What are some of the advantages of live television and why do you think it was the prevailing format during TV's first decade? What are its disadvantages? How is "liveness" (or the illusion thereof) used by TV today?
The advantages of live television are: the viewers at home are experiencing the events in real time as they are actually happening, which in some way makes the events more relatable, the actors/performers are instantly interacting with the live audience and there is a certain type of adrenaline rush when broadcasting live, and also a pressure to perform to the best of your ability. The disadvantages of live television are: it is most likely not being recorded and there are no second takes if you mess up. In TV today, I'd say that SNL is a mixture of both live and pre-recorded as their host is usually always performing in live sketches however there are pre-recorded infomercial segments during the show as well.
Live television really worked with the feeling that early television was trying to achieve. Cinema had an element of disconnection, and television was taking away some of that space by not only inserting itself into the homes of its viewers, but formatting it into a live setting. By having the performance itself being a form of interaction between the audience and the performers, the fourth wall barrier is broken. It also makes the camera itself a POV shot from the audience, making the viewers at home feel like a part of the crowd interacting with the performance. I don't think that the unavoidable consequence of screwing up is actually a bad thing. I believe it adds more opportunity for comedy that couldn't be written or predicted. For example, in the screening when a woman on stage messes up and the man tells her what the next joke, that's funnier than the joke itself. People enjoy watching actors mess up and break character by laughing on stage. It also makes everything feel more real, genuine, and personal. One thing that did not translate well into modern TV is the usage of a laugh track to emulate this audience interaction. In a world where every joke lands (even when it's not funny, looking at you Big Bang Theory), this just tells people when they're SUPPOSED to laugh, and it reads as ingenuine. This is especially true if they don't find the joke funny; the laugh track suddenly becomes very annoying. One disadvantage of live television is also the lack of editing. Anytime there's something slow, or doesn't work for the show, it all goes on screen anyways. Editing and cutting is a very important part of on-screen arts. One way they worked around this, however, was having someone come out between acts to have a comedy act. This was a smart way to keep people entertained while changes were being made on stage.
When we see live television today I think people are drawn to the inclusiveness and the potential for things to go wrong. People were drawn to live theatre before the television because anything could happen on the stage. It also makes the audience feel as though they have been invited to take part in the live event even without having to be there. The authenticity of live television is exciting and full of possibility. People are able to talk to friends and neighbors about the live events as well, giving them another sense of connectedness. The disadvantages that might occur is that people will become more involved with television and potentially less likely to go out and experience events themselves. The potential to get hooked on television could have been higher. It is a superficial way to gain "real life" experience while giving the allusion that they are a part of something. I think the illusion of live television comes in the form of "reality" television. Where it appears to be real life situations but many sources have explained that the events are usually staged or dramatized in a way to make the audience buy into the story more. Also, there is the instance of using "canned laughter" in sitcoms where the audience is cued when they need to laugh. Its appealing to be a part of something so this illusion is used to draw people in and make them feel like they are a part of it.
Live TV has an element of excitement that you can’t get with a pre-recorded broadcast or a movie. Anything could go wrong, and that’s part of the charm. Any technical difficulties or flubbed lines can’t be edited out. I like to watch QVC and infomercial programs late at night because I find it hilarious and fascinating how they attempt to cover up their mistakes. See the link for my favorite examples.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thFhRAWjoYQ You can find this a positive or a drawback, depending on your personality.
A definite plus is the “real-ness” of the live performance. It’s locked into a certain geo-temporal moment. The exact time that you are spending watching that program in your living room is the same time that the actors are performing on that studio stage and the same time everyone else in your neighborhood is watching it on THEIR couches.
But because of this, a huge negative is the inability to craft productions that are too large-scale. You can “cheat” a little bit with different sets and the illusion of time having passed, but you can’t just go and film your Western show in the plains of Texas for the one hour it airs at 6pm on a Tuesday.
Live TV provides a different type of entertainment from that of scripted television or film. It is different in that live television provides a different type of effect on the audience, especially if that live show was shot in front of a live audience. This effect puts the viewer in the space of the interview, gameshow, late night show, etc. and by being unscripted, live television allows the viewer to feel more intimate with the show, knowing, but not anticipating, that anything could go wrong at a moment.
