I recently watched Ivo van Hove’s avant-garde production of “A View from the Bridge” on Broadway and I immediately knew each of his bold directorial choices. The reason being, before I saw it on stage, I had already witnessed this magnificent production on screen. The production had premiered in London and was broadcasted to cinema screens all over the world in a program called “National Theatre Live.” The screening I went to — at NYU Skirball, no less — was so good that I was convinced it was one of the best pieces of theater I had ever seen before even knowing that it was coming to New York.

Filmed theater is everywhere: it is easily accessible, and interest in it is growing. On the last flight I took, there were even screenings of the latest Viennese operas as part of the in-flight entertainment library. Often, though not always, these screenings are broadcasted live as the play is being performed stage. This entire genre has emerged from our obsession with things being live — sports games, the news, talk shows and awards ceremonies — we now even have Facebook Live. The currently undefined medium of filmed theater follows this same trend; somehow being as close as possible to the time of the event makes us feel more connected to it. The biggest question here is: how does viewing a production designed for the theater on a screen change our experience of the production and even the way theater is made?

No doubt this new medium has come about due to advancements in technology. More importantly, it could even be seen as a benefit to the public, because anyone, anywhere can have access to extremely expensive seats in highbrow theater productions, expanding its reach immensely and bringing good theatre to the masses. Moreover, the greater inclusion of audiences could increase profits, funding and the quality of these productions, and artists’ incomes. The cinematic language used in these screenings — with multiple camera angles, sweeping shots and close-ups of actors that have become more rewarding for cinema audiences than those sitting in the theater — makes them more appealing to a society that is more attuned to watching movies than watching plays.

On the other hand, some may argue that there are fewer opportunities for live performances because it’s easier to have a repeat screening of the same performance multiple times than staging the show all over again. When actors are performing in a filmed play, do they act for the cameras or for the audience that’s right there in the same room as them? Why would anyone even go see an actual play anymore? At this rate, perhaps a play may only need to be staged once and caught on film, and then it lasts forever — just look at NBC’s and Fox’s one-performance-only live musicals with all-star casts — and screenings may become appropriate substitutes for national or international tours.

Strangely enough, society’s need to feel closer to events at the time of their occurrence has in fact distanced us from actual human connection, the connection we want to see actors have onstage and the connection we want to have with the actors. In fact, one of the most beautiful things about theater is its ephemerality, and the resultant necessity for repetition and spontaneity. Performers perform every show as if it was their first, and new audiences see something new every time. And when the show ends, or when the run closes, that same show can never be seen again. Is this something that can ever be achieved on screen?

Email Nishad More at [email protected].