Television -- Better Than the Movies? Deal With It

Newsweek makes a very compelling case for the fact that TV has eclipsed film in overall quality in this provocative piece in the current issue of the magazine. While acknowledging that "film has always been the Four Seasons to television's Motel 6," only intransigent film snobs would argue that's still the case as the small screen enjoys an undeniable renaissance.

The examples cited in the Newsweek piece by Devin Gordon: the cinematic scope and storytelling of ABC's "Lost" (at least during its first season); the underappreciated HBO drama "The Wire," which he calls "a sprawling, visual novel about the decline and fall of an American city"; the dynamic production style of "24"; and the "lacerating" comedy of NBC's "The Office." And while the author acknowledges that making broad generalizations about TV versus film runs the risk of sounding as though one is "comparing apples and tubas," his point that in the main TV is "running circles around the movies" is well taken.

Even the biggest buzzworthy film of the past year, "Borat," evolved out of the HBO series "Da Ali G Show." Another point the piece makes: here we are in Oscar week, and what are the hot films in theaters? The Eddie Murphy-in-a-fat-suit comedy "Norbit" and Sony's comic book adaptation "Ghost Rider" (which wasn't screened for critics).

And it isn't as if there's much of a gulf anymore between those creating for film and television, as Gordon stresses. Spielberg is doing a reality show for Fox. Alec Baldwin and Steve Carell hop between screens big and small with ease. Paul Haggis and Bobby Moresco went from producing last year's Best Picture Oscar winner ("Crash") to creating the drama "The Black Donnellys" for NBC (which premieres next Monday).

Last, TV now appears to be the true writers medium, film the medium of directors and FX wizards. That doesn't make movies a lesser creative realm, simply one bound by a mentality tied at the highest level to budget and turning a profit over artistic considerations (as Brian Grazer himself emphasizes in the Newsweek piece). My take: I wholeheartedly agree with Gordon. Too many movies are bogged down in the technical and the pyrotechnic. I'm not into films based on comic books, or sci-fi/fantasy mumbo-jumbo. So there's not a lot out there targeted to me (my favorite movies of the past year: "United 93," "Little Miss Sunshine," "Borat," "The Departed," "For Your Consideration").

The list of addictive TV shows, by contrast, is limitless: ""The Sopranos," "24," "The Office," "The Daily Show," "The Colbert Report," "Rescue Me," "The Simpsons" (still), "Entourage"...it goes on and on. Yeah, there's plenty of unmitigated crud, too. But in the main, TV need carry the mantle of second-class citizen status no longer.

Comments

[Clint]

It's interesting to see how television has evolved over the years. In its early days no movie star wanted to appear on television, believing it to be a lower-tier medium. Even the tragic George Reeves wished to escape his label as a TV star and make it as a feature film actor. Now it seems that every celebrity wants his or her turn on the small screen.

http://framerate.blog.com

[cadavra]

As I've stated elsewhere: any given Tuesday, I can go out and pay $11 plus parking to endure NORBIT or HANNIBAL RISING...or I can stay home and watch GILMORE GIRLS, VERONICA MARS and BOSTON LEGAL and be thoroughly entertained for free.

[Janet]

Thank you for bringing such nice posts.