The theater where Dennis & I spent part of Date Night is advertising live broadcasts of events such as operas and ballets. I thought that was an interesting niche idea in the "where else ya gonna get that?" sense. The exclusivity of such a showing runs side-by-side with a limitation of choice (i.e. see it then or not at all) that makes up the mind one way or another. (Anecdotal case in point: Of the movies I've seen in theater, the one I've most often attended is only offered--in this area, anyway--at my UWEC, and then only once a year at midnight.)
But for all the exclusivity, tuning in "live" to something happening at Bayreuth, The Hollywood Bowl, La Fenice, Royal Albert Hall, Radio City Music Hall, etc. from the comfort of your local cineplex is still not the same as being there. I mean, granted, it's not like anyone would be silly enough to do Tony and Tina's Wedding that way, and theater-in-the-round would be a suboptimal experience at best.
But the question boils down to whether "close enough" is "good enough." When Dennis & I finally had the means to venture over to the UK, seeing a Shakespeare play at The Globe was--surprise!--non-negotiable. The experience was pretty amazing facsimile, all in all: Paying good money to be crammed onto wooden benches, using the knees of the patron behind you as a backrest, occassionally feeling a September drizzle blow in from the open part of the roof. Never mind that the underpinnings of the 17th century original lay under an apartment complex a few blocks off: It was the best to be had.
Which will probably also be true sentiment of the arts-lover who can't swing a trip to the actual production's venue. But whether the approximation will be good enough is another question. I think that, as the gap continues to close between our immediate world and that which can be brought to us via technology, that question will become more and more complex...and interesting.
