Should television now be considered on par with cinema?
~Television looks dull to me, there is little aesthetic value to it. part of the attraction
of great cinema is the attention to detail, mise-en-scene, shot composition etc. ~
Tableau? Mise-en-scene? Experimentation/innovation? Attention to detail?
Twilight Zone
Wonder Years
Monty Python
There are Twilight Zone episodes that are better than the majority of films that the majority of users have rated.
Same goes for Alfred Hitchcock Presents; same goes for Masterpiece Theater.
Have you ever seen the BRILLIANT use of black & white photography in 50’s TV shows? Twilight Zone especially.
Some of those treasures you speak of were originally on & would not exist with out funding from television.
Really? You dare to compare the role of TV’s funding over cinema products? For shame…..television’s role is minimal in that it promotes trash in its majority of channels and program structure. So you say there is Twilight Zone but I say the Balkans (as a whole) have made at least 500 rubies in the 60’s that need to be shown not only on television but at the theatres in retrospectives. To think that those 500 titles lack proper VHS, DVD AND TELEVISION-EMBRACED format is preposterous and trying to support television’s “achievements” over the complete ignorance of academics, critics and journalists alike for World Cinema Salvation is laughable and anti-cinematic in its core argument. TV is NOT an Art, same goes for videogames.
Television may fund projects but they don’t give a shit afterwards.
There are Twilight Zone episodes that are better than the majority of films that the majority of users have rated.
Same goes for Alfred Hitchcock Presents; same goes for Masterpiece Theater.
That’s debatable. I’ve rated 90% amazing Greek CLASSICS on this very site and all of them surpass the examples above. I’d say the 10% left which have been added are simplicities, mediocrities and stupidities, so I guess the examples above easily surpass the cinema duds of Greece and of any other country.
Have you ever seen the BRILLIANT use of black & white photography in 50’s TV shows?
So? No one beats the black and white use of Mizoguchi’s, Rocha’s, Kim Ki-young’s and Ray’s films.
I can name more, bring it on.
Neh, so ‘thinking critically’ about television for you means pointing out exceptions? Twin Peaks was a major exception in the world of television. It was also a flop. what does that tell you? To me it speaks volumes, to you it says nothing.
I won’t lose any sleep over the possibility that i may be a ‘lesser’ cinephile because i don’t appreciate television(who is making qualitative judgements now?).
That^
Television exists to sell product. ( No PBS without commercial side.)
What % of TV is garbage during a 24 hour period?
The mediums are not comparable because of the way they are used/experienced.
One can compare a film to a TV show.
Dimitris, you arguments are tangential & imbalanced. Ill logic? for shame, indeed.
The fact that you may like the black & white in a Kim Ki-young film does not take away
from the fact that there have been exemplar uses of b&w in 40’s/50’s television. Mastery even.
Comparing on perfect photograph to another does not make either one lesser.
No matter how many you can name, it’s irrelevant.
We all know movies have used excellent black&white, that’s besides the point;
what had not been brought up & cannot be denied is that television has done the same.
And it’s not just the role of funding. Look at European & Oceanic television, i’m just pointing out that alot of cinematic gems, alot of non-American directors’ debut features are produced & shown & heralded through television.
No, ‘thinking critically’ about television, for me, absolutely does not mean “pointing out exceptions”?
It means anything you put a camera in front of becomes cinema & you’re all fucking fools that can’t recognize potential. There has been brilliant television in the last 70 years & it’s totally short-sided to write it off as something less-than.
Is the power of a short-film somehow “less-than” a feature? No. And it’s fucking pretentious to think so.
Also, anything being a flop means nothing. Look at all the great films that are flops. That’s no argument.
90% of movies are garbage too. Look at all the hand-me-down remakes in video-stores.
The B-movie ones that get released before a big film comes out that’s a knock-off.
Neh, there may be gems among the garbage, but these days with so many channels and so much dumbing down (the beeb has dumbed down, for sure) it’s hard to know where to look or summon the energy to wade through the swamps and slough of despond in the hope of some maybe non-existent celestial city. Oh, if only i was head of Beeb programming, there would be a shake-up and i would be confident of changing the nation’s viewing habits. TV like Hollywood is a money machine. The Beeb has failed in its legal obligation to meet the variety of viewer interests. It is surely run by cultural philistines (hardly alone in that)
No, it doesn’t matter how many channels there are just like it doesn’t matter how many B-movies there are.
90% of any medium is shit.
