What are some of the advantages of live television and why do you think it was the prevailing format during TV's first decade? What are its disadvantages? How is "liveness" (or the illusion thereof) used by TV today?
Some advantages of live television include the interactiveness with the audience. There's a sort of reflexivity between the actors and the audience that maintains a high-energy atmosphere that prerecorded television can't invoke. From the brilliant moments of acting, to the faults and screw-ups (that we especially saw in Captain Video), the audience shares this in real-time with the cast. It was the prevailing format during TV's first decade because many people were used to viewing live performances such as plays and musicals at the theatre, therefore live television was a smooth transition for such a new technology. Liveliness is seen in television today through fast paced cuts, interactive programs, and even commercials that relate to the program that the audience is viewing.
During TV's first decade, live television was the prevailing format because of its success in engaging the viewer. Viewers were previously accustomed to listening to live radio programs, and being able to see the performers on television allowed them to further connect with the program. Live television created a connection between the audience and the performers of which radio was previously unable to make. An advantage of live television is the excitement that it elicits amongst viewers. A viewer never quite knows what is in store, and this aspect of live television keeps viewers in tune. A disadvantage of live television, especially during TV's first decade, is that it can at times move slowly and feature boring stretches on air. Liveness is used by TV today in a variety of ways, but especially on reality competition shows such as American Idol and Dancing with the Stars, where results are released live. These shows take "liveness" to new heights with the increased viewer interaction.
Live television began out of necessity, the technology required did not yet exist, but soon it developed into a style that survived long after technology caught up with the times. Initially television had to be broadcasted lived, because there did not exist a way to record television and then show it at a later time. Live television was popular with viewers because of the connections it allowed the audience to feel with the program. The studio audience was given a firsthand experience into the making of television. They were able to sit and watch the backstage production and the performance of the actors from just a few feet away. The studio audience provided reactions that were broadcast and shared with the audience at home. The studio audience provided a guide those at home. There is an amount of spontaneity and excitement that is created with live television. Neither the actors, nor the audience know exactly what will happen during the course of the show. It does not even seem to matter to audiences if actors flub their lines; audiences often take delight in the actor’s mistakes. Live television was popular during the first decade of television as a matter of necessity, and because of the relationship it fostered between the audience and the actors. Although there are many advantages of live television, there are also some drawbacks. Taped television is cheaper and creates a more flexible schedule for the actors and all others who work on the show. Taped television allows for the editing together of different angles and takes. When actors are able to repeat a line several times they can find the perfect pronunciation of the line to portray just the right emotion. Live television means that the director cannot go in and create a feeling or changes something around. These disadvantages eventually overtook the advantages and it is not often today that television is live.
Today live television is mostly used by news organizations and some talk and reality television show. News programs often used live television as a way to prove to viewers that they are working hard for the truth and giving that the truth to the audience as quickly as possible. Reality television shows use live shows to broadcast results in a format similar to news programs. Today, some television shows used live episodes as a way to bring in viewers and to entice them to participate in the show through voting and other methods. Live television is now looked upon as more of a burden and novelty than as a convenient way of broadcasting.
"Liveness" in television of the 1940s and 1950s prevailed because of the association between television and radio, the medium from which much of TV culture hailed. The major networks (NBC, CBS, etc) moved much of their original content (including shows like Amos and Andy) from radio to television because of increased advertising and moneymaking opportunities. Thus, these industries were linked in their infrastructure and style, though early television also borrowed from vaudeville and theater traditions. Since television was linked with these media instead of film (and antitrust laws barred film's interference in the growing television industry), the live, spontaneous, and thrilling performances found a new home in TV. Some advantages of live TV were that not only was it standard because of theater/vaudeville tradition, but that it was more efficient for all parties involved. The easiest way to generate original programming that aired, oftentimes, several nights a week was to have a spontaneous live show. Performing on a stage (much like a play or musical) in front of a live studio audience avoided some of the pressures and difficulties of hot lights, heavy early cameras, and time-consuming editing. Multicamera programs were controlled by a switchboard, and with a talented staff operating in the moment, a good show could be produced consistently. Viewers were accustomed to radio personalities, and gravitated toward their television counterparts who could be just as charming and generate as many laughs. The stage was also a perfect exhibition for musical, acrobatic, and comedy acts to bring their art straight to American homes, as illustrated in Spigel's article. Some disadvantages of the format include inevitable embarrassing gaffes. If the talent were to make a mistake or let an unwanted word slip, it would be broadcast not only to a studio audience, but all of America at home. Since editing was also in-house and on-the-spot, the crew could do nothing to soften the blow or stop the mistake from reaching the airwaves. Live television often isn't as well-planned as something scripted, and with so much improvisation, there is bound to be a spot or two that is slow. Viewers might change the channel or tune out when they are bored, and advertisers could lose crucial money and exhibition if the program during which they are endorsing is seen as unworthy. The power of ad agencies and corporations put a lot of pressure of the television industry to create solid live shows every episode, and this could definitely have been an issue for early TV producers and viewers alike. Lastly, many comedy/variety shows still borrow from the theater/vaudeville tradition and put on weekly (or special occasion) live shows. Saturday Night Live has been on the air for almost 40 years, consistently delivering live content every week, with music, commercials, a charming host, and comedy not unlike the Texaco Star Theater (though thankfully without such obvious integrated advertising!). 30 Rock, though usually scripted, pulled in admirable ratings with its two live shows, which featured esteemed guests like Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Paul McCartney. Even late night shows like The Tonight Show and Letterman, though not broadcast live, are filmed in front of a studio audience and the style is consistent with early live shows. Watching any late night program, I have to remind myself that at this very moment, Justin Timberlake is not wearing an argyle vest in some sound stage during the exact moment I'm watching him. The illusion, though different from its earlier days, is preserved quite well in formats and genres that still take inspiration from vaudeville, theater, radio, and early television.
