The play’s still the thing, even on the big screen

http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2015/nov/19/the-plays-still-the-thing-even-on-the-big-screen

Version 0 of 1.

I was horrified by the inference from Jennifer Gale (Letters, 18 November) that cinematic presentations of live plays include close-ups. Why on earth can’t the whole play be seen in the round, just as in the theatre? Similar horrors occur with most television, particularly with dance. It is as though the audience is only capable of seeing such things for a few seconds at a time.

There is a tremendous value in seeing the whole stage both in dance and in the theatre. The other people on stage are not just standing around like wet weeks and the comprehension of the action is that it is part of the entire scene.David CritchlowPoole, Dorset

• In reply to Anne McLaren (Letters, 17 November) and Jennifer Gale, the answer for publicly funded productions and exhibitions staged in London is not live cinema broadcasts (you have to be in a large town, free on the night and get a ticket before they sell out), but for the nationally funded BBC to record all such events and broadcast them to the whole nation after their run has finished. Could that not be part of the BBC’s remit? By the way, why couldn’t the National Gallery mount the Goya exhibition in, say, Manchester?John WarburtonEdinburgh

• I cannot disagree more with Peter Bradshaw (My week, 14 November). Since they began, the filmed National Theatre productions have brought wonderful, exciting theatre to our local cinema. And, yes, Jennifer Gale, stage acting is different from film – it’s better, more alive, more immediate, and only a half-hour drive away, as opposed to three hours each way and an overnight hotel to get the full Peter Bradshaw experience.Chris CulpinCastle Cary, Somerset

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com