Although they’re entirely passable, they aren’t as good as movie-musicals
Watching a live performance is going to have a different energy obviously. But seeing it recorded is still better than never seeing it at all.
The “art is ephemeral” is pure art school nonsense and 99% of the time ends up being turning into “art for the elite that can afford it.” I thought it was silly in art school 30 years ago and have had 30 years to think about why I still think it’s silly. It’s one of those buttons for me that, when I see it, I have a really hard time not being harsh to the person regurgitating the sentiment.
It’s like asking what about tennis vs soccer - they’re different things with different contexts, seasons (of sorts) and contexts. I’d pick a new Chris Nolan movie over a community production of Hedda Gabler, I’d pick a professional production of a new Martin McDonagh play over the latest Marvel superhero flick. I’d pick almost anything over recorded theatre with few exceptions.
You compared live play vs recorded play. Then you compared movie to recorded play. I’m assuming you were comparing against the same story/intellectual property.
Let’s take the Cats musical for instance. (These are inequality sings, not arrows)
Cats live > Cats recorded > Cats movie
Or even the shreck musical, it’s really good, but obviously wouldn’t replace the movie, but you can absolutely want to see both for different reasons.
I’m actually going to take it a step further and say that the BBC radio play is the definitive version of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.
So there is no “nail in the coffin”. Or whatever you were trying to say. It’s entirely circumstantial.
But I did answer that. It would depend on the movie or the play.
In this specific instance I do think the 1998 Elaine Page taping of the Adelphi Cats was better than the recent movie but I’d say that’s the exception that proves the rule.
Is not the same as:
Watching a live performance is going to have a different energy obviously. But seeing it recorded is still better than never seeing it at all.
The “art is ephemeral” is pure art school nonsense and 99% of the time ends up being turning into “art for the elite that can afford it.” I thought it was silly in art school 30 years ago and have had 30 years to think about why I still think it’s silly. It’s one of those buttons for me that, when I see it, I have a really hard time not being harsh to the person regurgitating the sentiment.
Given the choice of a recorded theatre or live theatre id pick live theatre.
Given the choice of a movie or recorded theatre I’d pick a movie.
And I think that’s the nail in the coffin for me.
Okay, but what about movie vs live theatre?
It’s like asking what about tennis vs soccer - they’re different things with different contexts, seasons (of sorts) and contexts. I’d pick a new Chris Nolan movie over a community production of Hedda Gabler, I’d pick a professional production of a new Martin McDonagh play over the latest Marvel superhero flick. I’d pick almost anything over recorded theatre with few exceptions.
I’m not sure you understood my question.
You compared live play vs recorded play. Then you compared movie to recorded play. I’m assuming you were comparing against the same story/intellectual property.
Let’s take the Cats musical for instance. (These are inequality sings, not arrows) Cats live > Cats recorded > Cats movie
Or even the shreck musical, it’s really good, but obviously wouldn’t replace the movie, but you can absolutely want to see both for different reasons.
I’m actually going to take it a step further and say that the BBC radio play is the definitive version of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.
So there is no “nail in the coffin”. Or whatever you were trying to say. It’s entirely circumstantial.
But I did answer that. It would depend on the movie or the play.
In this specific instance I do think the 1998 Elaine Page taping of the Adelphi Cats was better than the recent movie but I’d say that’s the exception that proves the rule.