I think live television was a prevailing format during TV’s first decade because, in part, it made people sit down and watch as it was happening. Without any recording technology, people had to make time, be home in front of the TV, if they wanted to talk about a certain program the next day. From a sponsor’s perspective, this situation was ideal because they almost had a guaranteed audience for their products. Live television also allowed popular radio programs to cross over into popular TV shows, bringing with them a built in audience. I think from a disadvantage perspective, TV sets were expensive, and early on, many people didn’t have them. Too, today we don’t have access to many of the shows because they aired live and that was it. Liveness today is used as a kind of illusion, as you say, because I think it’s meant to make a show more excited to watch as it happens. But a lot of times, live shows are delayed for editing reasons, and we have the technology today to record and watch or rewatch any show we want. Live TV today almost works as a gimmick. I think of shows I watch that have hashtags on screen so people can discuss on twitter as something happens. Whereas live TV at the start allowed audiences discussion afterwards, today we talk as it happens.
One of the biggest advantages of live television is the energy live performance brings with it. A person performing live knows that they are being watched by a huge number of people, which causes their adrenaline to start pumping. Even when the performer is a seasoned veteran who knows the ins and outs of live performance will still have that added adrenaline factor because something being live means that anything can happen. If a musical number is being prerecorded and one of the lights falls over right in the middle of it, they are simply able to reshoot it and move on. But if that same incident happened live, the performer would just have to figure out how to roll with it, and that added pressure gives live performance a crackle that recorded performance lacks.
Of course, live television also has its disadvantages. For one thing, it’s more expensive. They have to record on a show-to-show basis rather than all in one big chunk, which means that they have to pay for everyone and everything for a longer period of time. Another disadvantage is that it’s live, so anything can happen. The same aspect of live TV is most advantageous is simultaneously one of the biggest disadvantages. Since the program live people can say and do whatever they want, and no one can really stop or change it. This means that accidents or line flubs or even offensive language can slip right by without the networks being able to control it.
Nowadays, liveness is reserved for big events, sports, and the news. It’s rare that a program will be broadcast live, and even rarer for them to stay that way. Or course, there’s Saturday Night Live, but that may be the only program (of its kind) on today that is still live. Any fan of SNL will tell you that some of the best moments are when the actors break character to giggle themselves silly (even though its looked down upon by Lorne Michaels) and the show just wouldn’t be the same if there wasn’t a chance of that happening. But there are other shows that take advantage of liveness. Many comedy-interview shows (like the Daily Show, Conan, and Fallon) are taped in front of live audiences a few hours before they air. This allows for any changes the executives might want to make, while simultaneously allowing for that live crackle to be in the performances.
During the start of television live programs dominated because they were the most cost effective for the stations and the simplest to produce. Live programs were also what viewers were accustomed to for entertainment with radio, vaudeville and theater having preceded it. Along with it being cost effective live television allowed the writing to be the star of the program as the sets and cinematography was simple by necessity. In Boddy’s article he talks about this limit as an advantage in some ways by saying television “cannot depend upon broad panorama, colossal montages or the thrill of the hunt or chase to help the limping script.” While live television has many advantages it has disadvantages as well, as seen through some of our screenings, such as “Captain Video,” where the flaws of the actors and lack of rehearsal time is blatantly obvious.
TV today uses this “liveness” in many of the same ways that it did in the beginning. Networks’ live television often is sporting events or award shows whose primary cost is the upfront cost of paying for the rights for their network, similar to the smaller cost for. Live television today also recreates the intimacy and interaction with the audience that Boddy talks about by using social media to engage the audience more than ever before and allowing audience members to connect with each other and really feel how shared their experience is.
