On Wed, 10 May 2006 16:41:37 +0100, "Derry Barbour"
<barbours@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Given that our dramatic heritage here in the UK is the envy of the world
and
> generates millions of pounds especially via foreign tourism, why is
there
> such a glaring absence of good classic and contem****ary theatrical drama
> available to the general public in the form of recordings on Video/DVD?
>
> There are a few recordings of performances either recorded directly
within
> the relevant Theatre/Opera House or in a Studio held in the archives of
the
> British Film Institute and the Theatre Museum here in the UK, but these
are
> available only to performing arts students or arts organisations to be
> viewed only on the premises.
There are two main problems with releasing theatrical productions on
DVD.
The first is the matter of rights and contracts. Once a production
has opened any attempt at recording and releasing it requires everyone
involved to be transferred to new or revised contracts detailing the
remuneration they'll receive, both for the process of recording and
for any profit that comes from subsequent sales. That's a difficult
enough process while a production is still running; once it has closed
and all those involved have gone their separate ways it can be a
nightmare to track everyone down, especially as some of them may have
gone abroad or died in the meantime. Unless the producers have had
the foresight to use contracts that explicitly give them the right to
do whatever they please there's effectively no chance of getting a
production on to DVD once it has closed.
The other problem is that productions arranged for the theatre often
need substantial revision for the screen. There was a discussion on
this very subject over on rec.arts.theatre.musicals recently, and one
composer was adamant that his shows should not be recorded for public
distribution: he wrote them for live performance, and he doesn't want
the quality of his work to be judged by how well it comes across in a
medium for which it wasn't written. Given that many more people would
see a recording than would experience the live show, that's a serious
concern.
Similarly, directors are working with the aim of pleasing an audience
that can see all the stage all the time: something that isn't possible
with a recording unless you're willing to lose all the details that
can be seen by a live audience. And then there's the choice of cast:
on stage, without the worry of closeups, it's possible to cast people
whose actual age is wildly different from that of their character. A
filmed closeup would reveal the inappropriateness in dreadful clarity,
so should the production be cast with the people who'll give the best
performance for the audience in the theatre, or those who'll look the
most realistic for the camera?
> Over 95% of the general public are unable either by (in some cases)
> distance, or time and finance to view quality drama and acting -
especially
> if a production is mounted solely in the West End of London and does not
> even tour to the major centres outside.
>
> Even with the plethora of television channels now available, there are
> rarely (if any) classic or contem****ary theatre productions available -
even
> on Artsworld. The Performance channel appears to have no drama at all.
The
> major terrestrial channels (especially the BBC via BBC Research Central)
> have massive archive material, the contents of which are not available
> except to researchers or television/film companies.
The dearth of good theatrical productions on TV might be better
addressed by staging special made-for-TV productions where the entire
project is run with the intention of producing a recording instead of
targeting it at a theatre audience and getting a DVD as a side effect.
--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"]
|
