Wednesday, September 25, 2013
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)
While apparently so widespread and universal among television/film critics of the 1950s, the argument that live, New York-based television was technically, visually, and conceptually superior to Hollywood telefilms seems completely shortsighted, and rather sensationalistic - a judgement I realize is easy to make through the retrospective lens of today. I understand that the context of live television’s birth, development, and popularity was ripe for such an argument; the seemingly boundless reach of radio, the prevalence of cinema, and the immediacy of live theater, according to Boddy’s article, all came together in this new medium, and this novel synthesis of media bore with it the potential for greatness. However, this perceived greatness seems to rest on presumptions of appeal.
ReplyDeleteLive television did, of course, appeal to vast audiences across the country, and its success was staggering. But critics all too readily wrote off the telefilm as a contender for such success, failing to account for the effects of material longevity and durability. I Love Lucy, arguably the most popular show of the 1950s, serves as a counterpoint to the argument for live television. Its success was not only the result of its intimate relatability of its characters and plotlines, but of the very nature of its transmission. It was filmed and aired over and over again, so that its appeal remains fixed within American culture to the present day. I had never heard of the Burns and Allen Show before we watched in class, for instance, but I can quote the Vitameatavegamin scene of I Love Lucy verbatim. Inherently, live television programs could/can not have such a lasting impact on its audiences, for the sheer nature of liveness means a large degree of ephemerality. I think that the critics championing the status of live television in the 1950s vastly underestimated the effect of longevity on a program’s success.
I believe that the Hollywood-based programs are superior because they represent advancements made in technology, which are what lead to the ability to rebroadcast programs. Once the technology developed to be able to record and then broadcast programs, then it makes sense to switch in order to better serve both viewers and television companies. Along with this technology, came the ability to rebroadcast programs, leading to the reruns that are well known today. Sure, the companies wanted programs rebroadcast so that they could make more money, but on the other hand, this brought programs to a large group of viewers that might otherwise have been unable to see the programs. For example, “The Martha Raye show” aired lived during its entire series, some of the show is available thanks to kinescope recordings, but for most viewers the show is lost to time. Toady, Martha Raye remains less well known by general television audiences, than some of her fellow comediennes, because of this. On the other hand, “The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show” moved from a live format to a recording three months after it began. The actors initiated this switch because it would allow them to present a better product, to save time, and to syndicate their program. They actors had more time to prefect their sketches before they aired and they could also film the show ahead of time, which would save them time. Besides earning more money due to syndication, the two actors gained additional viewers, which made them better known. In addition to earning more money for the industry, syndication helped actors gain notoriety and have a more lasting impact in the entertainment industry. Thanks to advancements in technology, syndication was created, which lead to the switch from live New York-based programs, to recorded Hollywood based programs.
ReplyDeleteWhen one looks back at early television, it can sometimes be hard to imagine what is being seen from the mindset of the time period. To accurately assess the argument for Live TV vs Telefilm, one has to forget the modern-day version of these formats.
ReplyDeleteLive TV was perhaps seen as technically superior to Telefilm because it was new, it was different, and it was harder. One can produce better entertainment when given the luxury of prerecording their footage. This is inarguable, and is evident by the fact that, more than any other early TV, I Love Lucy has stood the test of time. It is technically well-filmed and acted (and edited), an advantage of shooting with the luxury of multiple takes and changing setups.
But it is these very constraints that make early live TV all the more impressive. Consider The Martha Ray Show...not particularly different from I Love Lucy, and looking back it seems the inferior show. But apply the "newness" factor and consider how incredible what they achieved with this new technology was, and it begins to seem the better show. Sure, if they leveraged the luxury of prerecording like I Love Lucy did, The Martha Ray show could have been better than it was. But what they managed to achieve within the constraints of a single take, a single setup, and little time to transition physically from scene to scene is pretty amazing, and it's not hard to imagine such a wow factor having far more influence on early TV critics than the pretty average technical proficiency of prerecorded TV, something they were already quite accustomed to thanks to Hollywood movies.
And so, it seems to me, "newness" played a major role in the critical opinion of the days of early TV. What impressed the critics wasn't "more of the same, but in your own home", but rather the entirely new mode of capturing moving images that Live TV was based around. It's really not so different from the modern day obsession with CGI...new is cool.
I disagree with many of the critics noted in the Boddy article, Jack Gould being the first that comes to mind. These critics argued that television had the ability to connect the viewer to what was happening at the present moment, that by watching something as it was being filmed live the viewer was somehow more involved in that production than if they were watching a recording. Now, the real problem here is that I was born in 1993, I literally grew up on this technology, and so I have no idea how it feels to live in a world where television was something new and special. It’s entirely possible that viewers at this time did feel a connection to the live event that I, watching the program some 50-60 years later, can’t feel.
ReplyDeleteFor example, my experience of the Texaco Star Theaters was not changed or influenced by the fact that it was filmed live. I didn’t find the show any funnier, Milton Berle any more charming, or the entertainment any more entertaining than I would have if the show had been prerecorded. My physical separation is enough to feel as though I am not involved with the show; I know that if I yell at the screen, Milton Berle will not be able to hear or respond to me, and the inability to interact with those on screen limits any potential connection I might have with the program. Of course, my lack of connection might be due to the time difference, and it’s entirely possible that, had I adored Mr. Berle like the rest of America did, I would have felt far more involved in the show.