At the very simplest, live programs were done in the early days of television because they were the easiest to do from a technological standpoint, and for a time they were actually the only possible type of show that could be presented on television. As TV evolved, live shows remained popular because of the novelty of what they offered: this was a time when live shows were still quite popular, and they were able to bring access to these once-exclusive shows (in the sense that only a limited number of tickets could be sold) to anyone with a TV set. With a substantial portion of audiences being stay-at-home mothers and housewives, live shows were able to provide these women with the illusion of being "out".
In the modern day, "liveness" is leveraged in television to provide a similar feeling of exclusivity and of being a part of something special. The illusion that nobody has seen what you are watching before you (as it is literally being performed as you watch it) draws in viewers attracted to such novelties. Liveness is also leveraged to turn a TV show into an event...reruns suddenly lose some credibility, and people are driven to desire to see the show as it happens (this is especially prevalent with sports)
Due to live TVs advantages, it is evident as to why it was the prevailing format in television's first decade. In Boddy's piece "Live Television," he quotes Jack Gould who remarks that "Live television...bridges the gap instantly and unites the individual at home with the event afar" (80). This quote highlights one of TVs most important aspects: it unites the viewer with the action as it happens. This adds a new dimension to the viewer's spectatorship. The viewer is not only in the comfort of their own home, but they are also transported to the world of the spectacle. Therefore, because the viewer is experiencing the action as it happens, it feels more real to them than any filmed piece ever could (81). This sense of immediacy of live TV also helped attract viewers to this new medium because it was similar to the experience of radio. Live TV helped with the transition from radio to the screen because its liveness was similar to the live performances of radio personalities that viewers listened to every week (and some of these radio shows even transferred to the television medium). One disadvantage to live TV was that it was harder to gauge the length of the material that was going to be performed, so occasionally the show ran too long or too short. Television's liveness also caused problems for the actors/actresses: often they only ran through the material once or twice before performing it, which often led to problems with forgetting the material.
Liveness, in my opinion, is best used by reality television in the TV industry today. Like the prompt suggests, however, it is more the illusion of liveness than the actual reality. For instance, Jersey Shore follows the lives of six people living together and partying in a house on the NJ Boardwalk. Often we see the stars getting into fights or drinking shenanigans, but we are only presented with the highlights: we often miss the more boring "hours," which would make the illusion of their reality seem a bit to real (and boring) for the audiences.
There is a very intimate quality to live tv that filmed shows cannot produce. With filmed television, a viewer is, in general, reserved to a mere spectatorial role. They are watching a story that has, in a sense, already been told. Live TV allows a viewer to be connected and engaged, as if they are in the room with the anchors, hosts and performers. They see the mistakes as they happen, and are in on the jokes and stories as they are happening.
Sometimes that can be a disadvantage. For live shows that are more like news or talk show type programs, mistakes can be glossed over by switching to another camera, or rolling a video clip. There still exists a certain amount of evidence that the mistakes were present, but it’s not as obvious as an actor messing up lines on a more theater like and scripted show, such as “Captain Video” or the “Burns and Allen Show.” With film, all evidence of mistakes can be destroyed.
Today, most shows that are live follow the news and talk show pattern. Most scripted shows now are pre-filmed. Even some talk shows are pre-recorded, for example Ellen. When you watch it, the illusion exists that it is live through references to the date and such, and so it does not feel like the viewer is watching a filmed show. If one was new to the show, and had no idea that it was prerecorded, it would be very easy to assume that it was actually live. This is likely in part to the fact that often mistakes are left in, giving it that more realistic live feel.
I think the transition from radio to television was the main cause for this format during the early stages of television. Vaudeville and radio used a variety of qualities to entertain the audience, that included addressing them directly and acknowledging the fact that what they are presenting is a performance made to entertain. In the early stages of television, this format was used as well, and there were many hosts that directly addressed the audience. A point we brought up in discussion that I thought was interesting is that these live shows made it easier to incorporate advertisements. When the characters in the shows are acknowledging the fact that it is an entertainment program, it becomes easier to break away from the entertainment to transition to the ads.
Although this was a successful way of providing television programming in the early stages of television, there are still problems with the live factor that are seen even today. An example that I can provide are from the Emmys last night. On the red carpet, when people were being interviewed there were many awkward pauses because the interviewers had to improvise based on the answers the celebrities gave them. Also, when Mindy Kaling was presenting an award you could tell that the teleprompter wasn't working, so she clearly didn't know what to say because she didn't have her lines memorized. It is technical problems like this that make it harder to produce quality live television, because problems that occur just have to go on-air and can't be fixed in post-production.
