Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Television v. Cinema
As anyone who knows me, one of the things that bothers me most is that television is considered red headed stepchild of the movies. I am always compelled to show the ways in which television is better.
Anyway, yesterday I wrote about how nice guys on tv turn mean once they get the girl of their dreams. But in some ways, isn't this fact part of the beauty of television? I mean in movies it is easy to root for the nice guy, because as soon as he gets the girl, the movie ends and we can just assume they live happily ever after. Television, unless it happens to be the final episode, forces the writers to tell you what happens next. Does the woman get bored with the guy? or as is often the case, does the guy change for the worse once he has the girl and no longer has to worship her from afar? Television does not let the writers off easy, if they are going to put two characters together, it forces the question: what happens next?
Then again, maybe movies are correct in that what happens next is boring. I mean say they are the perfect couple, then the audience has no interest in seeing thier boring life of being happy and just going about your business as a couple. I mean the problem with television is that by having more episodes, the writers are forced to create more conflicts. They have to make the characters change in order to keep people watching.
So I guess the real question is what is more true to life, that once two people get together, it is not the end of the story cause there are always more problems, or once people settle together, they instantly become boring?
Anyway, yesterday I wrote about how nice guys on tv turn mean once they get the girl of their dreams. But in some ways, isn't this fact part of the beauty of television? I mean in movies it is easy to root for the nice guy, because as soon as he gets the girl, the movie ends and we can just assume they live happily ever after. Television, unless it happens to be the final episode, forces the writers to tell you what happens next. Does the woman get bored with the guy? or as is often the case, does the guy change for the worse once he has the girl and no longer has to worship her from afar? Television does not let the writers off easy, if they are going to put two characters together, it forces the question: what happens next?
Then again, maybe movies are correct in that what happens next is boring. I mean say they are the perfect couple, then the audience has no interest in seeing thier boring life of being happy and just going about your business as a couple. I mean the problem with television is that by having more episodes, the writers are forced to create more conflicts. They have to make the characters change in order to keep people watching.
So I guess the real question is what is more true to life, that once two people get together, it is not the end of the story cause there are always more problems, or once people settle together, they instantly become boring?
# posted by Julia @ 5:39 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
I think that both media have their pluses and minuses in this regard. I think it is false to say that all movies leave you assuming that everyone lives happily ever after. I think a lot of the best movies leave you genuinely not knowing what will happen in the end, but it doesn't matter because the particular story has been told. In some ways this is more true to life, in that at all points in life, there is ambiguity as to what will happen next, nothing lasts forever, etc.
Now, TV does offer an interesting counterpoint in that it forces the writers to tell us what happens next. However, I think you've hit the nail on the head when you say that as shows progress, the writers need to keep adding in more conflicts. When a nice guy is pining for the girl, that is the conflict. Once he gets the girl it is supremely boring unless something is thrown in to make it all screwed up. I suppose the girl could turn out to be awful too, so you could be right that they choose the nice guy to turn more often.
I think this illustrates how TV shows are good for only a limited time when it comes to telling a sustained story. I mean, some shows have framing devices that will always create conflict. "The West Wing" will theoretically always have conflict because being president is always interesting (regardless of who is writing the dialogue) (though having real life events become much more interesting in the most awful way possible, post 9/11 might screw that up). Other shows can similarly chug along indefinitely. I mean, I suppose it is possible that Kiefer Sutherland just has the bad/good luck to be involved in no fewer than three (four?) all day/all night nailbiting events in his life (each time where the potentially awful conflict arises, heightens and is solved within exactly 24 hours). But most shows set up an overarching narrative and once they resolve it, they really should just end it. On "Friends" it was all about Ross and Rachel, but by the time they got together and then broke up, it just got silly. Even something like Arrested Development had to get more and more ridiculous to move beyond the central conflict/big reveal of the first season (which I won't spoil here). What it comes down to probably is that these shows should probably end once their central conflict is resolved.
But then TV shows would just be really really long movies.
Post a Comment
Now, TV does offer an interesting counterpoint in that it forces the writers to tell us what happens next. However, I think you've hit the nail on the head when you say that as shows progress, the writers need to keep adding in more conflicts. When a nice guy is pining for the girl, that is the conflict. Once he gets the girl it is supremely boring unless something is thrown in to make it all screwed up. I suppose the girl could turn out to be awful too, so you could be right that they choose the nice guy to turn more often.
I think this illustrates how TV shows are good for only a limited time when it comes to telling a sustained story. I mean, some shows have framing devices that will always create conflict. "The West Wing" will theoretically always have conflict because being president is always interesting (regardless of who is writing the dialogue) (though having real life events become much more interesting in the most awful way possible, post 9/11 might screw that up). Other shows can similarly chug along indefinitely. I mean, I suppose it is possible that Kiefer Sutherland just has the bad/good luck to be involved in no fewer than three (four?) all day/all night nailbiting events in his life (each time where the potentially awful conflict arises, heightens and is solved within exactly 24 hours). But most shows set up an overarching narrative and once they resolve it, they really should just end it. On "Friends" it was all about Ross and Rachel, but by the time they got together and then broke up, it just got silly. Even something like Arrested Development had to get more and more ridiculous to move beyond the central conflict/big reveal of the first season (which I won't spoil here). What it comes down to probably is that these shows should probably end once their central conflict is resolved.
But then TV shows would just be really really long movies.
<< Home
