The dominant character and the chief wellspring of drama in a play are the points of view of the script, the audience and the production.
If a movie is “here this is” (not my idea but I can’t find the source), and a novel is “what am I thinking” then a performance is “here we are; we are here, now.” In a hospitable cause, the “we” is everything, because the host gives over to an un-judged stranger.
In plays where there are cinematic and prose effects – fluid time and landscape; third-person narration – the ground of the exchange is heavily shifted.
In prose on the page and liquid visuals on the screen, the reader can (sometimes) more easily substitute themselves for the perspective – or accommodate the telling within their own consciousnesses (as if the book or movie were a conversation they were having with themselves, a subset, to be disciplined as any internal voice or thread of reasoning/adventure may be). In performance, the narrative voice is more squarely externalized – we are with an other… The seeing and saying are collective options.
This is not altogether right (and wears away in big money productions, where effects really can be cinematic or as abstract as text), but might be a push to a puppet manifesto.
In the puppet theater (full of third person narrative in some traditions), the narrator and the audience both dream into the third space of the puppet… Two people sitting side by side, palms flat and facing themselves in a row, with the movie projected there, on the palms – projected onto a personal and mutual space.