Apart from it being a practical necessity in the earliest days of television, broadcasting live offered several advantages to early programs. By filming in front of a live audience, the stars on camera were able to indirectly interact with the viewers at home by engaging the audience in the studio. Broadcasting live also allows the performers to act more naturally, as they must react quickly to what goes on in the studio. They are allowed to act somewhat spontaneously and respond to stimuli such as audience participation as they see fit. Yet in some ways, this is a disadvantage of live TV. No matter how carefully an hour-long program is planned, it is impossible to control everything that could happen during that time. Actors could miss their marks or forget their lines. With live TV, there is no time to fix mistakes like these. On the other hand, this unpredictability also gives live television a certain excitement that recorded TV lacks. It makes sense that live TV was the prevailing form early on, given that it was from live forms of entertainment, such as vaudeville and radio, that television developed. It allowed this new medium to feel more like a night at the theater when the stars on TV interacted with the studio audience, which involved the audience at home by extension. Today, many television shows capitalize on this format. Sitcoms and variety shows have often been filmed in front of a live studio audience to give the show the feel of a live broadcast, while allowing a greater control over the final product. With this format, scenes can be filmed multiple times and can be edited to fit the agenda of the producers or to conceal any mistakes made during filming. Even when there is no live audience, recorded laugh tracks can stand in as an audience, providing a similar feel, although it is less genuine.
Live television, while now viewed as something of the past, or to be done as a novelty (like when sitcoms do “live episodes”), was once the foundation for television. One of the huge aspects of live TV is that the actors had to prepare the entire show and be able to do it all at once. Because of the FCC regulation, film studios couldn’t really break into television, and it therefore kept its stars off the small screen. Stage actors, however, saw TV as their opening into people’s lives. Stage actors were trained to perform long shows live every night, so it would be very easy for them to transition to live TV. One of the downsides of live TV, however, was the inability to record for posterity’s sake. While filmed shows had the edited reels that would be sent to the network and the affiliates, live TV was only done once, and if people missed it, they were out of luck. The only solution networks had was to film a television while the broadcast was happening, which resulted in poor image quality. As I said above, “liveness” is usually a novelty when used in sitcoms, most often making a big spectacle of doing a “Live Show”. 30 Rock did it twice, and they were able to accomplish that because of the actor’s roots on Saturday Night Live and their proximity to live studios. Most often, however, it is used for news and talk shows instead of sitcoms.
There were many positives to live TV at its beginning. For one, production costs were relatively low because there was no need for elaborate sets or costumes. Moreover, there weren't many actors on stage. Though this was an advantage, the most important was how TV was able to engage and connect with its viewers. Boddy touched on this in his work “Live Television.” He mentioned that watching television is essentially like letting someone (or multiple people) into your home. This meant that the personas on the screen needed to be likable and friendly. They needed a true sense of authenticity. Therein lies the power of live television at that time. Because it wasn't prerecorded, audiences felt like they were part of the crowd and of the production. They were able to be in two places at once. As Boddy puts it, they were physically at home but mentally and emotionally at the cameraman’s side. I can see how that would have a profound effect on early television audiences but I am not so sure if it holds up today. Mostly because today live television productions are few and far between. So much is prerecorded and that sense of authenticity is lost and therefore becomes just a program.
Live television was the prevailing format during TV’s first decade for a variety of fundamental reasons. Millions of Americans fell in love with live television shows, such as Texaco Star Theater starring comedian Milton Berle, because live television offered the unique ability of being able to engage and interact the viewer watching at home on a level that pre-recorded television could not. Live television evoked an emotional response from home viewers who felt as if they were at the event, watching the performance live. Also, Americans had been accustomed to live entertainment such as radio broadcasts, Broadway plays, and Vaudeville shows so the transition to live television was a smooth one. As a result, a majority of the first live television shows were direct spinoffs of popular radio programs.
However, there were also significant disadvantages that emerged as a result of live television in TV’s first decade. A central disadvantage was that when the actors made mistakes or missed their lines, their errors were exposed to a live audience, which could curtail credibility in the industry. Another disadvantage of live broadcasts was that they were not cost-effective for the networks. Live shows were expensive to produce compared to pre-recorded shows, which put pressure on networks to make a lasting impression on the viewing audience.
Although “liveness,” is still present in television today, it is more of an illusion than a reality. A paramount example of this departure are late night television shows, which take on the appearance of a live performance with a live-audience but are actually recorded. However there will always be a place for live broadcasts in television which is evidenced by the abundance of live sporting events and live news shows which air globally on a daily basis.
