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)
The live anthology episode Marty captures the critics’ praise of the New York television scene. The episode depicts Marty, a middle-aged man living with his mother, struggling to find love while facing societal pressure to wed, resonating with the New York’s tendency to depict realistic situations for the viewers to relate. Additionally, in Boddy’s piece Live Television: Program Formats and Critical Hierarchies, he comments the New York scene “emphasized the necessity for naturalistic performances, frequent close-ups, and simplified, naturalistic staging” (Boddy 83). These elements all appear in Marty. For example, the program depicts Marty as awkward, unconfident male who struggles to approach females, as opposed to the conventional suave Hollywood player. The setting of the film largely revolves around typical middle class homes with the exception of a brief scene at a dance club, which is characterized as dark and somewhat shady. Finally, the dialogue is reminiscent of natural speech, which is amplified by Marty’s constant mumbling and stuttering. Thus, Marty accurately depicts the elements of New York’s television scene: ranging from a relatable storyline to naturalistic performances bolstered by simple settings and humanistic dialogue.
ReplyDeleteOn the other, the recorded program I Love Lucy perfectly portrays the elements of the Hollywood television scene. Unlike Marty, the “Lucy Does a Commercial” episode depicts an exclusive scenario of a female breaking into the Hollywood scene to film a commercial, a situation that nearly all viewers could not relate with. Additionally, the setting was well lit and largely took place in an ‘exclusive’ television studio. Finally, the entire episode centered on commercialism and the pursuit of fame, a clearly Hollywood element of television. Overall, I Love Lucy manages to fulfill the stereotypes of Hollywood television by portraying an extremely polished product that features an ‘exclusive storyline’, a vivid setting, and the presence of consumerism.
Firstly, while I was considering this question I realized an interesting conundrum. The live television programs from past decades that we viewed in class were of course not actually live but recordings of shows that were broadcast live many years ago. For me, these recordings of live shows lacked the feeling of immediacy I get when I watch SNL or live sports. Unfortunately I have never seen a live television drama. So, though I possess firsthand experience of the effects of “liveness” on comedies (unpredictability, actors playing off the audience, actors expressing their own natural amusement) and sporting events (tension caused by the fact that the conclusion is not yet decided, feeling of fraternity with other fans watching), I feel unfamiliar with what it is like to actually see a live teleplay. This makes me wonder if I am missing any sensation or idea which might be the result of truly viewing those programs live and brings me to my first criticism of the arguments presented by TV critics for the superiority of television.
ReplyDeleteA teleplay such as Marty can only be viewed live once. As I watched Marty, though I could appreciate many factors attributed to its “liveness” such as the naturalistic performances, its focus on dialogue rather than action, the social commentary contained therein, simple sets, and small scale, I could feel none of the immediacy that I have felt while watching truly live programming. Therefore, every unique aspect of the teleplay can only be appreciated at one point in time, the original airing. Meanwhile, a telefilm such as I Love Lucy demonstrates the staying power of pre-recorded television. However, I can’t really argue about whether teleplays or telefilms are the superior art form. In my opinion, both aesthetic forms have the potential to produce works superior to the works of the other.
“Live Television: Program Formats and Critical Hierarchies” makes the argument that live television programs give audiences a sense of agency, a more involved role as spectators. There is a notion of authenticity and reality attached to live television while telefilms try as well to capture an objective reality, the studio’s/network’s/producer’s try to perfect reality making it appear plastic, fake, and distant. However, I have to disagree that live, New York styled programming is more authentic or “better” than telefilms.
ReplyDeleteWhile it has been addressed in previous posts that Marty is “more authentic” because of its one-chance viewing opportunity and “wiredtapped” dialogue, I would argue the only thing that would make the episode we viewed authentic or realistic is the lack of advertisements woven into the storyline. The plot, although more depressing than I Love Lucy, is somewhat unrelatable and avoids a follow up to the solution similarly to “Lucy Does a Commercial”. We as the audience do not see the consequences of Marty and Lucy’s actions at the end of the episodes. I find it hard to believe that a program like Marty could be deemed more realistic and authentic than I Love Lucy when they follow similar plot structures. I think the text relies too heavily on the aesthetics of live and telefilm programs rather than their content when defining their placement on the television hierarchy.
I agree with Taylor’s argument that Marty’s “one-chance viewing opportunity” does not make the live show “more authentic” than Hollywood-based programs. “Live Television: Program Formats and Critical Hierarchies” notes that an advantage of live television is that it “removes from an audience’s consciousness the factors of time and distance.” This feeling of immediacy does make live programming feel ‘special,’ but I do not think it makes it better than recorded programming. People make a similar argument concerning live theater and film. There is a certain thrill, undoubtedly, from watching a live performance of, say, Les Mis. But the drawback of any live show is the performer could make a mistake. Recorded programming gives the actors and crew ample opportunities to re-shoot a scene, manipulate the lighting and props, do costume changes, etc. The thrill of a live shadow, in my opinion, does not trump the ability to manipulate and control elements of recorded programming. I believe the content, script, and acting ability are the key elements for a show to gain superiority over others –whether live or pre-recorded. This is why "I Love Lucy" did so well. The actors grabbed the audiences attention through humor instead of immediacy, however.
ReplyDeleteBoddy’s article “Live Television: Program Formats and Critical Hierarchies” relays how contemporary critics of early tv believed live tv was a pure authentic mode of storytelling compared to filmed programs. They believed the intimacy in which tv is delivered required a live element in order for the actors to across as authentic. When watching tv that was meant to be viewed live one should keep in mind the different circumstances of viewing the show when it first aired to viewing the show now. Back when a show aired once, I feel like people didn’t mind the technical and cast mistakes that we see as unprofessional. In “Captain Video” for example the many cast gaffes and technical mistakes didn’t detract from the outer world adventures for the audience of the 50s as it would for audiences today. In “I Love Lucy” because they took the time to rehearse and utilize close-up, medium, and establishing shots effectively, they created an infinitely better program that resonates over multiple generations because it was filmed and able to be syndicated for endless enjoyment.
ReplyDeleteBecause so much of the early television industry revolved around separating television from the cinema, I can absolutely see that the liveness of a program such as Marty would be seen as "superior" by critics. There is no live cinema, making live broadcasting on television unique. From that standpoint, I can see where the critics are coming from- the live programs are what make television special, rather than the prerecorded telefilms that could just as easily be shown in the cinema.
ReplyDeleteI find it difficult to concretely align with either side, however, and I agree with what Karsten said about our generation of viewers never having experienced watching a live drama like Marty. Because of this, I can't imagine it feeling very different than watching a brand-new episode of a show, in which I don't know what is going to happen. I can only appreciate liveness in talk shows or news, which are less scripted and more spontaneous. That, I think, does make TV more special as a medium.
Come to think of it, I also agree that sitcoms lose a little bit of their charm when you realize that they were prerecorded. I Love Lucy is hilarious, but knowing that it isn't being filmed in front of a live audience takes something away from it. It's not just I Love Lucy that gives me that feeling- I feel the same way when I'm watching Friends and remember that the laugh track isn't a real audience. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's not to say that those shows aren't funny, but I do agree that live TV (at least live talk shows/comedies) are not necessarily superior, but definitely special.