Early television seemed to really thrive in the emergence of this type of television, the connection between host and viewer across thousands of miles is elicited to every viewer. The live aspect of television makes this connection more intimate, as if the conversation occurring on screen is one that someone would have in their own living room. It is through live television that viewers become more connected to the stars, seeing their personalities unfold candidly allows for a different type of viewing experience.
When watching live TV the audiences has a good sense of knowing that everything presented to them on the screen is natural and real. They are lead to believe that if they don’t see it now, they will never be able to enjoy the moment again. To miss a particular event, conversation, joke, or incident on presented in the historic version of live television had a different perk and advantage than what it does today. Obviously in this generation a regular viewer with the right technology is able to pre record television content and watch it later, but in many ways is only loses that live element to it. You aren’t obliged to watch with family during dinner or interact with others around watching as well.
One of the perks of earlier versions of live TV is knowing that there is a sense of realism and authenticity amongst the performers and stars. Slip ups are excusable and it makes it more enjoyable watching, knowing that the people on screen are like real people. Today, “live” doesn’t necessarily mean “live”. Everything is staged and it has gotten to a point that an audience can distinguish the difference. Plot twist, audience laughter, etc. it all leaves an uneasy feeling knowing that TV hasn’t been the same since its original days. The best use of liveness today is the use of social media where marketers push the viewer to engage through constant hashtags on sites such as Twitter. This way it feels like they are watching with more than just themselves; the way TV was initially created for.
When it first began, live television felt like prior forms of art that were already popular in previous decades. Live theatre, vaudeville, musicals, and comedy acts all established a sense of connection with audience, where viewers experienced the performance in that one moment and space. The early stage of television sought inspiration from this idea. Like with “safe” outs in the television and film industry today (sequels, book-turned-movies), the popularity of a live act was already there. In addition, this nature allowed for television shows to keep viewer interest. There was always something happening, and you never knew what would come next. The commercialism was fed within the show as well, and therefore it felt as though it never “paused.”
The issue with liveness was in regards to not only dryness, but sponsorship. If a sponsor or advertising agency needed a certain time frame for their product (e.g. Milton Berle’s Texaco skits) the show would need to be planned accordingly to accommodate. However, if an act/segment/etc. was messed up, agencies may have become upset if their product or service was misrepresented. Time constraints and the lack of reshoots meant shows were constantly on-edge. The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show worked around this by taking an “off” week to rehearse, but shows that did not have this luxury had to be ready at a moments notice.
What’s interesting is the discourse between this original form of live television and today’s live television. Saturday Night Live’s audience do not necessarily tune in to see a spectacle that will only be broadcasted at that exact moment. Viewers can rewatch a show or catch clips online/on-demand. This separates itself from viewership in the 1940s and 50s, as audiences expected a closeness to the television they were watching. SNL’s selling point is no longer that it is a one of a kind episode each week that you can only enjoy in the moment, yet there is still a parallel to the old age of liveness. Milton Berle’s Texaco Star Theatre showed audiences the marvels of skits and how interesting it was to see possible mishaps and off-script moments. In terms of interest, SNL similarly showcases various comedians and stars, and the allure of it all comes from seeing the spectacle that is their performance on a singular show. It may not be as enticing as it once was, but live T.V. is still a popular art form.
When television first began, the primary concern of the people who were running it was: “How do we compete with film?” Liveness was a factor that was absent from cinema, and therefore was an advantage television had to film. The ability to connect a live audience across the country to something that was being broadcast simultaneously allowed for a connection of the public and private spheres. This was of particular importance for women, who were primarily confined to the private sphere. Live television offered women an opportunity to experience the public sphere and connect to the outside world. This was also true for people who could not afford to attend live performances or events. Television was a relatively cheap alternative to attending such events as presidential inaugurations or the Academy Awards- and to this day still is.
Another advantage of live television is the cheapness of production. Unlike films which typically were able to be filmed over a relatively lengthy amount of time, television was a continuous event and there was more time that needed to be filled with less amount of production. Filming television live and primarily unscripted meant that they could fill up an hour with only an hour of production time, as opposed to several months for an hour of film. With live tv there is also less pressure on the writers to fill up all that time with a script: there is more opportunity for ad-libbing and improvisation on the part of the actors.