Some advantages of live television include the interactiveness with the audience. There's a sort of reflexivity between the actors and the audience that maintains a high-energy atmosphere that prerecorded television can't invoke. From the brilliant moments of acting, to the faults and screw-ups (that we especially saw in Captain Video), the audience shares this in real-time with the cast. It was the prevailing format during TV's first decade because many people were used to viewing live performances such as plays and musicals at the theatre, therefore live television was a smooth transition for such a new technology. Liveliness is seen in television today through fast paced cuts, interactive programs, and even commercials that relate to the program that the audience is viewing.
ReplyDeleteDuring TV's first decade, live television was the prevailing format because of its success in engaging the viewer. Viewers were previously accustomed to listening to live radio programs, and being able to see the performers on television allowed them to further connect with the program. Live television created a connection between the audience and the performers of which radio was previously unable to make. An advantage of live television is the excitement that it elicits amongst viewers. A viewer never quite knows what is in store, and this aspect of live television keeps viewers in tune. A disadvantage of live television, especially during TV's first decade, is that it can at times move slowly and feature boring stretches on air. Liveness is used by TV today in a variety of ways, but especially on reality competition shows such as American Idol and Dancing with the Stars, where results are released live. These shows take "liveness" to new heights with the increased viewer interaction.
ReplyDeleteLive television began out of necessity, the technology required did not yet exist, but soon it developed into a style that survived long after technology caught up with the times. Initially television had to be broadcasted lived, because there did not exist a way to record television and then show it at a later time. Live television was popular with viewers because of the connections it allowed the audience to feel with the program. The studio audience was given a firsthand experience into the making of television. They were able to sit and watch the backstage production and the performance of the actors from just a few feet away. The studio audience provided reactions that were broadcast and shared with the audience at home. The studio audience provided a guide those at home. There is an amount of spontaneity and excitement that is created with live television. Neither the actors, nor the audience know exactly what will happen during the course of the show. It does not even seem to matter to audiences if actors flub their lines; audiences often take delight in the actor’s mistakes. Live television was popular during the first decade of television as a matter of necessity, and because of the relationship it fostered between the audience and the actors. Although there are many advantages of live television, there are also some drawbacks. Taped television is cheaper and creates a more flexible schedule for the actors and all others who work on the show. Taped television allows for the editing together of different angles and takes. When actors are able to repeat a line several times they can find the perfect pronunciation of the line to portray just the right emotion. Live television means that the director cannot go in and create a feeling or changes something around. These disadvantages eventually overtook the advantages and it is not often today that television is live.
ReplyDeleteToday live television is mostly used by news organizations and some talk and reality television show. News programs often used live television as a way to prove to viewers that they are working hard for the truth and giving that the truth to the audience as quickly as possible. Reality television shows use live shows to broadcast results in a format similar to news programs. Today, some television shows used live episodes as a way to bring in viewers and to entice them to participate in the show through voting and other methods. Live television is now looked upon as more of a burden and novelty than as a convenient way of broadcasting.
"Liveness" in television of the 1940s and 1950s prevailed because of the association between television and radio, the medium from which much of TV culture hailed. The major networks (NBC, CBS, etc) moved much of their original content (including shows like Amos and Andy) from radio to television because of increased advertising and moneymaking opportunities. Thus, these industries were linked in their infrastructure and style, though early television also borrowed from vaudeville and theater traditions. Since television was linked with these media instead of film (and antitrust laws barred film's interference in the growing television industry), the live, spontaneous, and thrilling performances found a new home in TV.
ReplyDeleteSome advantages of live TV were that not only was it standard because of theater/vaudeville tradition, but that it was more efficient for all parties involved. The easiest way to generate original programming that aired, oftentimes, several nights a week was to have a spontaneous live show. Performing on a stage (much like a play or musical) in front of a live studio audience avoided some of the pressures and difficulties of hot lights, heavy early cameras, and time-consuming editing. Multicamera programs were controlled by a switchboard, and with a talented staff operating in the moment, a good show could be produced consistently. Viewers were accustomed to radio personalities, and gravitated toward their television counterparts who could be just as charming and generate as many laughs. The stage was also a perfect exhibition for musical, acrobatic, and comedy acts to bring their art straight to American homes, as illustrated in Spigel's article.
Some disadvantages of the format include inevitable embarrassing gaffes. If the talent were to make a mistake or let an unwanted word slip, it would be broadcast not only to a studio audience, but all of America at home. Since editing was also in-house and on-the-spot, the crew could do nothing to soften the blow or stop the mistake from reaching the airwaves. Live television often isn't as well-planned as something scripted, and with so much improvisation, there is bound to be a spot or two that is slow. Viewers might change the channel or tune out when they are bored, and advertisers could lose crucial money and exhibition if the program during which they are endorsing is seen as unworthy. The power of ad agencies and corporations put a lot of pressure of the television industry to create solid live shows every episode, and this could definitely have been an issue for early TV producers and viewers alike.
