Wednesday, September 24, 2014
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)
The live broadcasts were seen as artistically superior to the Hollywood filmed programs. Marty, the dramatic hour-long program, was live while I Love Lucy, the thirty-minute sitcom, was filmed. In “Live Television,” written be Boddy, the thirty-minute sitcom is looked down upon. Due to its length, critics said it could be nothing more than some gags with no character development and then it ends. According to Boddy, “the half-hour show is too brief, and it is interrupted by a commercial too soon after it begins, to be anything but a hook, a gimmick, and a resolution.” With no time for character development, the emphasis is on stereotypes rather than real people. On the other hand, the writer of the hour-long drama was praised for their content creation. The viewers are also more satisfied to sit and wait for something to happen, as they would in legitimate theater, because they know the product is great and they enjoy it. There is more time to show off the writing skill in Marty because it is an hour. Also, because it is live, Boddy argues that the acting is natural and emotional, just like live theater is. Though Marty certainly had theatrical value and had more to it, I Love Lucy was more enjoyable to me.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDuring the 1950’s, live, New York based programming enjoyed tremendous critical acclaim. Moreover, critics argued live television was superior to LA based filmed television. There are several reasons for this argument. At a basic, structural level, one point of critique towards filmed television was the choice to produce 30 minute segments. Critics argue the 30 minute segment was a mere gimmick, too short to develop meaningful characters, and ultimately nothing more than superficial media offering sponsors the opportunity to bombard the viewing public with advertisements. On the level of content itself, Boddy notes the historical trend towards recruitment of “playwright-writers” for live television. Writers likely favored the live television scene for the reason I note above - they have an entire hour to develop story and characters rather than the limited 30 minutes filmed television provides. These live TV writers wrote with the poetical and expressive sensibilities of theater. Compare Marty to I Love Lucy. While I Love Lucy is a highly entertaining program that comments on issues of the time, such as multi-ethnic relationships and advertising, the limited time slot prevents true development of content. For example, while Desi Arnez has an opportunity to present his Cuban heritage on a screen dominated by middle class caucasians, his cultural difference is packaged into brief moments of comic relief and the real depth of his background is ignored. Marty, on the other hand, spends an entire hour developing a character defined as oppositional to traditional Hollywood standards of beauty and traditional societal values of marriage for marriage’s sake. Whether one program is more enjoyable than the other depends on taste, but Marty is certainly a more thought-provoking and culturally oppositional piece when compared to a film-based LA production.
ReplyDeleteOne argument as to why live television was more "artistic" than filmed television was that the acting was more natural and realistic. Boddy claims that with its similarity to live theater, the acting in live television was superior to film. But this disregards the problems associated with live television that aren't a part of the theater. With TV, actors have to be constantly aware that they have a time limit, and even if they finish their lines early, they need to fill up time, which ends up hurting both the acting and the story. This can be seen in the live detective programs of the early fifties, where actors had to pretend to look for clues when there was nothing to do. The teleplay "Marty", has long stretches of time where the actors either pause to wait for something or repeat lines. Perhaps this is an issue of different generational values on acting, but for film at the time, acting for the camera was still a generally new practice, which is why most critics considered anything closer to theater to be better. It would be hard to argue nowadays, with the improvements of techniques in film acting, that live television holds a candle to filmed. At the same time, the types of programs we consider a part of the "new golden age" of TV could be considered mini-movies, with no inherent different from films in movie theaters. So then is live-tv the only unique art form of the medium?
ReplyDelete1950’s television critics regarded the live television hour-long format to be of higher quality than Hollywood-based programs for reasons including the fact that the live television format was able to incorporate more character development. The hour-long programs had more time to develop plots and explore the show’s characters. Half-hour sitcoms simply didn’t have the time for such in-depth storytelling. In “Live Television” Boddy writes that half-hour sitcoms such as “I Love Lucy” were “too brief” and didn’t have time for “anything but a hook, a gimmick, and a resolution.” A live-television show such as “Marty” relied on a more natural acting style, allowing for more emotion and drama. “I Love Lucy” was not filmed live and focused less on emotional acting and more on comedy. As a result of these reasons, live television was rightfully deemed more artful than half-hour long sitcoms. Although sitcoms tried to address larger issues like hour-long programs, there simply was not enough time to address them and still provide comedy within their thirty minute timeframe. Additionally, the natural acting style on telefilms like “Marty” made the show more closely resemble live theater. However, the effectiveness or quality of one show compared to the other all depends on the type of show one prefers.
ReplyDeleteI found it very interesting that television critics wanted so badly to distinguish film from television (particularly live television). Many said that live programs were far superior to film-like programs because live television had many constraints that helped shows feel more natural. In the article, “Live Television,” Boddy says live television shows were “plays of tight structure, attacking a story to its climax- very different from the loose, multi-scene structure of film.” Marty and I Love Lucy are two shows that embody this difference. Marty, a show that was broadcast live, really focused on the psychology of its characters. Marty is slow paced and often contains the actors reflecting out-loud their thoughts and how they are viewed in the world. To contrast, I Love Lucy, a program, tried to highlight the spectacle associated with being able to cut and paste together different scenes and locations. Flashy sequences of musical numbers and Lucy’s stunts made the program so popular. I don’t agree that one medium is better than the other just because there were two different approaches, mostly due to feasibility, in how the shows presented their content. Just because Marty chose to make their transitions and stories simpler than I Love Lucy does not mean it’s better and just because I Love Lucy was able to ramp up the action over a show like Marty doesn’t necessarily indicate that one medium is superior to the other.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1950’s, television had begun to spread into different methods of production; live broadcasts and recorded broadcasts. As noted, critics often received the live broadcasts as being of a higher quality than those that we recorded. In the reading “Live Television,” Boddy writes that these critics saw recorded shows of 30 minutes in length as inferior, partly due to their shorter run time. They felt that strong storylines could not be well developed in this short of span and that only gags, and short hooks would be able to work. Adding in commercial breaks only made it worse. I would have to disagree with the critics here and say that I believe recorded television was just as good as live television in the 50’s. The critics talked about how live television more closely emulated live theater, and they’re right. However, doing a show live can lead to possible errors with the technology, cast, or crew. A recorded show allows the production to do another take to make sure the desired effect is conveyed. It also gives more flexibility to the screenwriters. Recorded shows are not restrained when it comes to space or time like live television is. Shows like “I Love Lucy” were able to succeed by allowing the artists to try multiple takes to get the best results for the audience, a privilege that live shows do not have. Both mediums have their pros and cons, but should be equally respected in their contributions to the world of television.
ReplyDelete(2/2) As a modern television viewer, despite my personal dislike for the show “Marty” I would have to say that much if the arguments the critics level at filmed television hits the mark, even today. The plot driven story of modern television shows, particularly my favorite genres, the procedural and murder mysteries, leads, in many cases, to poor characterization. Many characters are stereotypes with a few quirks clumsily tacked on and exhibit little, if any, growth and only when the plot demands it. While I have trouble engaging in the characters of such shows without having binge watched entire seasons at a time and fallen into some sort of bizarre Stockholm Syndrome like situation. However, I find it much easier to engage with characters in murder mysteries which I find, tend to emphasize the characters above the plot. While the “whodunit” still acts as the McGuffin, leading the plot and driving the actions of the characters, they have personalities and aren’t just cardboard masks with hastily applied features. In short, I think much of the criticism of early filmed television holds up even today. I find the criticism of the hierarchy of writers most important. While a number of very good writers are producing our current television shows, they could always be doing much better. Essentially Essentially, unless writers are given more credit for their work in television, what draw for good writers is there to the medium?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete