Television vs. Film

It seems to me that more and more over the past few years, I find myself watching a far greater amount of television than film. And I don't think I'm alone. In general, the quality of mainstream TV seems to be getting better and better, while mainstream movies grow more and more formulaic, boring, and safe. Historically, Film is the far more prestigious medium to work in, producing in the 20th century far more "artistic" or other adjectives deeming the products more relevant than TV. The trend seems to be at a close.

HBO has probably had the biggest effect. With sophisticated and extremely well put together serialized dramas (The Sopranos, Carnivale, Deadwood, Six Feet Under), accompanied by equally smart comedies that are truly unique (Sex and the City, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Entourage). The presence of these shows on the network increased subscriptions to HBO (and thereby increased revenue), brought serious critical acclaim and attention, and were some of the first to arrive on DVD. HBO series continue to sell phenomenally well despite their high price point and lower episode-per-season count than network series.

These series took risks where TV usually does not, by introducing a more specified sense of genre on TV. Conservatism used to (and still, for the most part, is) be the word when it came to what types of shows were on television, leading to the now (almost) tired crime drama, hospital genre, and sci-fi show. The Sopranos took the gangster genre, widely considered to be played out on film, and reinvented it by making the show completely about the characters and the setting. English teachers in my high school were completely enraptured by the series because of the complexity and ambiguity of the characters, a richness that is found in only the best fiction, let alone television. The shows characters are so interesting that often times plotlines are abandoned to service the further exploration of the characters behavior and psyche; it's certainly a weakness of the show, particularly in later seasons, but I tolerate it simply because the show is unquestionably experimental and risk taking, and enjoy the ride the writers of the series are taking us on just as much as I enjoy actually watching it.

Sex and the City basically invented a new drama. I suppose the series' roots lie in the Romantic Comedy genre of both film and television, but that's an unfair comment given that "Romantic Comedy" often translates as "boring," "chick-flick," "cookie-cutter," "popcorn" movie or some other negative stereotypes. Sex and the City, like The Sopranos, is about characters who may be over the top, but their personalities are so strongly defined and worth exploring that the show becomes extremely compelling to watch. The four main characters strive to find out who they are, through interactions with each other and the men whom they are interested in. The show excels in both its sexiness and wit, and is perhaps best defined by its willingness to not deliver the happy ending. It again is this sense of self-discovery that makes the show so compelling. And that's really what the show is about - it's not about whom the characters end up dating, it's who they want the people they are dating to see. We don't necessarily root for the characters to find love in all of their relationships, we root to see them learn and grow and evolve, perhaps teaching us something about the human condition.

With the success of series like these, network and basic cable television only took a few years to catch on. ABC brought us Lost, an extremely serialized show that requires viewers to actively watch, something that TV previously did not think its viewers were capable of. Comedies such as FOX's Arrested Development and NBC's The Office deliver not only unique premises and beautifully written comedy, but finally remove the laugh track that makes it difficult for me to watch even some of my favorite comedies of the past. TV, I don't need you to tell me when to laugh. I can figure out on my own if a joke is funny, thanks. The Sci-Fi Channel brings us Battlestar Galactica, saving a great premise from a terrible mini-series of old, resulting in one of the best written and acted series I have ever seen, with easily the most ambitious plots on television. Don't let the fact that it's a sci-fi show scare you away - trust me, you'll like it. House, M. D. took the overplayed genre of medical drama by dressing it up in Sherlock Holmes' stovetop pipe, resulting in one of the more clever and unique series on TV. I could go on like this for ages.

But what of film? I honestly cannot think of nearly as many mainstream films I have enjoyed as much as these series. I see very few movies in the theatres,, and the ones I find myself enjoying the most are usually not the big blockbusters. In fact, most of the movies I find myself going to see in the theatres I see because I feel a sort of obligation to see the movie. I saw both X-Men 3 and The DaVinci Code in theatres, and while they weren't "bad," there was a very sort of blasé feeling I had coming out of both of those movies. They were fine. I have no desire to see them again. Watching these TV shows you can really feel the care and love that went into them. There is the ability to watch a show grow and change that producers of TV are finally starting to learn. It's the equivalent "blockbuster" TV shows that are doing well - House, 24, The West Wing, Lost - they're all on the major networks in premium time slots.

What's wrong with film? We hear every year that ticket sales have decreased from the year before, but ticket prices keep going up and it feels like the same damn movies are out every year. There isn't much that's compelling, at least not recently. Yet TV continues to, little by little, get more and more bold and fresh, stealing audiences away from the big screen. I can't quite figure out why it's happening, though I've got a few theories. Maybe I'll make those my next entry, but this has gotten long so I think I'll finish there. Thanks to anyone who made it to the end of this.