Lastly, many comedy/variety shows still borrow from the theater/vaudeville tradition and put on weekly (or special occasion) live shows. Saturday Night Live has been on the air for almost 40 years, consistently delivering live content every week, with music, commercials, a charming host, and comedy not unlike the Texaco Star Theater (though thankfully without such obvious integrated advertising!). 30 Rock, though usually scripted, pulled in admirable ratings with its two live shows, which featured esteemed guests like Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Paul McCartney. Even late night shows like The Tonight Show and Letterman, though not broadcast live, are filmed in front of a studio audience and the style is consistent with early live shows. Watching any late night program, I have to remind myself that at this very moment, Justin Timberlake is not wearing an argyle vest in some sound stage during the exact moment I'm watching him. The illusion, though different from its earlier days, is preserved quite well in formats and genres that still take inspiration from vaudeville, theater, radio, and early television.
I think live television was a prevailing format during TV’s first decade because, in part, it made people sit down and watch as it was happening. Without any recording technology, people had to make time, be home in front of the TV, if they wanted to talk about a certain program the next day. From a sponsor’s perspective, this situation was ideal because they almost had a guaranteed audience for their products. Live television also allowed popular radio programs to cross over into popular TV shows, bringing with them a built in audience. I think from a disadvantage perspective, TV sets were expensive, and early on, many people didn’t have them. Too, today we don’t have access to many of the shows because they aired live and that was it. Liveness today is used as a kind of illusion, as you say, because I think it’s meant to make a show more excited to watch as it happens. But a lot of times, live shows are delayed for editing reasons, and we have the technology today to record and watch or rewatch any show we want. Live TV today almost works as a gimmick. I think of shows I watch that have hashtags on screen so people can discuss on twitter as something happens. Whereas live TV at the start allowed audiences discussion afterwards, today we talk as it happens.
ReplyDeleteOne of the biggest advantages of live television is the energy live performance brings with it. A person performing live knows that they are being watched by a huge number of people, which causes their adrenaline to start pumping. Even when the performer is a seasoned veteran who knows the ins and outs of live performance will still have that added adrenaline factor because something being live means that anything can happen. If a musical number is being prerecorded and one of the lights falls over right in the middle of it, they are simply able to reshoot it and move on. But if that same incident happened live, the performer would just have to figure out how to roll with it, and that added pressure gives live performance a crackle that recorded performance lacks.
ReplyDeleteOf course, live television also has its disadvantages. For one thing, it’s more expensive. They have to record on a show-to-show basis rather than all in one big chunk, which means that they have to pay for everyone and everything for a longer period of time. Another disadvantage is that it’s live, so anything can happen. The same aspect of live TV is most advantageous is simultaneously one of the biggest disadvantages. Since the program live people can say and do whatever they want, and no one can really stop or change it. This means that accidents or line flubs or even offensive language can slip right by without the networks being able to control it.
Nowadays, liveness is reserved for big events, sports, and the news. It’s rare that a program will be broadcast live, and even rarer for them to stay that way. Or course, there’s Saturday Night Live, but that may be the only program (of its kind) on today that is still live. Any fan of SNL will tell you that some of the best moments are when the actors break character to giggle themselves silly (even though its looked down upon by Lorne Michaels) and the show just wouldn’t be the same if there wasn’t a chance of that happening. But there are other shows that take advantage of liveness. Many comedy-interview shows (like the Daily Show, Conan, and Fallon) are taped in front of live audiences a few hours before they air. This allows for any changes the executives might want to make, while simultaneously allowing for that live crackle to be in the performances.
During the start of television live programs dominated because they were the most cost effective for the stations and the simplest to produce. Live programs were also what viewers were accustomed to for entertainment with radio, vaudeville and theater having preceded it. Along with it being cost effective live television allowed the writing to be the star of the program as the sets and cinematography was simple by necessity. In Boddy’s article he talks about this limit as an advantage in some ways by saying television “cannot depend upon broad panorama, colossal montages or the thrill of the hunt or chase to help the limping script.” While live television has many advantages it has disadvantages as well, as seen through some of our screenings, such as “Captain Video,” where the flaws of the actors and lack of rehearsal time is blatantly obvious.
ReplyDeleteTV today uses this “liveness” in many of the same ways that it did in the beginning. Networks’ live television often is sporting events or award shows whose primary cost is the upfront cost of paying for the rights for their network, similar to the smaller cost for. Live television today also recreates the intimacy and interaction with the audience that Boddy talks about by using social media to engage the audience more than ever before and allowing audience members to connect with each other and really feel how shared their experience is.
