Позориште и филм – линије сусретања и раздвајања
Theatre and Film – Lines of Convergence and Divergence

Summary/Abstract: Considering that the theatre was created long before the film, it was quite expected that at the very beginnings of the development of the film its influence would be greatly expressed. However, no one could have fully predicted what happened in the later stages, up until today, in the film industry, which experienced lightning-fast progress. In other words, it was difficult at the very beginnings of cinema development to imagine that roles would largely be reversed in the not-so-distant future, and that film would begin to influence theatre just as theatre had fervently done in its most delicate possible moment. Admittedly, theatre was not necessarily needed in film development, nor was it crucial for its emergence. One even gets the impression that besides photography, without which film would not have emerged, the influence of theatre has unjustifiably been relegated to the background and its role and significance in further expanding certain technical possibilities almost neglected. The fact is that film props, especially in black-and-white historical film spectacles, look somewhat naive, particularly in those moments when some catastrophe occurs and buildings collapse like houses of cards. Film, in its very beginnings, when it did not have sufficient technical means at its disposal, simply cried out for every possible solution that would enable it to further develop primarily its technical aspect. Most films are characterized by action taking place in a space and atmosphere that is more or less cinematic, even in cases where theatrical elements are markedly present and where theatrical space represents the central place, both geographically and in terms of content. It should be noted that even then, the theatre was in the service of film and its means, and that its structure was subject to and shaped by cinematic rules. Thus, a distinctly theatrical atmosphere may permeate the film, but even then, it can manage to resist the dominance of theatre and theatrical performance. People with hearing live in a world where experiences are connected to sounds, and in film, speech and sound often provide hints on how to interpret what is seen. People with hearing impairments, however, experience films differently, encountering only images in the absence of sound. When considering silent films, both hearing and hearing-impaired viewers share a similar viewing experience. Unlike sound films, these can be watched by individuals with hearing impairments without any particular difficulties or prior adaptations. The situation differs significantly for theater performances intended for individuals with hearing impairments. These productions involve extensive preparations and are adapted as much as possible for hearing-impaired audiences. Even though hearing people can also attend these performances, their conceptualization and execution must account for all the unique aspects of the world of hearing-impaired individuals. This includes considering the potential advantages these individuals might have in visual perception. The silent screen stands in contrast to the speaking stage, but in theatre for people with hearing impairments this relationship becomes additionally complicated due to the specific expression and performance on stage. In that case, the stage becomes silent, meaning actors do not utter a single word, they use pantomime, sign language, or in another variant they have almost expressionless faces, without any facial expressions, while directors include a multitude of different signs that refer to one another. A significant amount of time passed from the inception of theater until serious indications of theater for hearingimpaired individuals emerged. Subsequently, a considerably shorter period elapsed until the invention of film – specifically silent film. However, this ideal of theater and film tailored for people with hearing impairments quickly dissipated.

• Details
• Contents