Vraisemblant theatre

Since the age of movies and television, theatre has found itself at a disadvantage. Regardless of the expense and effort, it simply cannot compete with those media in terms of realism or special effects. This inability has let to extensive use of minimal, symbolic sets, which would seem to make theatre less effective than other forms, including books. Not only that, attending a play is an immediate experience that requires commitment to arrive at a specific time and does not allow the convenience of taking a break at your convenience. In fact, the starkness and strictness of theatre would seem to make it an increasingly less effective medium for presenting a drama, especially in the light of the short attention span of modern audiences.

The truth is the often the opposite. By definition stripped of peripherals, the drama is portrayed in its cleanest, most intense form. No amazing visual affects distract the audience from the plot. Moreover, the viewers, trapped in their seat, cannot easily walk away from the emotions and situations. They are forced to ride the waves of the story all the way to its happy, bittersweet or even tragic end. There is no shutting the book, pressing the pause button or switching to another channel. The theatre-goer must go through to the end.  Granted, in particular bad cases, people leave either during the break or even during the performance itself.  However, this behavior is still significantly less prevalent than in other forms of performance media. Thus, the seeming weaknesses of theatres, its simplicity and immediateness, make it the most powerful way of presenting a drama.

As an example, my wife and I just saw the Hebrew version of the Kite Runner, based on a book by Khaled Hosseini, as presented by the Gesher Theatre in Israel. The story is intense and painful, even violent.  If I had previously read the book, I may even have chosen not to see the drama as I was very tired that night. Not only that, the plot, both morally and emotionally, was very disturbing. The play challenged basic ideas about right and wrong and showed how complex they are to apply in real life, especially in a tribal society and even more so during war. The symbolic scenery, representing the various venues of the play, not only did not distract from this story but even enhanced it as it showed the grayness and starkness of the external world of the drama.  If I had started to watch this on television or read the book, I have no doubt I would have switched channels or put the book aside for another time. Instead, I was obliged to experience the story without escape or interruption. The result was a total vicarious pleasure, i.e., I had the privilege of glimpsing and, to a certain degree, gaining an understanding of Afghan society as it was portrayed. Both my wife and I left wowed, even emotionally drained. That is what good theatre can do.

If I prefer theatre to movies, it is for these reasons. The strength of a play is in its story and characters, not the special effects or the physical action scenes. Moreover, I may not always enjoy the experience but I am forced to go through it. Alas, not all theatre is powerful nor do all audiences seek such intensity. However, at its best, seeing a play at the theatre is as close to the real story as we can get. It is, as the French would say, vraisemblance, true likeness.