Wednesday, September 25, 2013
NY vs HW, Live vs Telefilm
1950s television critics characterized New York-based live broadcasts as superior to Hollywood-based program forms for a variety of reasons. Considering these reasons (discussed in lecture and in "Live Television"), compare a live program to one of the telefilms we've viewed in class, to make an argument with or against the critics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A good counterargument to this claim could be I Love Lucy. This show was shot in LA opposite to many others beliefs, and in the end it did extremely well! I Love Lucy has humor that is timeless, and even makes an audience of college students today laugh. These well rehearsed comedy sketches were what made the show fun and interesting to watch, and these sketches would not have been possible without film. For example, the sketch where Lucy does the Vitameatavegamin commercial she messes up a lot. Of course, these are all intentional because it aids to the humor of the show. These perfectly timed mess ups are what make the show loveable and hilarious ! If this show had been live it would not have been nearly as popular because one, the sketches would be much less put together, and successful and second, it could not have been as widely distributed. Distribution was a very important part of popularity of course, and these live television shows were much harder to promote globally. Despite, the lively charm and realness of live television, it was simply not the best option, and this has been proven due to the minimum of television shows today that are filmed live.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Katie. Like she stated, I Love Lucy is a perfect example for supporting Hollywood-based programs because of the shows humor, charm, and accessibility. In addition to that, as it was stated in lecture, by the 1950's, about 70% of Americans had television sets in their homes and television was quickly becoming a routine spectacular in every day life. Although New York-based programs being live were truly entertaining and exciting to watch, I think Hollywood-based programs being filmed gave people the opportunity to not have their life focused around the schedule of televised broadcasts. Filmed programs gave people the opportunity to easily miss scheduled shows and then be able to catch them again at some point. Television today is quite similar. Seeing as though mostly everything is filmed, except for award shows, speeches, big events, etc. which are live, the accessibility factor is still a big component to convenience for the viewer. I know for myself being a college student without cable, it's hard to access recordings of live shows/events because they usually aren't the same as when they aired. But with filmed programs, it is significantly easier to access them and not feel like you missed out if you couldn't watch it when it aired on television. Overall, I think live television is exciting and wonderful, but I definitely think that filmed programs were able to relate and impact more people in the 50's and today.
DeleteThere are certainly positives and negatives to both live and filmed television, although personally I tend to favor filmed shows over live ones. In Boddy's article, it is mentioned how supporters of live television felt that it allowed the actors to create a much stronger connection with the audience, and made the audience feel as if they were actually watching the actors in real life rather than on a television screen. I think this is definitely true, partly because watching a show that is being filmed live comes with the anticipation of whether or not the actors will make a mistake or whether something else will go wrong, which can increase viewers’ interest and sometimes makes the show more humorous.
ReplyDeleteHowever, one of the biggest advantages of filmed television over live--for me-- is the greater number of sets and locations available, which isn't as feasible with live television. For example, when we watched Marty there were a number of different locations--such as Marty's home, the dance club and the restaurant--which were pretty essential to the plot, and if the show had been live it would have been much more difficult to use so many different sets, because the cameras essentially have to stay in one location. In comparison, a show like The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show really only had one location, which was their home, and which somewhat limited the scope of the show, so that plot points needed to revolve around the home and the main characters within it.
Critics felt that live television could accomplish something that film could not. It had the ability to, through its immediacy and liveness, be authentic and honestly human. Live television was also a synthesis of the liveness of theater, the technology of radio and the visual elements of film. Its ability to collapse many entertainment forms into one rendered it unique and celebrated. Tv's practicality and realism made it a more character based and relatable medium. The argument that television is a character based medium is also derived from its technological immediacy: people will be viewing this in their home, thus the are less interested in complicated plot structure (Hollywood) and more interested in characters (New York).
ReplyDeleteWhile I completely understand the critics' viewpoints on why live television would be superior, I have to disagree as whole. The reason the critics were so supportive of live television is because it separated itself from movies and allowed the show to make a connection with the audience, essentially being live theatre in the living room. For example, the Texaco Star Theater was a live variety show that played out exactly as though the audience was at a live theatre performance. Some may say that it's more exciting because you're anxious to see if they will mess up or if someone will break character. However, it's my belief that television is not supposed to be a substitute for live theatre but instead a simpler way to get invested in a story. As a viewer I would much prefer a planned out and well-executed sitcom such as I Love Lucy that can deliver it's best take to me at home over a failed live show. Shows like I Love Lucy and the Burns and Allen Show were filmed and then broadcast, which means we were shown the best takes of everything and therefore the funniest deliveries and interactions amongst the actors. I know that I felt no personal connection to the Texaco Star Theater, whereas I felt invested in Lucy's adventures when watching her show. While I can certainly respect the art of live theatre, I would personally prefer going to the theatre to see that and save television for filmed shows. I also recognize that it was a different time and television was new, so I can respect the opinions of critics at the time.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of “Live Television,” Boddy talks about how ‘50s critics’ preferential treatment of live television was based in an altered form of medium specificity. The medium of live television combined elements of live theater, radio, and film into a unique experience in which viewers feel more “authenticity, depth, and truth” in the performance on screen and their connection to it (82). Viewers are partners rather than spectators. However, live broadcasting in the ‘50s was funded and controlled by sponsors/advertisers while telefilms were produced by studios and independent production companies, and this is apparent in our class viewings of The Burns and Allen Show and I Love Lucy–live and filmed, respectively and both domestic sitcoms.
ReplyDeleteThe Burns and Allen Show’s blatant advertising, we-want-you-to-buy-this-ness severs the “humanness” contemporary critic Jack Gould (quoted and paraphrased in Boddy) attributes to live TV. Additionally, any humanness or feeling of partnership is artificial and one-sided on part of viewers.
On the other hand, I Love Lucy’s filmed quality does what a lot of films/movies do–sucks viewers in, and I think that is as much an example of an artificial, but established feeling of connection between viewers and the characters on screen.
Here I confined myself to domestic sitcoms because I felt like they were comparable, but I do not have an opinion on modern live vs. filmed programming in general. Content and form should serve each other, and whether a program is live or filmed should be considered on an individual basis. That being said, some filmed programs have the same being-a-part-of-a-once-only event aura around them. Sunday’s Breaking Bad finale was treated like and felt like a live event. Arcade Fire’s concert special after Saturday Night Live intermixed filmed and live footage and felt special and “live,” too. So whether something is live or pre-taped isn’t the whole story; it’s a narrow consideration of the medium of television.
While there are many reasons to why 1950s television critics can be seen as having valid points to why live television is superior to filmed television, I have to argue that filmed television is the superior format and that some of the attributes given to live television by the critics can be applied to filmed television as well. While it is true that the audience gains connection to the actors in a live performance, due to the more honest feel of a live program. The critics also claim that “[The actor] is coming into a home and joining an intimate family group which averages from two to six persons … he must be what he represents”, that the actor in a live performance will give a more honest performance due to it seeming like they are only in front of a small audience. I disagree with this claim because the actor is still performing in front of a camera, which means that the actor does not know how many people are indeed watching. Another counter to this claim comes from the fact that filmed television can be re-shot and rehearsed in order to fine tune the actors performance to bring the same feeling of personal connection between the actor and the audience. This also brings up the point that the critics make that filmed television causes the viewer to become a spectator of the actor rather than a partner, again I feel that filmed television can engage the audience to become a partner to the actors, again due to filmed television being able to refine its product through multiple takes and higher quality sets. One last advantage that filmed television has over live television is the visual quality of the show itself. Not only can the sets and amounts of characters be more detailed in a filmed setting but any technical problems with the audio/visual equipment can be addressed. For example in the screening for “Marty” there was a moment where the light balance and focus was off for a scene once the camera had panned over from a close up shot; visual errors such as this can end up breaking the honest and connected feel that live television is going for, while filmed television can be broadcast without these mistakes.
ReplyDeleteThe very first reason mentioned in “Live Television” for the superiority of live, New York based programming, was its unique differentiation from film by the combination of the existing media formats of the time. Namely, live television was the perfect combination of “the immediacy of live theatrical performance, the space-conquering powers of radio, and the visual strategies of the motion picture” (80). Technologically I would say that the combination of these aspects of mass communication was a true innovation! More importantly for critics, however, was the argument that live television had a unique “trueness” or “humanness” that filmed sitcoms, for example, lacked. Though, as a rule, this view is questionable, I think “Marty,” the Goodyear Television Playhouse production we viewed in class about the sad loveless man, is a fair example of these critics’ point. Citing Edward Berry, Boddy points out that these live shows depicted human beings “as if under a microscope, for our private contemplation, for our approval, our rejection, our love, our hate,” etc (81). Marty serves just that purpose. This live episode, with its abundance of emotionally telling close-ups, let its audience in on a very private experience open to the viewers’ judgment. That is not to say that telefilms were then or are now incapable of the same experience for its audience. In fact, especially now, television dramas use this voyeuristic trope of “humanness” to its utmost advantage. However in the context of shows like “I Love Lucy”, for example, it is my opinion that “Marty” meets more wholly the human drama and connection between character and audience to which I believe the critics were referring.
ReplyDelete