Behind the Screen Door

Aronson considers the door the most profound technological and scenographic development in the history of theatre, with claims that it fundamentally altered theatric rhythm and significantly increased the scope of illusion although its use and value differs in theatre and television.
He explains how a door can:
1. Act as a barrier between worlds, perhaps chaos and order (i.e. sitcom structures)
2. Allow/block the flow of information; create rhythm
3. Hide/Reveal people or events; create drama
A. Tragic: door = death
B. Comedic: door= chaos
Pre-door theatre was open and processional, mirroring society, with long, drawn out entrances and exits. The door offered the element of surprise, created multiple locales, and produced the aspect of illusion on a much grander scale.
In the audiences’ mind, an actor leaves reality and is transformed as he enters onstage. This act of crossing a threshold spans across cultures with historically spiritual implications (i.e. Gate of Purgatory, Noh Japanese theater).
Thanks to symbolist thinkers in the late nineteenth century however, doors began to appear less and less on stage as worlds meshed together and the distinction between spaces faded as can be seen through the designs of Appia and Craig. Aronson therefore likens modern theater to pop music, simply fading away, without finality, seeming to mirror our time of uncertainty.
Live theatre differs from television in that a stage offers a fixed, tangible perspective and the shared space necessary in creating its aura. A TV screen is isolated, with shifting angles and shots and we seem to invite them into our homes instead of vice versa, this lack of aura thanks to its instability. Small and Big Optics (human experience v. transmitted information) as defined by theorist Paul Virilio, is used to explain how since television knows no boundaries a door is simply a door, without the power and potential its presence offers on stage.
K. Williams