But that sort of amalgam of “favorites” into purpose-filmed souvenir takes the documentary about as close to actual real-time experiencing of drama as it can get. The sense of live (“living but for moment”) performance, in one or another regard made magical (that is why some much money used to go into set building, dream-spaces), is vital of we are to put aside our (modern-day) resistance to the “fantastic” (never heard elsewhere) mode of intake. But of course film-making resists optical mobility, always reminds the end-viewer that he/she isn’t really there all senses open, that peripheral or echo-based territories or careful exploration of detail have been lopped away to allow the camera time/energy to play with undynamic special effects, filters, shadow, etc. that are the jewels of cinematographer’s toolkit. Is a very cold medium (what IS is WHAT YOU ARE SHOWN) at least when scripted to move through prespecified takes: which is why there has a been such proliferation of hung-from-the-roof simulcasting mega LED screens which offer multi-angled, even time-lagged, quasi-omniscient audiencing: inserting a from-within “eye”, or creating a sense of seeing around corners, through walls. But even then able to mobilize and render dream-like only during signalled short episodes when the axis of action can be forgotten or put on hold – what are in fact interludes.
Once our opera-videographer abandons the pose of neutral documentation, he/she must deal with the problematic of media exchange (doubled presentation) – of restating the excitement of real time (if only imagined) audience co-participation as a distanced-by-time account of the same event or performance – a conjurer’s trick akin to the flashback in narrative film. For there are few, probably only 2, ways of addressing the issue,