Tag: Theory

If It Wasn't The Sopranos Or Abrams, Who Ruined TV?

Reblogged from You, Me, and TV:

Spoiler: No one ruined TV, but there are lot of contemporary trends that had to start somewhere, and I still think one of them started with Abrams.

If you spend any time on the internet reading about TV (or if you just read my blog - hi mom!), then you know that Ryan McGee's piece on televisual structure "Did 

Read more… 527 more words

Another great post Lindey, you're quickly becoming one of my favourite media scholars! I think that you're right to stand by Abrams as catalyst for cultural change, because he was in the very least successful at seeding this innovation towards serialization; even if it was as much the idea of him as it was the man himself that truly enacted this evolution. I use that particular term with a purpose, because whoever and whatever is to blame for the innovation, ( and I'd personally say that Abrams, the David's and the Internet are the primary trifecta) Television is better now than it has ever been in my eyes and in those of most critics ( keep your ears open and you’ll hear the term ’Golden Age’ thrown around in reference to it on an almost daily basis). No, it's not perfect and this style of plotting is one of the most pernicious of its flaws, a real pet peeve of many people, but the medium as it stands is now the apex predator where it once lived only on scraps and the smallest of fishes and serialization is a key factor in this. Sure these changes towards serialization and novelization in television structure are not without their faults or dangers - nor was walking out of the sea or leaping into the sky - but at the very least they are causing us to become better, more involved members of the mediums audience. This potential to continue in perpetuity is what separates television from other mediums and so I am all for creators capitalizing on this element as those following the HBO model do. These novelized shows are in their own way television at its purest and though such a strong taste can be hard to take at first it is ultimately the most enjoyable. The issue arises, as you say, in those sections of compromise, in shows that strive to both exploit serialization and attempt to tell accessible stories on a week to week basis. When it works - like in Terriers or Justified - it is wonderful, but when it fails it can drag the whole show apart. Network dramas have a history of diluting cable premises to little success and this is exactly what a lot of these Abrams model shows seem like to me; an attempt to have your cake novelized and eat it to. The one structural upside to these though is that they can serve as an intermediary: If seeing the slightly soaped mythos of Lost enables you to then stomach something as strong as Luck then they have served a noble purpose. That Lost was, at times, a strong show unto itself is simply an added bonus. So if The Sopranos or JJ or The Wire or H8ter ruined television (Seriously, where is all the critical discussion about H8ter? It’s not a hard show to be critical about) then I say “Thank god, ‘cause Television as it was is nothing compared to this.” Yes these shows tore down some of the walls and scorched some of the earth in Television land, but the very nature of evolution ensures that when it grows back out of those broken ashes to re-build itself the beast will be all the better for it and to my mind that is exactly what has happened here. I just hope that the next time we tear television apart the audience still exists to pick the right preferred traits, or even better yet that they have grown another step because of the more daring nature of this novelistic television and are able to finally set a perfect stage for shows to play out on.

Childish Props and Crying Puppets: Fictionalised Feelings in Film

Childish Props and Crying Puppets: Fictionalised Feelings in Film

 

The term ‘Fiction’ taken literally translates to mean a construction, a falsehood; taken literarily it means a narrative construction, an imagination. Film, unlike all other artistic mediums, consists entirely of fictions; those stories that seek to depict the veritable truth or reality of a situation are segmented into their own distinct category, the documentary (though many would argue that these too are in their own ways constructed). Where novels tend to have clear and present boundaries between the ‘true’ and the imagined film is much more mercurial. This is nowhere more true than in those filmic adaptations of ‘true stories’ such as the Biopic or the Historical Epic; real people and events similacrized for the screen. When their film Fargo was first released the Coen brothers came under some criticism for their use of the common legal preface ‘The following is based on a true story…’ when they had in fact simply scripted the film from inside their own imaginations. When asked whether or not the events depicted ever did actually occur Ethan Coen retorted that the title card was simply another frame in the film and was therefore as ‘true’ as any of the others; when pressed further he stated that “Well… it’s true that it’s a story.” (Coen 1997) Their purportedly phoney use of the preface and the reactions to the furore are on the surface simple examples of that trademark otherworldly wit that the brothers possess, but beneath the humour there seems something more to them. ‘It’s true that it’s a story,’ what exactly does that mean? What does it entail philosophically? Can a story truly be ‘true’, or is there something inherently inaccurate about them? If so, can they not still get at or reveal something true through their falsities?

Read the rest of this entry »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 188 other followers