2 Quick Questions on Television as an Art

Is TV cinema? I suppose if you look at both as moving images that are edited. Then yes. Even though the structure of tv is different in terms of production and writting.

I think from Devin's definition both are considered cinema.

Somebody's thread-happy today.

1. They're different media, and I'm assuming that you're talking about dramatic television, rather than reality or news programming or game shows. While the tv industry influenced film, and vice versa, television is its own thing due to the open-ended nature of the form. Being able to tell stories over years, even decades, goes beyond the sequalizing of films. It also allows for greater plot and character detail. The nature of endings in television is another thing that sets it apart, as very few television series have begun with a clear ending in mind. Even David Chase says he didn't come up with the Sopranos' ending until a couple of years into the run. There's also a tremendous amount of viewer interaction when it comes to television, with plots being scrapped because of poor audience reaction, etc. Ratings. Actors dying or leaving mid-series. None of these things come into play the way they do with cinema, these are all "innovations" that set it apart from film.

You could argue, however, that as television has become more and more arc-based and increasingly designed with if not an ending, at least an overarching story, that it's taken on more and more cinematic qualities. I remember reading somebody comparing Sopranos to Berlin Alexanderplatz (a film, in the Criterion Collection, but originally aired on German television). But there's a difference between a 14 hour miniseries and a 60 hour TV show. It tells a full and complete story, sure, but it's not cinema in the way we understand it.

2. Define web-series. Are you talking about stuff like Dr. Horrible, or the Battlestar/Office webisodes, or the myriad of homegrown stuff that's popped up in the last couple of years or so (The Guild)?

He's got a point. Hell, Yacht Rock could be considered art. Not that I mind, that series was hilarious.

There's no discernabile difference except for quality, but I wanted to check, because the way that question is phrased is stupid. If you watch something on Hulu, does that make it not television?

But web-series are their own thing, in their infancy. You've either seen them used as supplements to the main show (Battlestar, Office) or they've come from a creator with a fanbase (Dr. Horrible). After Dr. Horrible, the next non-tv related webseries I can think of that crossed over was lonelygirl15, and that was for like three minutes. The mystery there was what drove it, and once it was revealed as fake, people lost interest. But I admire what those guys did, especially in terms of audience interaction -- literally incorporating things from the comments section into future videos.

Dr. Horrible showed that this could be a viable way of telling stories, but to me, it's an oddity that people are still trying to figure out how to use. While it's cheap to produce, it doesn't really offer anything that TV doesn't, especially since you're limited by much smaller segments.

The one thing that it offers that tv doesn't is a way to get noticed, quicker, or at least the appearance of that. I have a lot of actor friends, and a lot of them are in web-series. Some of them are pretty good, both on a production and talent level. A lot of them have also fallen through when things behind the scenes didn't work out, etc. It also has to do with making yourself heard above the noise -- there are so many, of such varying quality out there, that it's just as hard for the really good stuff to get noticed.

But we're fast approaching a point where the line between web-series and tv series is going to disappear, so it doesn't matter anyway.

The only thing the web-series has over the tv-series is that outside premium cable there are no censorship rules with the web.

The other thing being there isn't clear quanity control. Because you sir can't tell me that Smosh could be art.

That's also true, but can you point me to a web-series that actually uses that to its benefit?

You mean no censorship? I suppose in terms of language, not necessarily nudity because that's tettering if not falling into porn.

You beautiful sonofabitch!

"Television"? News isn't cinema; game shows aren't cinema. Documentaries can be. Hell, I don't know.

Yeah, when you say television, Patrick, you need to clarify whether you're talking about dramatic programming (which would include comedies and documentaries) or what.

And you think about Phil in the shower?

My question re: no censorship in webseries was more of a "show me one that is using it well." I think, again, when you're talking about web-series, people haven't figured out what it is or how to use it to its maximum potential yet. The Office and Battlestar things seemed like they were done as an aside or another form of marketing. Dr. Horrible was an example where somebody kind of got it, but what's the next step? If this is an arena where there are no limits, who's out there that knows how to take advantage of that?

Because Wheel of Fortune is a game. The news is like a newspaper, a delievery device for current events.

