Theatre/Spectacle

[Bruce Barton]

On Thu, 8 Feb 1996, Mark Fisher wrote:
 
        (snipped here)
 
> ....When I suggested the active/passive distinction I was adapting
> my own pet theory about the difference between film and theatre. If in
> general I prefer theatre to film, it's because I prefer to feel like I'm
> part of the event rather than a passive recipient of it.
 
This seems a rather shaky basis to build any discussion of 'theatre' vs.
'spectacle' on (if, indeed, a firmer one exists).  Few contemporary
theories of film production and reception perceive cinema spectatorship as
"passive".  Barbara Klinger's discussion of the complex "inter-textuality" of
the cinematic event (and the powerfully productive "digressions" discovered in
the myriad collaborative and contradictory extra-filmic narratives that
surround and interpolate, in particular, American film, ranging from the
Academy Awards through the National Enquirer) is just a single argument
amongst many that describe watching a film as highly interactive.  As Mark
concedes, 'engagement' is a particularly elusive idea, and establishing
polarities (theatre/film, active/passive, theatre/spectacle) does not seem
to me the most effective way to deal with its inherent ambiguity (read:
possibilities).
 
        For what its worth.
 
Bruce Barton
Sir Wilfred Grenfell College
Memorial U of NF  (sans picket sign)