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 "Live Television"), make an argument with or against the critics.
The article praises live television because the "tension that suffuses the atmosphere of a live production is a special thing to which audiences respond; they feel that what they see and hear is happening in the present and therefore more real than anything taken and cut and dried which has the feel of the past." (Boddy, 81) While this is a valid point, live television is a one time experience and while the audience is able to respond, I'm left wondering just how many people are actually responding? In my opinion, recorded Hollywood television is paramount as it is able to reach a larger and wider audience because of the sole fact that it has been previously recorded.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne reason television critics praised live TV over filmed shows was that live shows felt more real. One critic, Gould, went so far as to say that film "tinker[s] with reality, to improve upon it to the point where it is no longer real," (Boddy, 81). Gould believes that the imperfections of live television are essential to creating a feeling of reality, while the "perfectionism" of film "break[s] the link between human and human," making the viewer a "spectator" rather than a "partner," (Boddy, 81). While I have to agree that liveness gives a greater sense of participation and partnership than filmed television, it also makes the viewer more conscious of the actor, thus destroying immersion. When watching live TV, there is always a sense of tension--a sense that anything could go wrong at any moment. While Gould thinks this tension helps the audience to believe what they are watching is real, I believe this tension causes the audience to root for the actors to say their lines properly, act properly, etc., rather than creating a sense of genuine realness. Contrary to Gould, I think liveness destroys the illusion of reality, insofar as we believe the events of the story are real, and replaces it with a reality of the illusion, where we are very aware that the actors playing the characters are real people who could mess up at any time.
DeleteI have never been a big fan of live television, I've always enjoyed fiction more. In the 1950s, people knew TV as live television and it is how they differentiated it from film. I personally disagree that live television is better than what they called "telefilm". In the Live Television article they argue that live television bridges the gap and brings several homes together for one single affair (pg 80). I would agrue that telefilm can do the same thing, it does today with shows such as Game of Thrones and power.
ReplyDeleteThey also argue that live televison is more relatable to the people at home because if there so happens to be a mistake they will see it, whereas in telefilm they can continue to do it until is is right. They say that this makes the viewer feel like they are with the actors and not just spectators watching the actors. I also disagree with this. It is more likely that I relate to a fictional character in a telefilm because the circumstances they are going through I have went through than for it to be because they make mistakes and find a way to keep going.
I think that in the 1950s people preferred live TV just because it was different than anything they had experienced before.
According to many early writers on television, television as a medium was a unique synthesis of the immediacy of the live theatrical performance, the space-conquering powers of radio, and the visual strategies of the motion picture. I strongly agree with the points these critics have made—television is a high energy medium that delivers content in an inimitably entertaining way. The main argument made by Kaufman and Colodzin, I believe, was a good overarching look at the intricacies of television and how important they become when broadcasting live in someone’s living room (compared to a one-time-only showing in a movie theater). Emphasis on character development in addition to constant scrutiny of the main characters is extremely beneficial for television because the audience at home is routinely watching with wide eyes. In order to make a show a success, the producers, writers, directors, etc. must always factor in the intimacy between the audience and the actors—something Hollywood-based programs don’t have to concern themselves with. I am also on board with many of Gould’s points regarding television’s ability to involve viewers in live programs and make them feel as though they’re in two places at once. Gould says that the actors in the studios and the audience at home have an intrinsic awareness of being in each other’s presence, while Hollywood-based programs remove the viewer from their post as partner and instead turn them into a mere spectator. Although the days of modern-day live television seem numbered, the few live broadcasts we’re left with certainly make me feel, as Gould said, like a partner. “Saturday Night Live,” for example, is one of my favorite shows, and has been since I was a child. When I watch, I feel as though I’m in the studio laughing alongside the players as they act out scenes—and they feel my presence just as strongly. You are not just a spectator when watching live television, you’re involved and important, which is why I agree that New York-based live broadcasts, of today and the past, can be seen as superior to Hollywood-based programs.
