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)
During the 1950’s, the live television produced in New York was seen as superior to Hollywood produced programs by critics, as well as the writers and sponsors involved in television. This was both a practical and artistic critique: practical due to the fact most television watching audiences were on the east coast, so better quality live broadcasts from New York would reach a larger demographic for advertisers. Artistically, the live programs were seen as more weighty and realistic, and lending themselves better to the new opportunity for realism that television presented. Critics were preoccupied with the naturalism that could and should be present in the programs produced for this new medium. Television was playing to intimate audiences, rooms of 2-6 people, as opposed to film or theater, and therefore could offer up a kind of realism not found in another medium. It was felt that film had a feel of the past, and there was a conceit that it was better than life itself, and theater’s “naturalism” was in actuality far from it. Compared to these established forms of entertainment, it became generally accepted that television should be presenting real life, and giving its intimate audience the chance to be a partner in the action as opposed to a spectator.
ReplyDeleteHour-long teleplays were seen as the height of television at the time, and were typically produced in New York. The writers of these plays were often talked about and respected, and many had a background in writing for theater. These teleplays were broadcast live on the east coast, and often strived to present life as realistically as possible. One example from our screenings was “Marty”, which was a type of realism that overwhelmingly amounted to boringness. In contrast, “I Love Lucy” was a filmed thirty minute program produced in Hollywood that I enjoyed much more. I think this can be attributed to the fact it resembles modern television far more than “Marty” did. Television has clearly moved away from the early critics’ emphasis on high realism, as even hour-long dramas now come in a variety of genres and often deal with situations that are typically not of the everyday variety. I think the critics at the time were caught up in the idea of a new medium and were striving to differentiate it from film at the time by pushing the idea that tv was more “reality” than any other form of entertainment. Given the trajectory of television from these competing forms of hyper-realism vs filmed comedy or programs of less naturalism to something that today still resembles the latter, I think it is clear the live teleplays that were initially so popular were not what television was destined to be.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn today’s society, television shows are just as popular as big Hollywood blockbusters. However, that was not the case in the 1950s. Live television was seen as superior to Hollywood films. Their reasoning comes from many ideas. One of these reasons is stated as, “Live television… bridges the gap instantly and unites the individual with the event at home.” This is not only true for live sporting events but I feel it could be similar for shows, such as “I Love Lucy.” This particular show brings you right into the home of Lucy and Ricardo. You hear about their life and experience exactly what is going on in their lives.
ReplyDeleteWhat also made television more interesting than Hollywood was the fact that Hollywood seemed to be more of a “monolithic dream factory.” This seems very true because Hollywood could make motion pictures, such as movies about princesses, whereas television shows such as “The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show” focused on the life of middle class workers. This was so much more relatable to the viewers and addressed the realistic issues of life at home – the importance of acquiring “things.” Viewers enjoyed much more of that which they could relate to.
Live television also faced (and still does) the importance of quick character development and good material. In order to keep the audience viewership up, they would have to establish interesting characters, as well as having good material to continue the plot. Meanwhile a Hollywood film takes place in one sitting, leaving the character development up to one film, not many episodes. If a television show can accomplish that, they can be considerably better than others.