Report a comment
Thank you for taking the time to report the following comment to the administrator of this site.
Please complete this short form and click the submit button to process your report.
Comment in question
7. Sep, 2008
Definition Revisited: Theater vs Theatre
The use of the word “theatre” goes back to the turn of the 20th Century. Most of American society, particularly those who owned live theater venues, looked upon the new cinema art form as nothing more than a bawdy fad that would soon collapse under its own low-class offerings.
To make a distinction between the “legitimate stage” and the cheap mass produced moving picture productions that had everyone seemingly getting their own piece of this new-fangled pie a line was drawn.
This line divided those venues that offered specific types of entertainment. Live shows that performed on stages without screens remained “theaters” while the new form of entertainment, moving pictures, were shown on screens without a stage for live productions and were, therefore, called “theatres”.
Having this unique spelling informed the public what type of entertainment they were going to see.
Of course, the two-name distinction lost its relevance quickly once the general public began to embrace movies not as the bawdy display of yore but a medium that was growing in sophistication and class. Soon, both forms of entertainment were in the same venue. Comedy, dancing and singing acts would perform prior to the “shorts” which were followed by the “feature attraction” trailed (remember this word) by what was coming next week using snippets from that feature film that, in industry slang, became known as “trailers”.
Today, the line has faded away with history. The only people who are conscious of the distinction are motion picture exhibitors, who name their companies, and companies that own venues strictly for live performances. Take a look at the entertainment section of your newspaper and you’ll probably see the two words used loosely all over the page.
So, no actual claim can be made by anyone, purist or not, that by using one word or the other has its proper usage. Rather, the distinction is one of tradition only.
To make a distinction between the “legitimate stage” and the cheap mass produced moving picture productions that had everyone seemingly getting their own piece of this new-fangled pie a line was drawn.
This line divided those venues that offered specific types of entertainment. Live shows that performed on stages without screens remained “theaters” while the new form of entertainment, moving pictures, were shown on screens without a stage for live productions and were, therefore, called “theatres”.
Having this unique spelling informed the public what type of entertainment they were going to see.
Of course, the two-name distinction lost its relevance quickly once the general public began to embrace movies not as the bawdy display of yore but a medium that was growing in sophistication and class. Soon, both forms of entertainment were in the same venue. Comedy, dancing and singing acts would perform prior to the “shorts” which were followed by the “feature attraction” trailed (remember this word) by what was coming next week using snippets from that feature film that, in industry slang, became known as “trailers”.
Today, the line has faded away with history. The only people who are conscious of the distinction are motion picture exhibitors, who name their companies, and companies that own venues strictly for live performances. Take a look at the entertainment section of your newspaper and you’ll probably see the two words used loosely all over the page.
So, no actual claim can be made by anyone, purist or not, that by using one word or the other has its proper usage. Rather, the distinction is one of tradition only.