ReplyDeleteIn this article, Boddy examines the differences in aesthetics in various forms of early television, beginning with arguments about the superiority of live video in comparison to film, and vice versa. At the core of these arguments are those who wish television to bring the theatre and the orchestra into the home, versus those who wish television to emulate the complex aesthetics of cinema. New York television, according to the arguments aggregated by Boddy, is the former: live, on-the-fly, engaging. The New York stuff was writer-focused rather than director-focused, and in shorter formats. Writers for these shows were granted an immediacy and a tactile relationship with their work, in addition to a place in the New York creative elite class.
ReplyDeleteI can’t help but side with the opposition to the New York format. To me, the merits of in-the-moment live television, the humanism of that “anything could go wrong but it doesn’t” feeling is drastically outweighed by the potential that cinema art brings to filmed Hollywood television. To me, live television often looks flat and boring, suffers from pacing issues, and often performances that sacrifice daring and intrigue in the name of consistency and showmanship. The hollywood format allowed for auteur craftsmanship that the New York format simply did not accommodate for.
Boddy’s article surrounding the debate between the live television of New York City and the pre-recorded Hollywood program praises the artistic value of the live television programs over the quick character based sit-com. From a post-war 1950’s standpoint, I can see the value of each form. Producer Alex Segal sums up some important arguments being made in support of the New York saying that live television brings, “legitimate theater into the home in its final stage” (Boddy, 87). For writers and creators, this aspect of live television is grossly superior because of their own personal artistic intent. The medium allows them full control over a pseudo-play, which will be able to reach the mass audience, contrary to the stage. Furthermore, it reflects on ideals of the audience. To the New York television enthusiast, the difference between live and recorded TV is the difference between the audience at home being a partner or a spectator (Boddy, 81), clearly favoring the partner. On the other hand, the Hollywood pre-recorded program gives the audience control on who can enter their home and any given time (Boddy, 82). Furthermore from an artistic standpoint, the short pre-recorded program requires a new and different technique: quick-witted character development, which according to some critics is a harder skill to tap, “dialogue must be carefully written and sincere in tone because of the intimacy of the audience and the actors and the constant scrutiny of the main characters of the play by an audience which is practically ‘ on top of the performers’ (Boddy, 82). In my opinion from a twenty-first century mindset, I agree with the latter argument surrounding pre-recording television, as clearly it is the format that has passed the test of time. First, I don’t equate the medium of television to the stage play. Additionally, putting aside the underlying ideologies sewed into 1950’s plot lines, the quick dialogue driven pre-recorded programs tap into emotions and feelings of the typical American household therefore regards the spectator as an equal just as much as the live-program does. Lastly, I agree with Ashley's logistical point of basic ability to reach a larger audience because of the pre-recorded aspect of Hollywood programing.
ReplyDeleteEarly television critics discussed the overall authenticity of television and how this was superior to the over-produced and over-acted Hollywood films. The medium was unique in that it contributed to the sense of "immediacy" that came with a live production. The actors and the audience were now aware of each other. Critics emphasized the need for character development over dramatized plots. Critics also said that live television was more authentic, deep , and truthful, which allowed the audience to truly connect to programs in a new way and on a more human level.
ReplyDeleteI agree that live television was influential and appealing to audiences at the time, because it depicted more real scenarios that viewers could relate to. Commercial television still had flaws in that it pushed ads on viewers and could also depict stereotypes and overt racism. The shows were still run by the networks whose main goal was to profit from programs. I think live television wasn't necessarily a major improvement, but rather a new entertainment form that was in an experimental phase and played with many ideas and formats to which it could make a profit.
I’ll make an argument against the idea that ‘Live Television’ is better than ‘Filmed Hollywood Television’ because in the article “Live Television,” the argument of superiority is given away in the final paragraph. In the concluding statements of “Live Television” John Crosby (a tv critic) is quoted as saying “Television was the medium of the moment and it attracted all the brilliant young kids” (90). Basically, live television was considered superior not because it was fundamentally better (of which the article gave no real evidence) but because it was so new and novel people were amazed by it just by existing. Filmed television shows were too similar to Hollywood, which had been around for decades by the 1950s. Live television was praised for being more intimate and giving the audiences a higher feeling of involvement instead of spectatorship, but to me personally live television feels much more artificial and distant with the sets you can clearly see and the tendency to overact or use a laugh track. Modern audiences all feel these things, but I believe in the 1950s all the shortcomings of a live broadcast (and all the ways it limited what kinds of stories you could tell) were overlooked simply because of how new the medium was. Additionally, the article explains that people thought live TV was more personal than scripted television because of the prominence and involvement of a single television writer for a live show, as opposed to the idea (true or not) that scripted television writers were anonymous and did only what their big network told them to do. Though I can see the appeal of knowing the writer of such a show, I think it is erroneous to judge a program’s quality based on whether or not you know a lot about the writers.