At the very simplest, live programs were done in the early days of television because they were the easiest to do from a technological standpoint, and for a time they were actually the only possible type of show that could be presented on television. As TV evolved, live shows remained popular because of the novelty of what they offered: this was a time when live shows were still quite popular, and they were able to bring access to these once-exclusive shows (in the sense that only a limited number of tickets could be sold) to anyone with a TV set. With a substantial portion of audiences being stay-at-home mothers and housewives, live shows were able to provide these women with the illusion of being "out".
ReplyDeleteIn the modern day, "liveness" is leveraged in television to provide a similar feeling of exclusivity and of being a part of something special. The illusion that nobody has seen what you are watching before you (as it is literally being performed as you watch it) draws in viewers attracted to such novelties. Liveness is also leveraged to turn a TV show into an event...reruns suddenly lose some credibility, and people are driven to desire to see the show as it happens (this is especially prevalent with sports)
Due to live TVs advantages, it is evident as to why it was the prevailing format in television's first decade. In Boddy's piece "Live Television," he quotes Jack Gould who remarks that "Live television...bridges the gap instantly and unites the individual at home with the event afar" (80). This quote highlights one of TVs most important aspects: it unites the viewer with the action as it happens. This adds a new dimension to the viewer's spectatorship. The viewer is not only in the comfort of their own home, but they are also transported to the world of the spectacle. Therefore, because the viewer is experiencing the action as it happens, it feels more real to them than any filmed piece ever could (81). This sense of immediacy of live TV also helped attract viewers to this new medium because it was similar to the experience of radio. Live TV helped with the transition from radio to the screen because its liveness was similar to the live performances of radio personalities that viewers listened to every week (and some of these radio shows even transferred to the television medium). One disadvantage to live TV was that it was harder to gauge the length of the material that was going to be performed, so occasionally the show ran too long or too short. Television's liveness also caused problems for the actors/actresses: often they only ran through the material once or twice before performing it, which often led to problems with forgetting the material.
ReplyDeleteLiveness, in my opinion, is best used by reality television in the TV industry today. Like the prompt suggests, however, it is more the illusion of liveness than the actual reality. For instance, Jersey Shore follows the lives of six people living together and partying in a house on the NJ Boardwalk. Often we see the stars getting into fights or drinking shenanigans, but we are only presented with the highlights: we often miss the more boring "hours," which would make the illusion of their reality seem a bit to real (and boring) for the audiences.
There is a very intimate quality to live tv that filmed shows cannot produce. With filmed television, a viewer is, in general, reserved to a mere spectatorial role. They are watching a story that has, in a sense, already been told. Live TV allows a viewer to be connected and engaged, as if they are in the room with the anchors, hosts and performers. They see the mistakes as they happen, and are in on the jokes and stories as they are happening.
ReplyDeleteSometimes that can be a disadvantage. For live shows that are more like news or talk show type programs, mistakes can be glossed over by switching to another camera, or rolling a video clip. There still exists a certain amount of evidence that the mistakes were present, but it’s not as obvious as an actor messing up lines on a more theater like and scripted show, such as “Captain Video” or the “Burns and Allen Show.” With film, all evidence of mistakes can be destroyed.
Today, most shows that are live follow the news and talk show pattern. Most scripted shows now are pre-filmed. Even some talk shows are pre-recorded, for example Ellen. When you watch it, the illusion exists that it is live through references to the date and such, and so it does not feel like the viewer is watching a filmed show. If one was new to the show, and had no idea that it was prerecorded, it would be very easy to assume that it was actually live. This is likely in part to the fact that often mistakes are left in, giving it that more realistic live feel.
I think the transition from radio to television was the main cause for this format during the early stages of television. Vaudeville and radio used a variety of qualities to entertain the audience, that included addressing them directly and acknowledging the fact that what they are presenting is a performance made to entertain. In the early stages of television, this format was used as well, and there were many hosts that directly addressed the audience. A point we brought up in discussion that I thought was interesting is that these live shows made it easier to incorporate advertisements. When the characters in the shows are acknowledging the fact that it is an entertainment program, it becomes easier to break away from the entertainment to transition to the ads.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this was a successful way of providing television programming in the early stages of television, there are still problems with the live factor that are seen even today. An example that I can provide are from the Emmys last night. On the red carpet, when people were being interviewed there were many awkward pauses because the interviewers had to improvise based on the answers the celebrities gave them. Also, when Mindy Kaling was presenting an award you could tell that the teleprompter wasn't working, so she clearly didn't know what to say because she didn't have her lines memorized. It is technical problems like this that make it harder to produce quality live television, because problems that occur just have to go on-air and can't be fixed in post-production.