Take a step back, Stretch Armstrong. First of all, the discussion hasn't concluded that Sopranos "is" cinema. Second of all, you do need to figure out what you mean, because that sets the parameters for the question you're asking, at least to make your own conclusions on it. Wheel of Fortune is a game -- we had that discussion already.

The news thing is kind of stupid, too. Is cutting from the studio to the field to footage shot by a crew during a live event, is that cinema? It seems like you've got this round hole (Brakhage) and you're trying to fit a square peg into it.

I think again, when you're talking about television, you need to have some pretty clear parameters for the discussion, because there are so many places where it gets murky. Not just news, but The version of Heat that aired on television that Mann took his name off: TV or cinema? Or the Godfather Saga which edited I and II together with additional footage for television: TV or cinema? And that's not even getting into the fact that when we talk about television, you're also talking about the way in which images are transmitted to our houses, etc., etc.

I'm trying to articulate this, but I think TV is a tool, a device, like a printing press. It can be used to create art, but not everything that it's used for is art. "Wires and Lights in a box" and all that.

You can't just throw it out there and then be like "uh, I don't know, you guys wrote a paper on it, what do you think?" That's frustrating, and goes nowhere.

So again: What do you define as television?

A movie theater can be used for church presentations and live broadcasts of concert events.

Television, like a movie theater, is simply another box for motion-picture media to be transmitted to/through. The shit coming out of said box should be judged by the same criteria as cinema when determining if it's art. Therefore, The Sopranos and Law & Order are art, 9 O'Clock News ain't. The Godfather is till art coming out of that box, just as a News broadcast shown in a movie theater wouldn't be.

In that case, you can simply look at the definitions... Cinema is the collection of films and movies as an art. Since "cinema" essentially boils down to "motion picture art"... how do you define art?

Your own personal interpretation of the word art determines what shit on TV is art. I would imagine most peoples feelings on what makes something "art" would exclude game shows, though not everybody's.

How does that differ from watching a sporting event or highlights of a sporting event?

Patrick, you're basically taking the broadest possible definition of cinema and applying it to television, which I guess is okay. But I think you're getting your media muddled, and you can't come back with said broadest possible definition for every answer we throw out. There are plenty of reasons that were given as to why television is cinematic, but not cinema, and a few for how it could be considered cinema.

This is one where you kind of need to make up your own mind, instead of asking us to do it for you. There's decades of stuff written about television as an artform, and as a medium. It's not an easy question and it's not one that can be answered overnight. So do the homework yourself. Stop trying to be Nathan Rabin and make your own conclusions.

This thread is its own mobius strip of discussion.

And that's not fair. Nathan Rabin does in fact draw his own conclusions.

There's nothing wrong with admitting ignorance and asking questions. The problem becomes when you have a subjective as hell question like this. You're more than likely not going to get the answer you want. Hence, almost instantaneous rebuffing.

No, but I have a problem when there's a discussion going on and you're just asking more questions. I understand that you're trying to understand (like you've said Nathan Rabin does and how you admire that about him), but it does feel like you're making us do all the work for you. There are plenty of points for you to respond to, and I, personally, am/was frustrated by you simply asking the same question over and over. And as I said in my last post, if you really care about this -- beyond thinking about it in the shower -- there are plenty of books and articles out there.

Hence, the rebuffing. It's not personal, Patrick, it's only passion.

This Nathan Rabin thing doesn't make sense. The guy goes out and experiences things. Is he asking random folk about country music? No. I'm not getting this connection at all.

I'm not going to get into it, it was a catty comment at the end of a sentence that shouldn't derail the discussion. The point was that I was frustrated by the way Patrick was contributing to the discussion, a discussion he himself started. It's a fascinating discussion to have, if you're willing to really get into it. And to keep asking the same question over and over really doesn't get into it.

Fair enough.

I did a search, because I've asked this question before, and here are some other tv-related threads with some good discussion on similar topics:

On Long-Running shows

This one, on the debate on whether TV is better than movies, features this quote from Dre:

I can't believe this hasn't come up yet, but here's a quote I picked up from one of my editing mentors:

If theater is art, and film is entertainment, then what is television?

Furniture.

Your editing mentor fucked that quote up pretty good.

Make up your mind, Rath. Patrick can't be both Nathan Rabin and Stretch Armstrong.