I don’t, however, think this is the case. Because, while I don’t adore Milton Berle, I do adore The Honeymooners, a show I grew up on. I connect more with this program, which was a telefilm, than I do with some live events that are on now. I know it so well the jokes feel more like private jokes and being able to quote this show along with it makes me feel more involved, even when I’m not involved at all. While I do think that live television is important and has its place, I can’t agree with the critics when they claim that live television will somehow connect the viewer to the program more.
Looking at these shows shown in class and shows that are produced in today’s society; I think that opinions can vary quite differently. Being that I have been brought up watching Hollywood style television to that of the live, New York based television, I believe that the Hollywood style is more effective in entertaining viewers even though it loses the essence that live television brings.
ReplyDeleteThe critics who think that live television is better claim that “the tension that suffuses the atmosphere of a live production is a special thing to which audiences respond,” basically saying that audiences are in two places at once. This kind of style and technology can only be perfected and taken so far. The show Texaco Star Theater: Milton Berle is clear that this is a live program because of the mistakes some of the actors do that would be edited out if it was Hollywood style television. By seeing this happen, I believe that it pulls the audience away from it by making people realize what they’re watching. By watching the host and the girl he was with mess up on their lines, though it made it funny, it was clearly evident that this was not how the program intended to go. By switching to Hollywood style of film this allowed for the product to be cheaper, to save time, and for producers to be more creative.
Through the 1950s, there was an aura of prestige attached to live television programs. They came from New York City, the center of the world. They were performed live, by talented theater actors, vaudeville performers, and musicians. They were relevant, interesting, and well-written. Television was apart from film – it was homier, more about regular people than the glamorous lives seen on the silver screen.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this idea, the idea of regular people, carried over onto TV despite the move from live to filmed shows. I Love Lucy and was a filmed and edited in Hollywood, while The Honeymooners was performed live every week. But both dealt with the everyday lives of ordinary people. This was the more important part of television that carried over from live to filmed programs. Television shows didn’t change just because they began to be filmed and edited together. Each type of program had its pros and cons. Despite the differing styles of production, what really brings them together is the lifestyle depicted as opposed to the life shown in movies.
In the end, telefilms proved to be the way to go, offering higher production values and more interesting effects. But in the beginning, both production styles were all about family and the home, and that’s what really set TV apart.
The argument for live television as the superior form of programming was made with the spectator in mind and goes back to our discussion on Spigel who wrote of the television set in the 50’s as an escape from the tedious lifestyle that was found in suburbia. Continuing with Boddy, it was discussed in “Live Television” that live programming was able to make the spectators feel as if they were in two places at once. They could be watching their set at home, but in their mind, they were in New York City where the broadcast was actually talking place at that very instant. There was a mutual feeling of awareness between the studio and the spectator, as the studio knew they were being watched at that moment, and the families in the suburbs knew the broadcast was being made especially for them.
ReplyDeleteDespite what type of programming the critics believed was best for the spectators, and what they believed that the spectators wanted, the writers made the shift from live television to filmed programs. Although most writers were unknown, they were the necessary force behind television that was always in need of new material. As filmed half-hour television seemed to make the most money, this is where the writers went. It is also why the filmed television programs are remembered today as the best. Comparing I Love Lucy and The Honeymooners to Texaco Star Theater or The Martha Raye Show doesn’t even seem necessary. The first two are obviously the more memorable. The writing was smoother, did not need to be rushed, and episodes became syndicated meaning even more money. You wouldn’t see an episode of I Love Lucy where Lucy forgets her lines or misses a punch line like in Texaco Star Theater. The filmed television programs exemplified what good writing really was, while pushing it farther and attracting new young writers to the business.
In the 1950s, the television industry was initially based solely in New York, because that’s where the significant players of broadcasting based themselves. Television as a medium was still undefined, and producers didn’t know whether it would go in the direction or spectacle, theater, etc. Liveness was the natural progression to instill a sense of familiarity for the audience in an otherwise revolutionary field. On Broadway, actors and actress would perform 8 shows a week live, and as such it was seen as plausible that television talent would perform live on similar schedules. These initial instincts lead to the monopolization of television by the “live” market – and consequently production took place in New York as it was the only place capable of distributing the live broadcasts. The critics were correct in their assumptions of the time, because such content did work and attract viewers. When telefilms such as “I Love Lucy,” went into production, they recognized the success of such content and emulated it in their staging and three-camera set up. They simulated the “live” set and circumstances to maintain the format and familiarity for the audience. The biggest change in production was that all cameras recorded and editing became a necessity in post-production (rather than live switching). The telefilms were obviously recorded programming on film, and as such the problem of filming solely in New York became obsolete. This lent itself to easier distribution and rights to resale after initial run, which resulted in a boom of popularity of content and mass expansion of the industry. Despite the obviousness that the expansion of television into telefilm led to further success of the industry, I believe that the critics were correct initially, because the elementary introduction of television as variety shows and spectacles live on television helped the audience transition into using the technology.
ReplyDelete