ReplyDeleteFrom the start, live television was characterized as a vastly different medium than it’s predecessor in Hollywood. In 1956, Jack Gould distinguished live T.V. as something that “brides the gap instantly and unites the individual at home with the event afar.” A film gave a contained event to a contained audience. Live television kept these two spheres together, each understanding that the other existed. It is with that understanding that I can agree with the statement that television had “leg up” on film (during this time period). This was something fresh and extremely different to anything families or individuals had experienced before. With theatre, one could see a performance interact with their own world. With film, one could watch a contained story. Live television brought both of these aspects into the living room and connected the appeal of film with the intimacy of theatre.
ReplyDeleteEdward Barry Roberts, a script editor in the 1950s, advocated for this new medium because of its usefulness. It was the best way to “communicate information, entertainment, and education.” Roberts described the boom of writers for television that accompanied itself birth, and how they were all waiting for television “artist-playwrights” to appear. In this way, just by his description of what a creator was in the television world, I can again agree with the superiority of live television in this time period. A New York writer was a known quantity and was distinguishable. The industry made ITSELF popular by advocating for better “playwrights.” The best became official creators, and the US knew their name. To me, this is a way to create more determination in a medium with overall higher quality as the product. A writer would desire to be great in order to have the recognition. Compare this to the film industry, which at the time was not in its “auteur” phase necessarily. (In addition, live television was, at a base level, cheaper. This might not make it better, but it allowed for more content.)
I want to point out the pros and cons of live television. I love watching shows that are actually live television. Live television is more authentic than recorded television. It makes the audience more connected to what they are watching whether it’s in the actual studio or at home. At that time, live television shows gave the audience a new way to view into the world of entertainment. The audience feels like the actors are talking directly to them. However, the idea of having commercials during broadcast is one flaw that television during that time had. There are very few shows today that still air live, minus the “commercial” promo by one of the actors during the break. Another flaw in these “commercials” was that how they would have actors portray stereotypes of different races
ReplyDelete(i.e. Chinese and African Americans) but they themselves were not that race. On the other hand, having recorded content also works out well because it can reach more audiences that way compared to live television that reaches peoples only during real time.
I think it is critical to look at this from a historical context. Many of us are quick to dismiss this preference for live tv over pre-filmed Hollywood style programming as simply because the technology was new. There is evidence to support this claim and that undoubtedly is a factor. But I believe there is a key component missing from this interpretation.
ReplyDeleteBoddy cites an essay Jack Gould wrote in 1956, in which he criticized filmmakers for thinking "they can be better than life itself...In their blind pursuit of artificial perfection, the TV film producers compromise the one vital element that endows the home screen with its own intangible excitement: humanness." This is a realist argument, purporting that what makes any form of entertainment superior than others is how closely it resembles reality.
Another way of looking at this is suspension of disbelief: when someone is watching something they have to be totally immersed in the reality of what they are seeing. For instance, when Ed Sheehan randomly showed up in Game of Thrones. That ruined the illusion of an arguably "perfect" crafted reality. In modern pre-filmed television, for the most part this is not an issue because television makers have gotten so good at crafting artificial realities that, barring Ed Sheeran, there is usually nothing to bring us out of that reality.
However, in the 1950s this was not the case. Film was still developing as a medium, and pre-filmed television programs were especially new. There were mistakes and this pursuit of a perfect enough reality (that would not jar with a viewer's suspension of disbelief) seemed impossible. That is why live television was so much popular, because it did not even attempt to craft an artificial reality. Instead it lived within true reality.