The fact that there are 9000 channels or 90 contemporary painters or 900 movies made a month doesn’t magically take away that fact that no matter what, the majority of any medium is forgettable trash & only a small percentage of it is exemplar in its field. Regardless, no matter how much there is, or how much one is offended by how much there is, there is are still gems. And it therefore cannot be written off & is therefore equal to any other medium.
+ You are only speaking of North American TV, & in some cases European.
American TV = Hollywood.
You are overgeneralizing.
what had not been brought up & cannot be denied is that television has done the same.
Television and those television shows you’re mentioning in particular DO get a lot of exposure though. So why doesn’t the same occur with Bulgarian and Egyptian masterpieces if I may ask? Why less to zero exposure there? Why the need for maximum TV importance worldwide, from Hitchcocks and Gilligans to NYPD Blues and Wires? Why the need for “specific” TV products, mainly based in the Anglophone world?
Please do not POLLUTE TV’s banality with cinema. Please do not INSULT cinema by trying to place videogames in the conversation…AGAIN.
Comparing on perfect photograph to another does not make either one lesser.
Photography and Cinema define the Lens. TV is made for the “people”. It’s not made for any intellectual purpose. ANY AT ALL. If you can find me TV products that equal the mastery of A Brighter Summer Day, of Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, of My Twentieth Century, of Strike, of The Ashes and of The Adventures of Prince Achmed, I’ll bow to your sire. (I can name more again regarding the intellectual perspective)
alot of non-American directors’ debut features are produced & shown & heralded through television.
Which are….? Please name them, oh…I beg you almighty agent of the Television Round Table. Speak the truth, by all means. Not in my country you’ll find such a fine bunch of open-minded TV executives, no you won’t….
Pardon me, you speak about America? America the land of plenty which promotes all cultures and movements? REALLY? IS THAT SO? WHERE’S THE PROOF?
90% of any medium is shit.
99% of Television is SHIT.
Read a fine book by Pessoa or a poetic volume by Kavafis instead of watching Flying Circus. It will do no harm to your senses, chill from entertainment a bit…
Isn’t it really just a question of who works in which medium? Cinema has a history much longer than television and has on a whole certainly been more concerned with “art”, but in the end they are just two mediums for visual communication with different limitations. Few big directors have even tried making television, and fewer have succeeded, but things like The Kingdom and Twin Peaks, I feel, have just as much artistic value as their creator’s cinematic work.
I won’t deal with your immature condescension. So, know, if it continues, you’ll receive no reply. Fair warning.
I will give a single example as proof. Though there are many more, I have no interest in pandering to someone who has been forcefully disrespectful.
Jane Campion’s Two Friends
Keep in mind, it is irrelevant if you don’t like this film, all that matter is that this & many others, especially in Britain, got their start through the medium.
Also, of course there are TV shows made for intellectual purposes.
You have made an absurd statement in saying the opposite.
NEH: so now we are talking about potential rather than actual? There is a difference, one exists in the largely theoretical realm, and one is based more firmly in reality. If you are gauging the potential of television based on a few decent exceptions like Twin Peaks, then yes, we can agree, but you are changing the argument here i believe. and the generalisation of television=low grade junk stands in my mind because a few exceptions don’t really count for much in the grand scheme of things.
There are few, if any, great authorical voices in television. There are plenty in film.
99% of cinema is bullshit.
TV or Movies.
99% of literature is bullshit.
99% of any medium is ____.
Don’t give me that nonsense about reading a fine book; I read more than I watch movies or even listen to music; I don’t appreciate your condescendence & I won’t stand for it. I worked at a library for years, all I do is read. Recently I have learned, through some old VHS tapes I found at a record store & likewise through gradually finding more & more, to appreciate television of the world as a cinematic medium. Why you feel so defensive is questionable.
Moderated
@ Neh brilliant television in the last 70 years
Television has been a commercial success – there have been some brilliant shows.
99% of any medium is
That isn’t the intent of the most mediums. TV’s intent is to be the lowest common denominator:
most basic, least sophisticated level of taste, sensibility, or opinion among a group of people.
That is how one sells product – dumb it down: theauteurs vs MUBI?
JOKS, no, not just potential vs. actual, I’m talking about giving credit where credit’s due.
And let’s face it, it has been made VERY apparent that the people arguing against TV have not seen very much of it.
