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)
Boddy's article on live television highlights a very important belief among TV critics of the 1950s: that live television is superior. To be blunt, I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. An avid fan of "I Love Lucy", a show that adapted the three-camera system but that was, nevertheless, filmed, I found the episode we watched in class to be far more interesting than the live teleplay "Marty". In live television, there was an emphasis on realism-- that is, actors were meant to embody the role rather than simply play the part. Dialogue was often written to resemble everyday speech, something that producers today avoid. Realistic dialogue sounds great in theory, but in actuality we speak in fragments that are both choppy and boring. This leads to the show dragging on, as many of us experienced while watching "Marty" during the screening. "I Love Lucy", on the other hand, held my attention for the entire time, even though I had seen the episode before. Lucy and Ricky Ricardo have stood the test of time, and humor that was funny then still resonates with audiences today. This show has the ability to entertain, but it also is incredibly well written and should not be written off as inferior to a live show.
ReplyDeleteWe live in a very different society than the one that existed in the 50s, but does that mean our standards of what is "good television" have changed? Not necessarily. We find "I Love Lucy" entertaining because it is relatable and doesn't have to try to be so. "Marty" fails miserably at its goal to be relatable because it attempts to be as realistic as possible, thus making it uneventful at best and painful at worst.
Critics praised live programming for many reasons, some being that live television was more realistic. It portrayed everyday themes, was more naturalistic, and the audience could connect more with the characters because they behaved and spoke how real people did. I do agree that it’s essential to have characters and subject matter that seems realistic, but I think you can achieve that through either a live program or a filmed program as long as the subject matter, writing, and acting are good.
ReplyDeleteBased on the examples we viewed in class, I found “I Love Lucy”, which was filmed, more appealing because the subject matter was entertaining and the acting was wonderful. It held the audiences attention the entire show. And although it was filmed, I still felt like the characters were realistic. I felt like Lucy was a relatable character because she wanted something really badly and did what she had to do in order to get it. Mostly everyone can relate to feeling that way at some point in their life. On the other hand, “Marty,” the live telefilm, was not as entertaining and felt like it dragged. It was realistic and incorporated some interesting themes, but the production as a whole was lacking. The acting was sub-par and a lot of it seemed redundant - the actors kept repeating lines and jokes perhaps because it was live and they needed time to pass. I think “Marty” could have been a better, more entertaining production if it had been rehearsed more before it was shot. That way, it could still depict the naturalistic feel critics were fond of, while improving the acting and being a smoother production overall.
Critics favored live television over its filmed counterparts partially because of the high-brow content matter and serious approach of live theatre. The live teleplays that were filmed in New York contained realistic subject matters and had great actors from the New York theatre scene like James Dean and Rod Steiger. In comparison, the filmed Hollywood shows tackled less serious subject matters and due to their half-hour time limit, critics deemed that characters of the show lacked any characterization and additionally complained that the plot was hard to follow on a weekly basis.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the critics in some sense that live theatre teleplays are superior to sitcoms like “I Love Lucy” in that they were more difficult to make and that the acting was far more realistic and intriguing. It is amazing to me how fast these programs came together on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, which I think is something that is overlooked by audiences now as most scripted television shows are filmed in advance. However, at the same time I do not think that these teleplays were not always more pleasurable to watch than the filmed sitcoms. Something can be critically acclaimed and necessary to watch, without necessarily being something that the viewer actively enjoys. I recently had this experience with the film Boyhood. While I am glad that I went to see the film, especially because of the methods used to make the film and its amazing cinematography and acting, I didn’t walk out wanting to see it again.
What is especially interesting to me now is that the whole notion of filmed versus live has become rather obsolete for scripted television drams and comedies. While live television has survived through the decades, we mostly see it now in the variety and reality show genres and not so much with hour-long dramas. Thus, the divide between live television and filmed television is a much different debate that covers encompasses completely different genres.