Some people say that in the digital age, theatres and cinemas are no longer important as people can
watch all the entertainment they want online. Others argue that theatres and cinemas are still
important both economically and culturally. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
The rise of streaming platforms has led some to conclude that physical theatres and cinemas are
obsolete, while others insist that they retain cultural and economic value. In my view, although the
convenience of online entertainment is undeniable, live venues remain irreplaceable for a shared
experience and for the health of the creative economy.
Those who dismiss theatres and cinemas point to the obvious advantages of streaming. A subscription
service offers an almost unlimited library that can be accessed at any time, on any device, and at a
fraction of the cost of a cinema ticket. The pandemic made this even clearer: with venues closed,
millions of people were still able to enjoy films and stage productions from home. For a family, the
ability to pause, rewatch, and choose content freely is far more flexible than booking seats for a
fixed screening.
Yet this convenience does not erase what only a live venue can provide. The shared experience of a
cinema — the darkness, the large screen, the collective laughter or silence — is fundamentally
different from watching alone on a sofa. Theatre, in particular, offers a uniquely human connection:
the performers respond to the audience in real time, and no recording can capture that energy.
Economically, cinemas and theatres also sustain a chain of jobs, from projectionists and actors to
caterers and local businesses, and they draw footfall that town centres depend on.
In my opinion, the two are complementary rather than competing. Streaming has made great works
accessible, but it has arguably strengthened rather than weakened the appeal of a night out.
People who watch a film online are often the same people who then pay to see a show live. The task is
not to defend the cinema against the internet, but to ensure venues offer something a screen cannot.
Both views are presented fairly and a clear personal opinion is stated and sustained. The argument
is balanced: the case for streaming is acknowledged in full before the counter-argument is built,
and the conclusion ties the two together.
Takeaway: In a "discuss both" answer, show you genuinely understand the opposing view before
refuting it — this is what earns the higher score.
Four paragraphs with a clear arc: introduction with opinion, the "against" case, the "for" case, and
a synthesised conclusion. Signposting is varied ("Yet", "In particular", "In my opinion",
"complementary rather than competing").
Takeaway: Give each side its own paragraph, then a conclusion that resolves the debate rather
than just repeating it.
Strong academic and topic vocabulary: "obsolete", "irreplaceable", "footfall", "draw footfall",
"complementary", "collective laughter". Idiomatic but appropriate.
Takeaway: Two or three precise topic nouns (e.g. footfall, subscription, live venue) lift the
lexical score far more than generic adjectives.
Complex structures throughout: relative clauses ("which no recording can capture"), concession
("although... undeniable", "Yet..."), and conditional ("people who watch online are often the same
people who..."). Error-free.
Takeaway: Plan two sentences that use a concession or "not X but Y" structure — it signals B7+
control.