Neither have i, to be honest. More than some here, but certainly not more than most. But i know of great documentaries on BBC & PBS, great black&white TV shows of the 40’s, 50’s & 60’s, brilliant, intelligent, plot & character-driven shows shot using all the technique of a masterful European director of the same era. I’ve seen modern films produced for TV that end up being a gateway for interesting directors to break-into cinema. I’m not even getting into the importance of something like National Geographic or BBC’s Planet Earth / Life series…
Look, I completely agree that if you turn on a TV in our day & age, you are guaranteed to turn on a pile of worthlessness. A barrage of predictable jokes in a tested formula, apathetically put together & frequently interrupted by god-awful & depraved, cheap advertising gimmicks. Most of all American television is bullshit. I AGREE. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t people out there who care. Who make something personal, something we can gain from. Like a good movie.
However, I think there is a real bias here because everyone on the forum watches a myriad of great cinema from all over the world. Which is wonderful. And there’s good reason why. Yes, there may be fewer gems in television, but that’s no reason to damn it outright. If anything it should be celebrated for its successes & ignored for its many faults. Like any medium. No one here is championing cinema on account of whatever trash is being advertised on billboards at the local cineplex. It’s the rarity we cherish. And I think the rarity of good television should be celebrated.
~ TV’s intent is to be the lowest common denominator. ~
So you, who does not watch TV, are an authority on their motives?
Do not confuse advertising with television.
Again, people are speaking only of American TV.
Lowest common denominator, yes, that’s all too apparent now there are so many channels peddling the same sort of thing. I doubt there are more good programmes to be found in the UK than when there were only 4 channels. It could be so much better, but Rupert Murdoch is gonna get even more control as his political ideology suits the govt
But i know of great documentaries on BBC & PBS, great black&white TV shows of the 40’s, 50’s & 60’s, brilliant, intelligent, plot & character-driven shows shot using all the technique of a masterful European director of the same era.
Once again Europe vs America and particularly Western Europe, is this some kind of colonial freak show or the marginalization of culture in favor of the Great Political Empires of Earth?
American TV “gems” mean nothing to me, even if I have seen less than 1% of it.
For what it’s worth, not all countries have the luxury to fund TV products and TV shows and TV lectures and TV documentaries and TV whatever and not all directors from those countries…hell, 99% of those directors don’t have the luxury to make a TV film let alone a CINEMA FILM, so what’s to say about worldwide television in this case?
What, directing TV series episodes? Is that a great achievement? For real now? So it’s best to say that a wanna-be Romanian legend should stick to TV episodes in her country because she can’t afford to fund her film properly? Who’s to blame there?
TV of course which has corrupted people into thinking it’s more important than CINEMA.
No wonder most in my country know of Lost and Blackadder instead of Godard and Angelopoulos. For shame indeed.
National Geographic
PBS
France Arte
Anything produced by Canal + for French TV.
Loads of great art/culture produced by BBC 4.
KENJI: i know very little of British television, but according to Morrissey, who lived in L.A for a couple of years, television in America is for ‘children’, whereas in the U.K they at least have programs for adults.
That could just be his old school British elitism coming through though ;-)
Do not confuse advertising with television.
television = advertising
Again, people are speaking only of American TV.
Someone pays for it. Telly tax in UK?
^ Nice, Western Europe’s colonization into “foreigners’ minds”. Everyone knows of RAI and Canal+. So let’s all be a good, cozy family and listen to what French and Americans and Italians and etc World Powers have to say through our television / DVD television-structured “boxes”. Oh yes, what a joy, we’re all a happy family, just like in Anglophone music. What’s next, should we translate Chinese literature books in China in English too, for all people to learn their culture in English first and then in their respective language.
I thought we weren’t so dumb as Cyprus and Malta are…
NO television does NOT equal advertising COMMON MISCONCEPTION
Televison = a medium though which stories are told*, stories which are interruped by advertisements.
*or game shows, (which i hate) XP
Haha.
Actually, interrupted is not accurate. Look at Hulu.
By all accounts, that’s TV, right? One ad at the beginning. Then cinema.
NE1
Television is a type of Cinema.
Anyone who says No is blind & has a negative stigma.
It’s like asking if a freezer is “better” than a refrigerator.
They both do different things, for different reasons, to great effect.
Look at the Live-TV-Plays on Criterion’s Golden Age of Television.
Top-notch, one-of-a-kind, & more cinematic than many films of the era. The camerawork is astounding.
TV, like anything, 90% of it is shit. 9% of it is mediocre. Leaving 1% that is quality & the best in its field.
Of course Television is on par with ‘cinema’ (sic: movies) IT IS cinema, & it’s been on par for a long-time.
I would argue that you are not a well-rounded cinephile if you do not appreciate the television medium.