Giles Whittaker, in his article titled The Greatest Tragedy of All, published on the

4th of June, 2012, contends that theatre is important to humanity. He presents his
arguments through a passionate yet informative tone.
The writer gives the impression that theatres evolution has a negative effect on
people as a whole. His tone is worried as he explains the effects of theatre dying but
passionate when he explains his past experience with theatre. The titles pun: The
Greatest Tragedy of All, references the theatre style of Tragedy while drawing
readers attention and setting the context for the article. Continuing to start off his
article with the quote I regard theatre to be a human being. Said by Oscar
Wilde, a famous playwright and in turn, a form of authority to strengthen the
writers argument that theatre is an important part of humanity. The author writes
about some saying that there is no harm in letting theatre die, using emotive
language while presenting the opposing viewpoint. He goes on to debunk this
argument by saying that the truth is more important than we ever realized. This
logical cause and effect statement shows the reader that theatre is important to
humanity. With anecdotal evidence, I remember the first time theatre would
become my lifes work. To set the author of the article as a person with experience
in the theatre making any argument he makes more credible to the reader. This,
coupled with him listing off his different fields of work in the theatre, Through the
years a critic, shows the reader that the author can see the argument from the
different angles of professions. Referencing Hamlet and its adaptations into 13
films, the author draws attention to the fact that [he doesnt] hate film but rather
the fact that boundaries have been crossed. This tells the reader that the author
has no personal bias against film itself so his argument that theatre is important
seems more reasonable. On a whole, readers would reconsider their views on film in
comparison to theatre.
The author gives the impression that theatre is essential to the identity of humans.
Using a passionate tone, the author makes arguments about how theatre is
important to humanity through tradition, culture and history. Part of being human
is our history sets the basis for the subsequent examples to make the argument
that theatre is a part of humanity. Referencing the Greek tragedies and the
Elizabethan plays, the author appeals to the readers sense of tradition while also
noting historical evidence. By linking theatre with civilized culture, the author
makes allusions that if it wasnt for theatre, culture would not be civilized.
Comparing theatre to film, which is also deeply entrenched in our history and
culture, the author shows that he had considered the opposing side of the
argument that not only is theatre important to human culture but also that cinema
remains central to modern culture. Switching to an accusatory tone, the author
criticizes cinematic adaptations of plays saying that adaptations [remove] so much
meaning and having the power of imagination stolen from viewers. The negative
emotive language used here would elicit feelings of disappointment from readers.

The wider effect this would have on readers is that they would be more cautious to
decide whether the adaptations of plays could be worthwhile to watch.
The author gives the impression that there is a way for the art forms to meld well,
but people havent had it yet. His tone becomes disgusted when explaining bad
adaptations of plays, but then settles into an excited tone I the end. The author
draws upon two bad examples of adaptations of Hamlet and The Tempest, to
show the readers that the art forms do not meld well with the wrong director and
actors. In the final paragraph, the author uses the emotive language embrace our
humanity to show readers that it is possible to have adaptations that can be
wonderful celebrations of theatre and film, showing the reader that it is possible to
have a way for both art forms to meld well.