Films are a recent invention. They are slightly older than a century. Theatres, on the other hand, have been in existence for over 2500 years. The ancient Greek Aristotle classified theatre performances into tragedy and comedy. The tragedy Julius Caesar is said to have been written in 1599 by William Shakespeare. It tells 44BC scheme against the Roman tyrant Julius Caesar. It was one of many roman plays that were written by Shakespeare. It is based on events that occurred in the Roman history and includes Coriolanus, Antony, and Cleopatra. This paper compares and contrasts Julius Caesar movie and play (Kramer, 2).
Both the theatre performance and the movie have actors. These are the people who play different roles in order to recreate a written book into a live performance or a film. Performers, actors, and actresses are the core of any movie. The actors in both the film and the movie were adequately prepared for their roles as they were able to deliver the message quite vividly. As a result of the input of the actors, the message was similar in both the film and the performance.
Both the theatrical performance and the movie followed a strict plot. Although different words where used to communicate the message in the film and the play, there seemed to be a similar plot that was strictly followed by both. The plot revolved around Marcus Brutus who is a close friend of Caesar. Marcus joins a group of senators due to increased suspicion started off by Cassius, who claimed that Caesar had intentions of converting Rome into a monarchy under his own reign. Marcus turns against Caesar as a result of growth in the public support. Caesar is given several warnings which he ignored. This leads to his assassination which, in my opinion, is the climax in this movie and theatrical performance. This story line echoes in both the film and the theatrical performance of Julius Caesar. The way the film and the theatre performance have managed to follow it is extremely amazing.
Both the film and the theatre performance have directors who did a commendable job. In the beginning and at the end of the film we are able to see the name of the director on the screen. This is the person who ensures that the production of the film is as smooth as possible. He is also responsible for ensuring that the message of the script is delivered clearly, giving a viewer a vivid picture. In the case of the theater performance, a director is very important. He introduced himself at the beginning of the play. He has a lot of work which include the selection of the actors and actresses, attire selection, and approval to ensure that the actors and actresses have mastered their roles.
Both the film and the theatrical performance tell a story that is played dramatically. The actors and the actresses represent the actual characters. They emulate them in every possible way in order to show the play clearly. This was quite evident in both, the film and the theatrical performance of Julius Caesar. The performers took the roles as their own. They displayed different character traits of every character in a different manner. From both one can identify different personalities of the characters.
Both the film and the theatrical performance entertained me at different levels. They were able to portray the characters well. In particular scenes, which were cativating to the audience, the laughter in the auditorium could not go unnoticed. The movie also moved me a lot. It entertained me two hours which is not an easy task for a non entertaining one. I usually take the disk out and do important tasks if the movie does not meet my expectations during the first thirty minutes.
Both the theatre and the film describe an activity of life. They portray Julius Caesar’s assassination by his close allies. Also, both consumed the audience’s time. A theatre or a film takes from an hour and a half to two and a half hours of its audience’s time. Time is very precious because it is a limited commodity which cannot be purchased anywhere. Anything consuming individual’s time should be worth it
One of the obvious disparities between the experience of the theatre performance of Julius Caesar and that of the movie is that the theatrical performance is live while the movie is recorded. The movie was recorded at an earlier point of time. This gives the producers of the movie opportunities for editing the movie, thus producing a master piece. In the case of the theatre performance, there must be constant rehearsals to ensure that the final product meets the expectations of the audience. When actors do not rehearse well, it will be evident on the live theatre performance, spoiling the image of the show for which the audience paid money.
Another notable difference between a film and a theatrical performance is the audience. I watched the film comfortably sitting on the sofa by myself. This can be very boring as you do not know emotions of other people. At a theatre the hall is well organized for theatrical performances. The light was set perfectly to ensure that the whole audience is able to watch the play from their seats. The seats in the theatre are cozy. The audience has a possibility to exhibit emotions that go through the room. The actors were able to connect with the audience in a very amazing manner. It does not happen with a film. While producing a film, the stuff put the audience into consideration. Actors and actresses at the theatre are more flexible. They use the language of the audience. If it is a children show, they incorporate catchy phrases, attire, lighting that keep the kids excitedly sitting in their seats. The same applies to a variety of audiences.
Each performance in the film Julius Caesar is identical. This can be attributed to the fact that the film is recorded for future reference and for distributing many similar copies with the intention to maximize profits. No matter how many times one watches the film Julius Caesar, he or she sees the same rendition. There might be a slight difference depending on the level of one’s concentration throughout the film. Low level of concentration can lead to getting the message inaccurately. In the case of a theatrical performance every performance cannot exactly match the previous one. However, actors always try to deliver the message clearly; there are some additions to and subtractions from every theatre performance on order to improve the overall impression. Actors, the director and other stuff can take from feedback the audience and observe their reactions throughout the performance.
The field of view in a play is constant. It is determined solely by the size of the stage. This is preedetermined by the architectural design of the theatre hall. The stage cannot exceed a certain limit when it comes to size. The film is very advantageous in this case. I watched it from my small laptop. This kind of watching offers a viewer an array of options. He or she can make the screen smaller or bigger; also there is an additional option of adjusting the sound to a level one is comfortable with. At the theatre the sound is always constant. Although the levels are sufficient for any ordinary human being, there are some special cases which are not catered for. There are people who have hearing impairments, thus requiring the help of gadgets or higher sound levels to actively participate in the performance.
The film often has incorporated cutting edge technical aspects. The film Julius Caesar is very different, compared to the theatre performance. There are some background sounds in the film that appropriately deliver the mood of the film. For example, in the scene of Caesar’s assassination the background sounds express danger. The theatre performance also had background sounds for different scenes. However, in the film sounds are much better. The graphics in the film is also amazing; it can be attributed to the fact that the film is edited incorporating high levels of technology.
The film is also able to depict more clearly different scenes in comparison with the theatre. This is because the crew carefully selects the locations that can vividly deliver the message. For example, the house of Julius Caesar is seen with all its rooms. A theatre performance is limited to one stage that acts as the battle ground, the assassination point, the home of Caesar and so on. This was monotonous to me. Although the stage kept on changing lightly to show different location, this was not enough for me (Edmonds & Danylak, pp. 55-78).
In the theatrical performance of Julius Caesar there were instances when one notices that there is lack of synchronization or something is amiss. For example, there is one actor stammers and it is obvious that other actors are surprised. This was very rare and I must commend the actors and the actresses who managed to play with 95% efficiency. This is my own rating. The movie had no screen errors. This is because the movie is edited and scenes which are not shot well can be redone. This is a major advantage which the film has over a theatrical performance. A film can be improved but a theatre performance can only be perfected by countless rehearsals which are meant to stage the performance at its best not boring the audience.
In the case of a theatrical performance, the experience of being present at the time of the performance with the actors and actresses cannot be compared with anything else. One feels like he or she is in the play. The way performers connect with you is not comparable to anything else. This cannot be obtained with the help of any film.
Theatre was founded much earlier compared to films. This is because theatre does not require almost any levels of technology. It only requires some performers, a script, and creativity. Theatre is the mother of all drama which was developed 2500 years ago by the ancient Greek. Although the film industry has many appeals especially to the younger generation due its ability to enhance users’ experience, the theatre is irreplaceable (Sontag, pp.24-37).