The advantages of live television are: the viewers at home are experiencing the events in real time as they are actually happening, which in some way makes the events more relatable, the actors/performers are instantly interacting with the live audience and there is a certain type of adrenaline rush when broadcasting live, and also a pressure to perform to the best of your ability. The disadvantages of live television are: it is most likely not being recorded and there are no second takes if you mess up. In TV today, I'd say that SNL is a mixture of both live and pre-recorded as their host is usually always performing in live sketches however there are pre-recorded infomercial segments during the show as well.
ReplyDeleteLive television really worked with the feeling that early television was trying to achieve. Cinema had an element of disconnection, and television was taking away some of that space by not only inserting itself into the homes of its viewers, but formatting it into a live setting. By having the performance itself being a form of interaction between the audience and the performers, the fourth wall barrier is broken. It also makes the camera itself a POV shot from the audience, making the viewers at home feel like a part of the crowd interacting with the performance. I don't think that the unavoidable consequence of screwing up is actually a bad thing. I believe it adds more opportunity for comedy that couldn't be written or predicted. For example, in the screening when a woman on stage messes up and the man tells her what the next joke, that's funnier than the joke itself. People enjoy watching actors mess up and break character by laughing on stage. It also makes everything feel more real, genuine, and personal. One thing that did not translate well into modern TV is the usage of a laugh track to emulate this audience interaction. In a world where every joke lands (even when it's not funny, looking at you Big Bang Theory), this just tells people when they're SUPPOSED to laugh, and it reads as ingenuine. This is especially true if they don't find the joke funny; the laugh track suddenly becomes very annoying.
ReplyDeleteOne disadvantage of live television is also the lack of editing. Anytime there's something slow, or doesn't work for the show, it all goes on screen anyways. Editing and cutting is a very important part of on-screen arts. One way they worked around this, however, was having someone come out between acts to have a comedy act. This was a smart way to keep people entertained while changes were being made on stage.
When we see live television today I think people are drawn to the inclusiveness and the potential for things to go wrong. People were drawn to live theatre before the television because anything could happen on the stage. It also makes the audience feel as though they have been invited to take part in the live event even without having to be there. The authenticity of live television is exciting and full of possibility. People are able to talk to friends and neighbors about the live events as well, giving them another sense of connectedness. The disadvantages that might occur is that people will become more involved with television and potentially less likely to go out and experience events themselves. The potential to get hooked on television could have been higher. It is a superficial way to gain "real life" experience while giving the allusion that they are a part of something. I think the illusion of live television comes in the form of "reality" television. Where it appears to be real life situations but many sources have explained that the events are usually staged or dramatized in a way to make the audience buy into the story more. Also, there is the instance of using "canned laughter" in sitcoms where the audience is cued when they need to laugh. Its appealing to be a part of something so this illusion is used to draw people in and make them feel like they are a part of it.
ReplyDeleteLive TV has an element of excitement that you can’t get with a pre-recorded broadcast or a movie. Anything could go wrong, and that’s part of the charm. Any technical difficulties or flubbed lines can’t be edited out. I like to watch QVC and infomercial programs late at night because I find it hilarious and fascinating how they attempt to cover up their mistakes. See the link for my favorite examples.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thFhRAWjoYQ
You can find this a positive or a drawback, depending on your personality.
A definite plus is the “real-ness” of the live performance. It’s locked into a certain geo-temporal moment. The exact time that you are spending watching that program in your living room is the same time that the actors are performing on that studio stage and the same time everyone else in your neighborhood is watching it on THEIR couches.
But because of this, a huge negative is the inability to craft productions that are too large-scale. You can “cheat” a little bit with different sets and the illusion of time having passed, but you can’t just go and film your Western show in the plains of Texas for the one hour it airs at 6pm on a Tuesday.
Live TV provides a different type of entertainment from that of scripted television or film. It is different in that live television provides a different type of effect on the audience, especially if that live show was shot in front of a live audience. This effect puts the viewer in the space of the interview, gameshow, late night show, etc. and by being unscripted, live television allows the viewer to feel more intimate with the show, knowing, but not anticipating, that anything could go wrong at a moment.
