To digitize or not to digitize: That is the question

(l-r) Branwell Donaghey as Steve, Ben Foster as Stanley, Vanessa Kirby as Stella, and Troy Glasgow as Pablo in “A Streetcar Named Desire” at The Young Vic. Photo by Johan Persson. Courtesy of The National Theatre.

With high-profile directors like Julie Taymor — famous for her direction of Broadway’s “The Lion King” — filming versions of their staged productions, the medium of digital theater is on the rise. Whereas before, one had little hope of experiencing The Young Vic’s “Streetcar Named Desire,” now a 10-minute bike ride to The Aquarius Theatre is all that’s keeping you from seeing this London-based production. Thanks to websites like digitaltheatre.com (Netflix’s lesser-known, theatrical equivalent), one need go no further than the comfort of one’s own couch to see The Old Vic’s rendition of “The Crucible” or The Royal Shakespeare Company’s “As You Like It.” On the surface, it sounds great. But is there a price to be paid for this commercialization of theater? And if so, is it worth it?

Olivia Vinall in “The Hard Problem” at The National Theatre. Photo by Johan Persson. Courtesy of The National Theatre.

Of course, there’s a significant distinction to be made between productions screened at The Aquarius Theatre and those of Digital Theatre. The Aquarius Theatre generally showcases productions that are recorded and distributed by companies like National Theatre Live (NTLive). NTLive, spawned from its theater namesake (the National Theatre in London), records UK theater and broadcasts it domestically and abroad. These broadcasts — which include productions like the Wyndham Theater’s rendition of “Skylight,” featuring Bill Nighy, or the National Theatre’s production of Tom Stoppard’s new play, “The Hard Problem” — retain a degree of transience, as they have a limited run in the theater. Conversely, companies like Digital Theatre eschew this trademark of theater altogether, allowing you to purchase a recording of David Tennant’s “Much Ado” and watch it as many times as you wish.

But when you watch a recording of theater, you lose the opportunity to engage with the performance: Unlike in live theater, your presence no longer has an impact on what transpires onstage. A live production fosters a rapport between the performers and the audience: The actors rely on feedback — in the form of laughter, crying, what have you — in order to guide and adjust their performance to suit that particular audience. This mechanism incentivizes the audience members to invest themselves in the production — the more feedback they give, the more entertaining the production will be. Digital theater bankrupts us of this feedback mechanism.

Unfortunately, the digital theater industry is characterized by financial barriers to entry. There are huge fixed costs associated with filming, promoting and distributing these recordings, not to mention the hoops a company has to jump through in order to secure the rights for them. Few theater companies are financially secure enough to shoulder these costs, which leads us to our next problem — monopolization.

At the moment, the major fount of “cinematic broadcasts,” as they are called, is limited to Britain, especially London’s West End. This is largely due to National Theatre Live’s domination of the fledgling digital theater industry. According to its website, NTLive is committed to spreading “the best of British theatre live from the London stage to cinemas across the UK and around the world.” The theater that one watches, however, directly influences the theater that one produces. Ergo, if London theater is the only theater that’s being popularized, will all theater become a carbon copy of the West End? How at risk is theater of becoming homogenized? If the answer is “high,” then we should be wary of such broadcasts, for homogeneity is diametrically opposed to creative development.

Ben Foster in “A Streetcar Named Desire” at The Young Vic. Photo by Johan Persson. Courtesy of The National Theatre.

Having said all that, it would be foolish not to consider the upsides of digital theater’s proliferation. Firstly, it connects avid theatergoers to works that they otherwise would never get the opportunity to experience. Case in point: I’m not going to fly to London to see “Streetcar,” though it was an absolute pleasure to watch from a cushioned seat in The Aquarius Theatre.

Secondly, digital theater has the potential to make theatergoing accessible and affordable. In my experience, someone who’s never been exposed to theater before is unlikely to go out of his way to see a local production. Attending live theater is expensive — at most major performances, even standing-room tickets cost upwards of $30 — so most people will choose to invest money and time in leisure activities that they’ve done before and, therefore, are confident will yield pleasure. On the other hand, if high quality theater is available at the click of a button and at a significantly cheaper cost — as is the case with Digital Theatre — a newcomer to theater is much more likely to give it a try. Now, you need not be wealthy to experience some of the world’s best theater performances with a much better view than you’d get in the nosebleed section. In this way, recording and distributing staged productions is a social good, working to chip away the classicism that plagues traditional theater.

Contact Ian Anstee at theater ‘at’ stanforddaily.com.