Cinema vs Theatre
 

Two very different experiences.

'Other people' chat during films, but cough during plays. Why is this?

Plays are ususally more considered and thoughtful, which is nice, but the theatre rarely offers the chance to see a helicopter exploding in slow motion.

Hmmm.

edit: 3,000 posts. And I assure you that I have taken the time and effort to ensure that each and every one of them has been utter nonsense.

edit 2: that said, one of my posts was actually worth reading. Free rep to whoever can spot which one it is.

Congratulations!!!

I'll comment on the pole when I've thought about it.

Just wanted to say Congratulations!!

Did I just say pole?

Thanks mate. I prefer the theatre, for two main reasons:

1 People seem to make noise all the way through a film, but mainly shut the f*** up once a play starts.

2 The experience of seeing actors perform in the flesh makes the whole thing more personal - when you see a play, the actors are performing specifically for that one audience, including you.

3000 posts eh? And I thought I spent too much time on here ;)

I've voted cinema for one reason and one reason only - theatre is just so bloody expensive.

Plays make me a bit nervous. At the start I always think the actors are going to forget their lines or fall off the stage. It takes me a while to relax. I think that probably reflexs some of my own anxieties.

I went to see a play recently and one of the actors was ill, so another actor had to play two parts, sometimes at the same time. So he frequently had to hold a conversation with himself.

I also went to an amateur production of Ibsen's Ghosts. The acting was so bad it looked like a Carry On production. Everybody was in fits all the way through.

No both option?
Cinema = popcorn & slush
Theatre = cappuccino & an after eight mint

You can't prefer both!

It has to be theatre for me I think. Just remembered the ice cream in the interval.

This forum is my official residence. It's a tax dodge.


It's a consideration. Cinemas round here are about £6 each. The thing is, for the two of us to go and get a drink or whatever is going to cost £15 minimum, really. A couple of months later I can buy the DVD for less, with the extras etc, and not have to put up with mobile phones and people talking.

If you go in the afternoon many theatres offer cheaper seats, although evening seats are up to £30 or so. In Birkenhead, a ten minute walk, we still have a very nice amateur theatre (http://www.carlton-little-theatre.co.uk/Page_1.htm), where it's slightly cheaper than the cinema (and you get six plays a year for the price of five if you subscribe!).

I thought about a both option, but decided against it. This is a poll for stating a distinct preference!

Subscription is always a good option if you're a regular theatre goer. And you can often go to previews which are a lot cheaper in my experience. And you get tea and home-made cake.

Theatre.

Ok then. Theatre it is.

The cinema.

While I have seen a few good plays in my time, and I recognize that theater uses different styles of presentation/production/acting simply because of the content and nature of the plays themselves, I find I generally don't enjoy exaggerated, histrionic acting. Again, I realize this technique is synonymous with theater, and works well for some productions, but on the whole, I prefer the comparative 'realism' of the cinema.

Tricky one as i regularly go to both(not that my fellow posters don't know that i work in one already).I voted theatre because i've seen many plays and the audiences are better behaved but cinema is equally stimulating for the obvious romantic factor.Does anybody ever fall asleep in either?

you aren't seeing the right theatre HP

i can't possibly make a vote either way. i love cinema but it is a far more introspective artform to me. and i spend my life composing and engineering in pro theatre and nothing really compares to a live performance of any kind. live is so immediate and on edge because you cannot go back and fix mistakes which makes theatre and all performing arts incredibly vibrant. i studied film at university and i love watching films but the communal experience in cinema just doesn't hold the same atmosphere that a live performance does, i find that aspect of cinema less appealing.

Fair enough, terminal, fair enough. Whatever the undeniable merits of cinema , I love that sense of vibrancy that comes from the performers being there in front of you, and the sense that the performance is somehow being carried out for my benefit.

The amount of work that goes behind a play is spellbinding.And the sound department at the National Theatre has the most amazing and downright beautiful collection of musical instruments i have ever seen in my entire life.
Theatre fact:
A few years ago this place was thinking of making all the musicians redundant and replace them with recorded music.Thankfully BECTU(the union here) fought against that decision and therefore we can enjoy the music being played live by the stage to this day.Yes!

i have never really been to the theatre so i will go with the cinema. maybe i should go though, get a bit of culture.

not much into either i'm afraid.

how about option 3, a good and loud dirty band in the back of a stinky venue playing the most god-awful version of Stairway to Heaven you can imagine.

i second truncated's opinion on theatrical acting, and would like to add theatre goers as another reason as to why i prefer the cinema. theatre goers talk too loud during the interval because they want everyone to listen to or overhear their interesting/pompous opinions. and theatre going women are all fat and wear those poncho/robe things to try to disguise their fatness.

How many times have you been to see a play or,better still,how many theatres have you been to Toilet & Bowels?The theatrical acting thing can be deconstructed in a more interesting way if need be.Hmmmm....Abigail's party comes to mind for a start.

The crowds vary according to the type of play.The amount of fucking wankers we got for plays such as 'An Enemy of the people' or 'The motherfucking Aristocrats' was incredible.But you get that at tons of gigs and with much more vengeance methinks.Theatre crowds tend,at least,to try and shut the fuck up when they are watching something.

i'm not saying you don't get wankers at gigs, but generally music cancels out their wankery for me.
i haven't been to the theatre in a couple of years, but i used to go about three or four times a year.

So i suppose you'd know that there is a huge number of them,i imagine.

huge number of theatres or wankers?

Just talked to one.

you just talked to a theatre?

...

well if you were talking to someone in a theatre it doesn't surprise me that they were a wanker

That must be it then.

problem solved! eveyone in a theatre is a wanker.


actually, i forgot, i went to the theatre a couple of months ago.

You are such a wanker.

pfff. who isn't these days?

It's been a trend for ages.It's about time that someone puts a stop to it Le Toilette.

Cinema. Albeit, tasteful cinema- none of that CGI shite.

Then again, shitty pretentious arthouse films (Last Days) plague the cinema industry now. I miss those cartoon films about the dinosaur children.

What's most important to me is to see how actors react to one another. I'd go for theater for that reason - they can't hide when their partner's addressing them, when a movie director can edit his film the way he/she wants - even stupidly.
Flaws are more obvious on a stage.
Flaws can be hidden in a film - make up here, start again there.
Life's filled with flaws.
Demi Moore, Sharon Stone - no flaw girls in empty pictures.
When you've got human beings on the screen it's wonderful, and I still chase movies to witness Nick Nolte's overacting vs John Cusack's stillness when the battle is over in The Thin Red Line, or Benicio Del Toro talking to James Caan in The Way of the Gun. But connections never last long in most movies when they pervade through all plays .