I just read this article in Newsweek by Devin Gordon. I can see where he's going with it, and I agree with his general point (TV's cool), but he's wrong. His argument ignores basic facts. I hate arguments like his. I dislike it that people write as though TV and film are comparable mediums but fail acknowledge what the similarities and differences are.
But let me first say that I agree up to a point. I agree that TV has abundant complex and exciting dramas available. I agree that TV seems to be more willing to push the envelope than film of late. I agree that the films are becoming more polarized in the sense that the middling drama is on the decline, although I fail to see what the problem with that is.
Mostly, though, I disagree. The apples and tubas comment is ridiculous hyperbole because TV and film are similar mediums that feed off and compliment each other. I watch more TV than most people I know, going so far as to tape one show so I can watch two in the time slot or tape shows for others and then mail the tape to them. I say these things as someone who loves TV. I also regularly watch a battery of movies on my TV, both on DVD and on cable. I'm not immune to the charms of any of these mediums.
The majority of the shows Gordon chooses to discuss (The Wire, Rescue Me, The Sopranos) are late night dramas on speciality channels. They have bigger budgets and shorter seasons than the average program, leaving the writers, who he claims are "king" in television, more room to maneuver. It also gives them more room to pursue other programs and feature films in a way that conventional television does not. By putting the shows on later at night, the networks airing them can get away with more in terms of sexual content, violence, and language.
You know what else those programs have? Smaller audiences. Most people still don't get specialty channels like HBO and F/X. They don't watch these glorious programs of which he speaks. He gives mild attention to ratings juggernaut American Idol, which Fox has brilliantly decided to air three nights this week. It's a televised karaoke contest, and it's nigh impossible to counter program.
But Gordon doesn't really want to talk about those kinds of shows. He doesn't want to talk about what sits atop the Nielsen's, which is a closer comparison to what makes the Top 10 in box office receipts, because I think he knows deep down that there is no basis of comparison.
Instead, he wants to talk about The Wire, which I have never seen. I understand that's it's really good, and I'd like to see it, but I have no idea when it's on or where. Ten to one most people reading this don't either. I'm not saying any of you wouldn't watch it either, but most of us don't have that option. If I could afford to get every channel my satellite service provider offered, I would. But I can't, and neither can most people. So we watch basic cable.
Consider an argument like this one: "For decades, if film was the Four Seasons, TV was a Motel 6. You worked in television for the money, or to reboot your career, or just to hang on. Now actors like Alec Baldwin, Steve Carell and Salma Hayek go from hit movies to network-TV gigs, and no one thinks they're nuts." Of course no one thinks they are nuts. Before they had hit TV shows, not a single actor you named was enjoying a successful movie career. The three of them had either fallen from the A-list or never appeared there to begin with. 2/3 of your argument regards career resurgences. 1/3 of it regards a man who's famous for making two very funny movies in the midst of a successful television career. I like all the people you are talking about, but it's not as though Meryl Streep is on your list. You would have made a better point if you talked about Helen Mirren in film and on Prime Suspect. Heck, she's been winning awards for both this season.
"Paul Haggis and Bobby Moresco ("Crash") went straight from the best-picture Oscar to creating "The Black Donnellys" for NBC." Yeah, okay, and before their feature film success, they created Walker, Texas Ranger for CBS. Even here the comparison is faulty. Movies, for the most part, tell one story from beginning to end in a matter of hours. Television programs tell stories over weeks, months, and years. Crash had fixed beginning and end points. Maybe The Black Donnellys doesn't. Maybe, like its lead (Heroes) it tells a sequence that takes place over time. He's right in that you can do that with TV when you can't with film, but that in no way indicates that one medium is better than the other. It all depends on the story you are trying to tell. Gordon celebrates the big-budget premiere of Lost and ignores the way the story has circled round and round itself because the writers and producers clearly don't know how to keep drawing it out and keep it interesting. Supposedly they are back on track, but we're years into the thing.
Which is another problem Gordon fails to address. Even if you wait for the season to end and pick it up on DVD, TV shows ask you to dedicate years of your life to following their ups and downs, often long after they have passed their creative prime. Movies only ask for a couple of hours. Sure, there are sequels and franchises (and yes, I am excited about Spidey 3, and no, I'm not 12), but years can pass between installments, allowing you to pick up other movies in the meantime without any real competition between the two. If I want to remain devoted to Veronica Mars , then I'll be at home Tuesdays at 9 pm for 22 weeks a year. Movies aren't finicky that way.
And, yeah, there is something to going to see a movie in the theatre, to the experience, but I'd still argue that it has more to do with storytelling than anything. If you only want to talk about a guy for an evening, why would you bother with TV?
Finally, while writing a TV show does mean you are "freed from the need to sell tickets," it does not mean you don't "have to swell to a crowd-pleasing gridiron drive." Instead of once in two hours, you have to do it every week. Instead of aiming for a big rush over a single weekend (when most movies make the majority of their profit), you have to consistently provide millions of eyeballs to the advertisers that pay for your show. You slip up or fail to catch on? Chances are you are going to get cut. There's rarely a second chance for shows on DVD. Patient distributors that are willing to let the movie sit in theatres for months while word of mouth builds. TV doesn't given shows the same opportunity to linger. New shows that don't provide a given audience or old shows that stop providing what they once used to disappear.
"I still occasionally hear someone say that they don't watch television," [Denis] Leary says, "and I always tell them, 'Look, I don't care what book you're reading—put it down and watch these five shows, because you really, truly don't know what you're missing'." Sure, Denis, and I could think of five shows off the top of my head too that prove TV is an important and worthwhile medium. But how many people do you meet who tell you that they never go the movies? Never hit up Blockbuster for a DVD? Yeah, Gordon and Leary, TV is good. But it isn't better. If Shakespeare was around today, Ira, he still wouldn't be creating TV series. He'd be making movies. If he had wanted to tell longer stories over time, he would have written novels.
ReplyDeleteشركة غسيل كنب بالاحساء