FILMS & TV

FILMS & TV

A GLANCE AT POPULARITY AND REACTION

In the last number of months, and possibly years, I've noticed myself becoming more and more drawn towards television productions as a writer. The list of shows I've grown to love because of their unique delivery, intelligent plots, and witty dialogue is LITERALLY too long to write in a productive blog, however chances are you name it, I have an opinion on it. Indeed my tastes, though risking sounding boastful, are grounded in talent flocking the small screen. Writers, directors, producers, cinematographers, and actors alike have all made the committed transition to television in the wake of The Wire, The Sopranos, and Breaking Bad. There's many appeals as of late for the new wave of talent to scurry over to television.

• More reliable work.
• More defined schedules.
• A season of 6-12 one hour episodes may take just as little or even less than any feature film, resulting in more bang for the buck.
• Instant nationwide fame for the actor (for what may take an exclusively film actor years to gain).
• "Fan-base" following
• Weekly episodes guarantees maximum exposure.
• More accessibly "on-demand" than recently released films.
• More defined royalties for television performances than film/DVD sales.
• Compatible prices.
• Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead reportedly have a budget of $1 Million per episode, resulting in a season of 6-12 episodes costing less than most major label film.
• Again, more bang for the buck.
• Length for writers and directors to truly explore character, plot, themes, issues, and conflicts.
• Apart from Water Shed regulations and a polite disclaimer at the start, there are no censors on television.

  Yet, I'm often annoyed by the slightly stale reverence people hold for the current model of films (I will cover future models soon). Being a writer in Ireland is tough enough as it is without having to deal with the fact that there is next to nothing in the way of funding, commissions, or even transparency in television broadcasting, forcing many to head for the UK (which isn't a bad thing). One glance at film and television message and job boards will reveal a deep seeded incline for films.

But why isn't that? Granted; studios' claims of loses in cinema are exaggerated and trivial, but the accessibility and quality of modern day film has declined due to a number of reasons;

• Sales:
• As stated, sales have taken a hit, though not necessarily as tough as you may possibly be led to believe, and not entirely because of pirate bay (trust me Michael Bay, VERY few people are seeding Transformers on Utorrent right now). This hit has led to many studios to shuffle a little and some have taken the approach of bigger is better, hence the outrageously over-ambitious films that are simply money thrown at a screen. I get slightly amused when producers are shocked a $80 Million movie couldn't break even, especially if its a third or fourth installment in a franchise.
• The other side of this sword, however, is that for the movie to be worth making, they need more return on their investment,which in turns causes theaters to raise ticket prices.
• Art:
• The reaction to these super block buster films is, of course, the indie. The true indie. The film even Kick Starter couldn't help. The $5,000, shot on a few DSLR, film that has the boom operator looking like Bobby Sands towards the end because they can't afford to pay him but "can offer a credit and show reel material". In essence there's nothing wrong with this film apart from the fact it's in a medium where it'll never be seen outside of film festivals. This is because of simply two things;
• Lack of marketable material.
• Censors.
• The other part of what's wrong with this is that you have films that are good pieces of art, but aren't films, despite trying to be passed off as them. They are visually and audibly pleasing and provocative, but not films. A one long clip of a sun rise is art... but it's not a film. This has definitely arisen from short film culture, as well as foreign cinephile subcultures such as the French. Outside of that, it'll never communicate well with the average person. And on one hand you can argue it's above them, but on the other, it doesn't say much for you as a film maker if your film has requirements and suggested reading in order to be enjoyed. Make in the same way critics of Avatar who didn't see the film in 3D are unjustly dismissed since they saw it outside its "intended" environment, so too can you not say the similar. Film is not circumstantial.

With the avaunt of Netflix and Amazon in the works of slowly building their catalog of original programming, television programs may very well not need to deal the foibles of network or even cable broadcasters, including government funded ones (hint, hint). We have already seen this happen with House of Cards and Orange is the New Black. One could argue Youtube has already done the same with a whole sleuth of comedians, musicians, actors, film makers, and cats who are cute.

So why? Why is there still something to movies that makes people want to be part of them. Is it the nostalgia? Films were first, and were more of a travelling side show attraction than the format they are today. And with respect to television, the high quality feature is relatively recent. And it actually is ironic that Mad Men, New Girl, and Homeland should have to share air time with Toddlers and Tiaras, Big Brother, and whatever MTV is shoveling out these days. Indeed TV is just as guilty as cinema when it comes to hits and misses. And perhaps on a grander scheme. How many hundreds of channels produce thousands of shows?How many are good? And sadly not even the good ones are guaranteed not to be cancelled.

I am entirely in favor of remodeling cinema and keeping it alive. Perhaps I'm wrong to question why would others care for this thing when they can do something bigger, longer, and more engrossing, like TV. Maybe film will be, in the future, something like an espresso shot of escapism. And maybe that's it. Maybe that's why film is still looked up to; because it's escapism. TV has never been that. TV has been informative and reactionary. It's comforting and intriguing, but not escapism. We watch Breaking Bad with friends, and our dinner, and while we're knitting. Film, is the big event. That one treat we give to ourselves, similar to how our parents gave it to us. We escape the house, the job, the neighbors,  and we sit in the dark... and escape everything. Not because it's unbearable, but because we want to bare someone else's cross for a while.

There's no doubt in my mind I still have a strange attraction towards writing for television, and I'm going through a slightly distaste for cinephile culture (especially in Ireland), but, just like Joss Wheldon moves from Vampires to Avangers, I'm not ruling anything out. And neither should you.