying for broadband nor if you have the latest smart device. By allowing people to record live performances, you're opening up your masterpiece to the world. Every nuance and blooper is captured for people to enjoy, share and in turn, flex their own creative muscles. All this leads to your performances (possibly the best and funny bits the official cameramen may miss) being as ubiquitous as the world wide web.
I'd love to see a clip of an actor accidentally swearing, forgetting his/her lines, ad-libbing or falling over. It's a part of the play that makes that particular experience unique. I know it's not perfect, but perfection is boring. Instead of that irreplaceable moment condemned to the memory of circa 200 people who were there to witness it, we too can wonder upon its magnificence.
I recently saw The Trial at The Young Vic. While there were lots of merits to the play, I found a quarter of the way through I was looking at my watch thinking I'd rather be at home with a cuppa and a copy of Kafka's most famous work. Instead, I spent a lot of money and time watching a substandard play. Had it been available for me to stream via YouTube, I wouldn't have had the feeling of regret.
Of course, this isn't about accessibility at all. This isn't about bringing Shakespeare to a new audience. This isn't about being revolutionary and considerate towards the public. This is about money.
Hamlet will of course be filmed (Benedict's performance will naturally remain unaffected by a massive camera and increased lighting to make it suitable for HD TV and cinema broadcast). It will be filmed to cash in on its bankable star through DVD and distribution sales. Making it available to everyone negates the rationale for a DVD and significantly erode revenue.
Theatre attracts pomposity. It used to be the only form of entertainment and now it's the domain of high-brow elite who look down on modern culture. Instead of embracing its revolutionary accessibility and flexibility, its scolded as cheapening an art form. However, they are happy for it to be hashtagged the shit of, but just don't affect the cash streams or turn it into a funny meme. This is a serious business, don't you know.
Man of the moment, Benedict Cumberbatch isn't the only actor to have gotten all mardy over audience behaviour during their theatre stints - I'll cover this suspiciously set-up plea in another blog post (yes, I'm being clickbaity *whistles*). We all remember Helen Mirren charging outside the confines of the venue just to shout at buskers and Kevin Spacey stopping mid flow to berate a phone user.
These actors spend their lives in front of cameras. Making films and TV shows is their bread and butter; but also press junkets, red carpet events, staging paparazzi shots or simply going about their business. Add to this the compulsion to sell their private lives to the press in order to increase their value, as well as having their professional lives forever encapsulated on celluloid. A camera is an extension of them, so why the beef when paying punters and fans want to record their idols when they see them in the flesh? They're used to those little red lights everywhere else, why can't they just apply that level of professionalism when performing in front of a live audience - what difference does it make? As long as they're being considerate to others, what's the problem? It's not loud, it's not bright and it's not as disruptive as stragglers, toilets breakers, eaters/drinkers, talkers, sniffers and coughers.
Surely a booming sneeze would be more disruptive to the intensity of the scene and break an actor's concentration, but no it's harmless filming that beloved Benedict has a problem with.
As much as I think viewing the world through a screen is de-socialising us and takes the fun out of being there, it's a known beast that will only get worse as we become increasingly digital dependent. Despite not being able to enjoy a performance by a musician, actor, sports personality, dancer, etc without a panoply of devices being held aloft for the optimum audio visual position, what it does is capture something unique and make it available to everyone.
Before Hamlet opened for previews, I remember the director Lyndsey Turner telling The Guardian she wanted to make Shakespeare and his seminal play accessible. Hence the modern day clothing and opening with Hamlet's suicidal soliloquy, before we've even touched on the murder of his father.
To be truly accessible it must be available to everyone - regardless of education, location and remuneration.
If she was really committed to making Shakespeare accessible, she would put Benedict's star power to good use and tour the country with it - taking it out of London and helping struggling theatres put bums on seats. By keeping it London-centric, you're marginalising people who don't live in or around the capital.
Let's break this down. To get into London from the home counties would cost between £20 and £50, then there's the cost of food and drink, around £10 to £200, depending on your preferences. If you live in a backwater, you may need to stay overnight so add an extra £50 to £500 for a hotel. And that doesn't even factor in the ticket price, which ranges from £10 to £125. If you're a skinflint, a night to watch Cumberbatch tread the board sans ruffles could cost about £90. This isn't an insignificant amount of money. Then to stop that person, who may be stretching themselves to be there, from recording it is incredibly selfish.
The beauty of our digital world is it knows no boundaries. It doesn't discriminate based on how much you're paying for broadband nor if you have the latest smart device. By allowing people to record live performances, you're opening up your masterpiece to the world. Every nuance and blooper is captured for people to enjoy, share and in turn, flex their own creative muscles. All this leads to your performances (possibly the best and funny bits the official cameramen may miss) being as ubiquitous as the world wide web.
I'd love to see a clip of an actor accidentally swearing, forgetting his/her lines, ad-libbing or falling over. It's a part of the play that makes that particular experience unique. I know it's not perfect, but perfection is boring. Instead of that irreplaceable moment condemned to the memory of circa 200 people who were there to witness it, we too can wonder upon its magnificence.
I recently saw The Trial at The Young Vic. While there were lots of merits to the play, I found a quarter of the way through I was looking at my watch thinking I'd rather be at home with a cuppa and a copy of Kafka's most famous work. Instead, I spent a lot of money and time watching a substandard play. Had it been available for me to stream via YouTube, I wouldn't have had the feeling of regret.
Of course, this isn't about accessibility at all. This isn't about bringing Shakespeare to a new audience. This isn't about being revolutionary and considerate towards the public. This is about money.
Hamlet will of course be filmed (Benedict's performance will naturally remain unaffected by a massive camera and increased lighting to make it suitable for HD TV and cinema broadcast). It will be filmed to cash in on its bankable star through DVD and distribution sales. Making it available to everyone negates the rationale for a DVD and significantly erode revenue.
Theatre attracts pomposity. It used to be the only form of entertainment and now it's the domain of high-brow elite who look down on modern culture. Instead of embracing its revolutionary accessibility and flexibility, its scolded as cheapening an art form. However, they are happy for it to be hashtagged the shit of, but just don't affect the cash streams or turn it into a funny meme. This is a serious business, don't you know.
Comments
Post a Comment