Fragility, the Fragment, and Distance

Here's what I wanted to say during the last class, and I would've, but that my domineering tiredness kept my thoughts from forming effectively.
SPECTATORSHIP--in terms of film and theatre, and the differences separating the two when we experience either, yes, I wanted to say something of the theatre's FRAGILITY.
A performance not caught in a fixed format is fragile, easily disruptable. True, the fragility of a fixed format film or tv program depends upon technological reliability, and such reliability is indirectly human reliability--film projectors and booster towers are human inventions, after all. Theatrical performances, though, are highly dependent upon its spectatorship's agreement to remain in a state of "absence/presence"; for the illusion of a performance's reality to succeed, the spectatorship's "presence" is known, just as its "absence" is integral.
And, yes, this "absence/presence" required for theatrical performances runs parallel to Carson's dissection of eros as a "desire for that which is missing"; in this case, the "missing" the performers' desire are the elements of disruption, the things capable of punching through a theatre's FRAGILITY: coughing, talking, whispering, trendy cell-phone ring-tones, etc. If such disruptions remain "missing," the "fourth wall" of DISTANCE is undisturbed.
And if DISTANCE is another word for lack (a rift, a separation, a space, a void--a place of "missing"), this DISTANCE is, too, eros.
Oh, there's more to DISTANCE here, but before that, there's:
THE FRAGMENT--Mulvey writes "conventional close-ups of legs (Dietrich, for instance) or a face (Garbo) integrate into the narrative a different mode of eroticism . . . a fragmented body destroys . . . the illusion of depth demanded by the narrative; it gives flatness, the quality of a cut-out or icon . . . to the screen." Film accomplishes this ceaselessly; traditional, non-experimental theatre cannot. Film can erotically isolate body fragments into potential fetish-points. Elizabeth Taylor's legs in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof? Myriads of "muscle-cam" montages (this one's for the ladies!) in any Schwarzenegger flick? Might the mass media of film be a means of mass-fetishization? Am I treading on Mulvey's toes here?
Films--DVDs--are already commodity-fetishized these days (smile, Marx!), and they're mass produced to meet commodity demands.
Yikes!--where's a way to wrap this up?
Perhaps--
Theatre carries a fragile depth, film a depth of iconized anatomy.
A fragile depth, depths of icons, theatre and film--both brought to you through:
DISTANCE--Sappho's glukupikron, the "sweetbitter" nature of eros. I believe I made some attempt at relating this to film trailers in class. I'll clarify things here, through the concept of DISTANCE.
It's simple, really.
Eros, "sweetbitter"-ness, happens during the interval separating the first time a film's trailer is seen and the anticipated time the film itself is seen.
During this stretch dividing the ad from the product, eros, a longing to see the film, intensifies, mounts--but it is only within this DISTANCE, this region of lack, this time anticipating "that which is missing," that eros builds.
Once the DISTANCE is reached, and the film seen, something akin to bitterness might set in.
An anticipated film seen is an anticipated film had, experienced; eros is no longer lack, "that which is missing" is no longer missing, no longer "sweet."
And the trailer, the manipulative, "sweet" morsel of image-FRAGMENTS, pieces of the film separated from the film-body through the DISTANCES wrought through the celluloid surgery of edits, a collection of DISTANCES, gaps in the story, lack-spaces, a promise of future "sweetnesses," of future wholeness (is that Aristophanes I see at the editing console?)--is this what a trailer is?
And the greater DISTANCE in this deal?
Film and its attendant SPECTATORSHIP are forever distant.
I can identify with screen images all I want, taking a cue from Mulvey via Lacan; I can let my ego libido cut a rug 'til the management tells me to leave--but identify is all I can do. In film, whether anticipating it or experiencing it, there are layers of lack
There's always the separating DISTANCE.