What most separates theatre from film is its inherent liveliness. Its individuality is found in the fact that each performance is unique and has a character all of its own. It is this energy that makes theatre a living, breathing entity rather than a stale museum piece kept around purely for its historical merits. Audiences are usually interested in watching performances that move them emotionally, have believable characters that they can relate to, and have a satisfying storyline that allows them to fully connect with the actors involved in performing.

Theatre can often resemble a mirror - it can take a part of society, whether large or small, and use the stage to recreate the world necessary to reflect that aspect of life back to the audience. People see themselves in theatre; they find solace in the fact that they are not alone when they see their problems and joys brought to life by others.. They find catharsis in the soul-searching, cleansing tragedies, and take hope from the comedies. It is when a script is taken absolutely literally, with no interpretive action used to connect with the audience, that theatre becomes “what Peter Brook ruefully calls "deadly” Shakespeare” (Bulman: 5). Film and video add to this cut-and-dry interpretations of Shakespeare. By having a performance constantly be available on command, it has become far too easy to simply rely on the interpretations created in past performances rather than initiate new ones. “Our challenge, therefore, is to discover how not to replace the old textuality with a new form of performance textuality, which may be "read'… according to the interpretive protocols of close reading and with similar assumptions about textual monumentality.” (Bulman: 2) Modern day directors must find their creative spirit, and use the old words to bring the new meaning to life, rather than simply rely on what those particular words might have meant to audiences of the past, who, like the old meanings, are all now dead and gone.

Shakespeare, more so than most other playwrights, had a knack for using words which have not only the surface meaning of the word, but also had several underlying meanings. Shakespeare gives no indication as to which meaning should be implied by the actor, which leaves the director to choose which direction he wants the story to go in. These directorial decisions shape the meaning-experience behind both the script and the eventual performance, and change the reactions in the audience accordingly.

One of the wonderful things about live theatre is that it can be adapted to suit the cultural ideals of its audience. Different cultures place significance on different aspects of life, and theatre is one of few art forms that can be cultivated to display different meanings that explore each unique culture's societal rules. For example, at the time when Taming of the Shrew was written, the audience was probably well satisfied with the end and happy that Katherine had finally met a man who was able to tame her and turn her from the shrewish girl into the demure woman. However, it is not hard to imagine the reaction that that play would receive were it to be performed at a feminist convention in modern day society. A director would have to severely twist the meaning behind the play, or respond with a counter-text, in order to not be in danger of having his play be a dismal failure. The ending would have to be used to inspire vigour and determination in the feminist audience to fight against the unfair domination of men. “Stage history… has attached itself to new forms of theoretical discourse and as a result has tended to view productions through a literary lens - feminist, psychoanalytic, cultural materialist…” (Bulman: 3) Similarly, theatre can be used to show changes in times, to emphasise changing gender roles and to demonstrate the effect that this can have on the audience in any given society. “Juliet Dusinberre explores how performances of Antony and Cleopatra since Victorian times have inscribed cultural attitudes towards women in power, and how male reviewers have focused inquiry on the actress playing Cleopatra as "the principal signifier of the anxieties and obsessions, pleasurable and less pleasurable, which dominate the audience who watches her". (Bulman: 3)

In theatre, as with any art form involving people, there is also a very large focus on the individual physiques of the actors. As each actor's body is unique, so is their performance, as every aspect allows for a different theatrical possibility. An actor who is especially grounded in his or her body can allow their body to speak louder than the words he or she is speaking, and use the body to either complement or belie the face value meaning in the text. “… Theorists fail to consider the affective power of the body, its present bodiliness, its capacity to arouse an audience's passions - the physical and emotive force of acting that resists inscription - which is part of the pleasure we derive from live performance.” (Bulman: 4) This has been true ever since the beginnings of the theatre. In Restorative dramas, women often played a “breeches role” where their bodies would be shown off in tight-fitting breeches as they donned male apparel to show off their svelte figures in order to inspire the lust of the men in the crowd. This is no less true today - the body, more so than any other aspect of performance, can be used to seduce, convince, connive, repulse, or connect. A particular choice in an actor's age, gender or race can also be a central part of manipulating a script to bring forward any underlying meanings that the director wishes to push to the forefront. “… An audience's experience of that body on the stage confounds critical claims about the actor's power of cultural signification.” (Bulman: 4)

The theatre is a living art form. It is characterised by a live energy - a uniqueness - in every performance, and the power to fully connect to the viewer in a way that no other art form can fully manage. It cannot be analysed under the same harsh, bright lights as poetry or prose. Nothing is black or white in the theatre; it is all simply many shades of grey. Scripts cannot be torn apart by literary critics, because they are not there to be interpreted as literary devices. They are meant for performance, and in that performance to see how many ways theatre can explore humanity. Theatre is about bridging connections between the stage and the audience, and that's what Shakespeare did best.