Apart from it being a practical necessity in the earliest days of television, broadcasting live offered several advantages to early programs. By filming in front of a live audience, the stars on camera were able to indirectly interact with the viewers at home by engaging the audience in the studio. Broadcasting live also allows the performers to act more naturally, as they must react quickly to what goes on in the studio. They are allowed to act somewhat spontaneously and respond to stimuli such as audience participation as they see fit. Yet in some ways, this is a disadvantage of live TV. No matter how carefully an hour-long program is planned, it is impossible to control everything that could happen during that time. Actors could miss their marks or forget their lines. With live TV, there is no time to fix mistakes like these. On the other hand, this unpredictability also gives live television a certain excitement that recorded TV lacks. It makes sense that live TV was the prevailing form early on, given that it was from live forms of entertainment, such as vaudeville and radio, that television developed. It allowed this new medium to feel more like a night at the theater when the stars on TV interacted with the studio audience, which involved the audience at home by extension.
ReplyDeleteToday, many television shows capitalize on this format. Sitcoms and variety shows have often been filmed in front of a live studio audience to give the show the feel of a live broadcast, while allowing a greater control over the final product. With this format, scenes can be filmed multiple times and can be edited to fit the agenda of the producers or to conceal any mistakes made during filming. Even when there is no live audience, recorded laugh tracks can stand in as an audience, providing a similar feel, although it is less genuine.
Live television, while now viewed as something of the past, or to be done as a novelty (like when sitcoms do “live episodes”), was once the foundation for television. One of the huge aspects of live TV is that the actors had to prepare the entire show and be able to do it all at once. Because of the FCC regulation, film studios couldn’t really break into television, and it therefore kept its stars off the small screen. Stage actors, however, saw TV as their opening into people’s lives. Stage actors were trained to perform long shows live every night, so it would be very easy for them to transition to live TV.
ReplyDeleteOne of the downsides of live TV, however, was the inability to record for posterity’s sake. While filmed shows had the edited reels that would be sent to the network and the affiliates, live TV was only done once, and if people missed it, they were out of luck. The only solution networks had was to film a television while the broadcast was happening, which resulted in poor image quality.
As I said above, “liveness” is usually a novelty when used in sitcoms, most often making a big spectacle of doing a “Live Show”. 30 Rock did it twice, and they were able to accomplish that because of the actor’s roots on Saturday Night Live and their proximity to live studios. Most often, however, it is used for news and talk shows instead of sitcoms.
There were many positives to live TV at its beginning. For one, production costs were relatively low because there was no need for elaborate sets or costumes. Moreover, there weren't many actors on stage. Though this was an advantage, the most important was how TV was able to engage and connect with its viewers. Boddy touched on this in his work “Live Television.” He mentioned that watching television is essentially like letting someone (or multiple people) into your home. This meant that the personas on the screen needed to be likable and friendly. They needed a true sense of authenticity. Therein lies the power of live television at that time. Because it wasn't prerecorded, audiences felt like they were part of the crowd and of the production. They were able to be in two places at once. As Boddy puts it, they were physically at home but mentally and emotionally at the cameraman’s side.
ReplyDeleteI can see how that would have a profound effect on early television audiences but I am not so sure if it holds up today. Mostly because today live television productions are few and far between. So much is prerecorded and that sense of authenticity is lost and therefore becomes just a program.
Live television was the prevailing format during TV’s first decade for a variety of fundamental reasons. Millions of Americans fell in love with live television shows, such as Texaco Star Theater starring comedian Milton Berle, because live television offered the unique ability of being able to engage and interact the viewer watching at home on a level that pre-recorded television could not. Live television evoked an emotional response from home viewers who felt as if they were at the event, watching the performance live. Also, Americans had been accustomed to live entertainment such as radio broadcasts, Broadway plays, and Vaudeville shows so the transition to live television was a smooth one. As a result, a majority of the first live television shows were direct spinoffs of popular radio programs.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there were also significant disadvantages that emerged as a result of live television in TV’s first decade. A central disadvantage was that when the actors made mistakes or missed their lines, their errors were exposed to a live audience, which could curtail credibility in the industry. Another disadvantage of live broadcasts was that they were not cost-effective for the networks. Live shows were expensive to produce compared to pre-recorded shows, which put pressure on networks to make a lasting impression on the viewing audience.
Although “liveness,” is still present in television today, it is more of an illusion than a reality. A paramount example of this departure are late night television shows, which take on the appearance of a live performance with a live-audience but are actually recorded. However there will always be a place for live broadcasts in television which is evidenced by the abundance of live sporting events and live news shows which air globally on a daily basis.