ReplyDeleteEarly television seemed to really thrive in the emergence of this type of television, the connection between host and viewer across thousands of miles is elicited to every viewer. The live aspect of television makes this connection more intimate, as if the conversation occurring on screen is one that someone would have in their own living room. It is through live television that viewers become more connected to the stars, seeing their personalities unfold candidly allows for a different type of viewing experience.
When watching live TV the audiences has a good sense of knowing that everything presented to them on the screen is natural and real. They are lead to believe that if they don’t see it now, they will never be able to enjoy the moment again. To miss a particular event, conversation, joke, or incident on presented in the historic version of live television had a different perk and advantage than what it does today. Obviously in this generation a regular viewer with the right technology is able to pre record television content and watch it later, but in many ways is only loses that live element to it. You aren’t obliged to watch with family during dinner or interact with others around watching as well.
ReplyDeleteOne of the perks of earlier versions of live TV is knowing that there is a sense of realism and authenticity amongst the performers and stars. Slip ups are excusable and it makes it more enjoyable watching, knowing that the people on screen are like real people. Today, “live” doesn’t necessarily mean “live”. Everything is staged and it has gotten to a point that an audience can distinguish the difference. Plot twist, audience laughter, etc. it all leaves an uneasy feeling knowing that TV hasn’t been the same since its original days. The best use of liveness today is the use of social media where marketers push the viewer to engage through constant hashtags on sites such as Twitter. This way it feels like they are watching with more than just themselves; the way TV was initially created for.
When it first began, live television felt like prior forms of art that were already popular in previous decades. Live theatre, vaudeville, musicals, and comedy acts all established a sense of connection with audience, where viewers experienced the performance in that one moment and space. The early stage of television sought inspiration from this idea. Like with “safe” outs in the television and film industry today (sequels, book-turned-movies), the popularity of a live act was already there. In addition, this nature allowed for television shows to keep viewer interest. There was always something happening, and you never knew what would come next. The commercialism was fed within the show as well, and therefore it felt as though it never “paused.”
ReplyDeleteThe issue with liveness was in regards to not only dryness, but sponsorship. If a sponsor or advertising agency needed a certain time frame for their product (e.g. Milton Berle’s Texaco skits) the show would need to be planned accordingly to accommodate. However, if an act/segment/etc. was messed up, agencies may have become upset if their product or service was misrepresented. Time constraints and the lack of reshoots meant shows were constantly on-edge. The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show worked around this by taking an “off” week to rehearse, but shows that did not have this luxury had to be ready at a moments notice.
What’s interesting is the discourse between this original form of live television and today’s live television. Saturday Night Live’s audience do not necessarily tune in to see a spectacle that will only be broadcasted at that exact moment. Viewers can rewatch a show or catch clips online/on-demand. This separates itself from viewership in the 1940s and 50s, as audiences expected a closeness to the television they were watching. SNL’s selling point is no longer that it is a one of a kind episode each week that you can only enjoy in the moment, yet there is still a parallel to the old age of liveness. Milton Berle’s Texaco Star Theatre showed audiences the marvels of skits and how interesting it was to see possible mishaps and off-script moments. In terms of interest, SNL similarly showcases various comedians and stars, and the allure of it all comes from seeing the spectacle that is their performance on a singular show. It may not be as enticing as it once was, but live T.V. is still a popular art form.
When television first began, the primary concern of the people who were running it was: “How do we compete with film?” Liveness was a factor that was absent from cinema, and therefore was an advantage television had to film. The ability to connect a live audience across the country to something that was being broadcast simultaneously allowed for a connection of the public and private spheres. This was of particular importance for women, who were primarily confined to the private sphere. Live television offered women an opportunity to experience the public sphere and connect to the outside world. This was also true for people who could not afford to attend live performances or events. Television was a relatively cheap alternative to attending such events as presidential inaugurations or the Academy Awards- and to this day still is.
ReplyDeleteAnother advantage of live television is the cheapness of production. Unlike films which typically were able to be filmed over a relatively lengthy amount of time, television was a continuous event and there was more time that needed to be filled with less amount of production. Filming television live and primarily unscripted meant that they could fill up an hour with only an hour of production time, as opposed to several months for an hour of film. With live tv there is also less pressure on the writers to fill up all that time with a script: there is more opportunity for ad-libbing and improvisation on the part of the actors.