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)
Many critics were skeptical of the new telefilm format that developed in the 1950s. They believed TV served to combine “the immediacy of live theatre performance, the space conquering powers of radio, and the visual strategies of the motion picture” (Boddy, 80). Filmed television contradicted TV’s ambition to bring occupants of American livings rooms to live theatre, and pre-recorded stories felt like betrayal to the medium. Pre-recorded film was meant for movies, not for television.
ReplyDeleteHowever, my question is simply: why? Art, inherently, is progressive and film is no exception—so why did critics consider TV to be limited to live broadcasting? Much of it had to do with trying to differentiate television from cinema as a medium. I think television, in critics’ minds, was more similar to radio that it was to cinema in format and in purpose.
There are, of course, “superior” aspects to live television in that the casts and crew of the shows had to be talented enough to capture the live show without too many hitches. Actors had to be able to do everything in one take and hit their marks exactly right, much like a stage actor. However, telefilm was more polished because actors had the chance to perfect each scene with numerous takes if necessary. For example, unlike the stutters and slip-ups we see in Texaco Theatre, the Burns and Allen Show, or even the Honeymooners, pre-recorded actors seemed much smoother. There were also times in live shows that they ran out of lines and would have to improvise the rest of the scene. For example, in live Crime Shows actors would often take remaining time to “look for clues.” But in telefilm, if they found that a scene ran short, they could work with on-set writers and directors to fill it in. Live TV Directors would also have to queue cameras just right to capture each moment without hesitation which was a skill in itself; however post-production in telefilm allowed directors and editors to correct shot choice and change what they needed (if they needed it).
Yes, there are talents that are less used when television is taped, but the product comes out much cleaner and smoother.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTelevision critics of the 1950s preferred live television over Hollywood-based program forms because it contained aspects of many different media. According to Boddy, a live TV program is “a synthesis of the immediacy of the live theatrical performance, the space-conquering powers of radio, and the visual strategies of the motion picture.” Audiences do not have to be physically at the place where the program is shot, they can stay at home and enjoy the event afar. The immediacy of live television is its biggest strength. Unlike Hollywood films, audience can enjoy a program that is happening rather than recorded in the past.
ReplyDeleteI agree with those critics that live broadcasts are superior to Hollywood films. This is because producing a successful live program is much harder than shooting a movie. Live program requires extraordinary actors who are always ready to improvise their lines, such as actors in Texaco Star Theater. They have to entertain both audiences in the theater and those watching the television at home. If actors are not professional enough, they are likely to forget lines and create an awkward silence on the stage. However, this could be prevented in telefilms or feature films like A Face in the Crowd because mistakes can be eliminated in the post-production process. Also, actors could repeat the same scene several times since it is not broadcasted in live. Therefore, making a live program is much harder than producing a film and this is what makes a live program superior.
Bouncing off of what Abby and Yihong have already mentioned, the shift from live programming to telefilm was initially met with resistance because it marked a specific turn away from the “live theater straight to your living room” feel of early television towards a more cinematic, Hollywood style. That said, it’s hard to side with Boddy and his pro-live programming stance when shows like I Love Lucy were making history.
ReplyDeleteI Love Lucy adapted the three-camera technique used in live television for telefilm. The show still had the feel of earlier television, with a laugh track that added the effect of a live audience, but it was able to eliminate problems that plaged live television – botched lines, awkward pacing, audio and image problems, etc. Desilu created a product that was smoother, more ambitious, and familiar. Yes, live performers often had to have extra improvisational talents, but the finished product of something like The Burns and Allen Show cannot quite measure up to the more polished I Love Lucy. Furthermore, the shift towards pre-taped content on television provided a foundation for the television medium to become increasingly ambitious and distinct over the future decades.
Live television was very popular in the 50s, especially among critics. They viewed it as the way television was made to be, an art. There was a certain feeling to seeing someone on television that was actually acting right now, right there in your living room. It also was argued that since live television could not have large action scenes or endless sets, it must focus on character drama instead of plot drama.
ReplyDeleteWhile there may still be a love for live television in some very successful shows on today, filmed television is seen as the better way. Starting this trend was I Love Lucy. Even though the actors were not actually acting right into the living room, they still were able to feel close and convey an awesome story. All of the jokes are easy to hear and understand so the audience is kept captivated. On the other hand, a live Milton Berle would have mess-ups, letting the joke fall flat. Even though it can be fun to watch actors fix their mistakes in smart ways, the smoothness of I Love Lucy cannot be contended. Marty was a live teleplay that showed much character drama as the critics had argued for. I found this to be very slow and hard to keep an interest in. I think that an hour may have been too long for what they were trying to convey. This again shows the merits of the half hour that is I Love Lucy.
If the only goal of early television producers was to merely create a contradiction to the other image based format of entertainment, that is film, then live television could surely be the answer. However, it soon became easily apparent that TV, used as a form of storytelling, was not so different from cinema after all. Once television expanded beyond its vaudeville or live theater style format, both mediums sought to draw viewers to a reality that was not their own, while making a profit in the process. Boddy states that the "opposition between film's 'feel of the past' and the immediacy of live television created different putative audience paradigms" where the liveness is the preferred format because viewers were "highly more involved" or intimate with the program. He also mentions that film lacks the "humanness" that live TV contributes.
ReplyDeleteIn opposition, my question here is how does the Hollywood based filmed format prevent similar feelings from occurring? While there may not be the tension that suffuses a live production, filmed television can still create a feeling of intimacy and humanness, for these attributes do not necessarily stem from the liveness itself, but from the nature of the program as a whole. Camera angles can establish familiarity, actors can continue to "visualize the conditions under which [their] performance is being viewed (Boddy, 32)," and the content of the media determines the extent of the "artificial perfectionism." This is clearly embodied in a comparison between the Honeymooners and I love Lucy, where they are both sitcoms portraying young married couples, but the Honeymooners was filmed live, and I Love Lucy not. Despite this difference, both shows have a very similar feel, yet I Love Lucy perfects the display of imperfection. I Love Lucy keeps the style of filming to where it appears like a live broadcast show, expressing the humanness and intimacy, but without the ramifications of possible forgotten lines, ad-libs, poor timing, or awkward improve. Some argue that the actors of live television are stronger, yet film actors need to be just as strong if they want to convey the proper emotions and their performance style does not need to be strictly physical, but psychological as well. Lastly, a lot of what is portrayed in a live show emanates from the content or style of writing and production, which can be easily replicated in Hollywood.