The Rough Theater

The setting, back ground, and location of film is one of the most important components of film.  In theater there is a part of grittiness that emulates through the location, actors, and audience. But what is so important about a gritty and truthful place?  In film reality is lost through most narratives.  Scenes and sets that exude perfection disconnect the audience from the story and actors.  To really relate to any story or performance, the audience must find it realistic, truthful, and familiar.  With live theater, actors are on the spot, making mistakes, which are actually existence in film/ performance.  So why does the audience seem more into reality, more so rough performance?  Aesthetically, it's fun to watch.  Maybe the audience feels more immersed in the performance considering it is right in front of them and the location seems rough, as if the performance outshines the background.  I really have no idea what exactly this concept Brook thought of, but it makes somewhat sense.  Is that why documentaries seem more raw other than the fact its not fully staged like a narrative?  That mistakes are shown on screen and live locations, as raw and roughed up as they are, make what the documentary is circulates around.  I guess the gritty truth of it all is that we all have experienced real time, real locations, the dirty portajohn that hold our breath in.  Without all of these places we wouldn't relate to any of the performances and plots.  We should bow down to the organic and raw scenery that we take advantage of and try to avoid.