Archives
TV versus Film? Give Me A Break...
...And not an ad break either!! ; )
There's been quite a furore lately on the UK Screenwriters' list of Shooting People about writing for TV. I read writers calling it "demeaning", "anaesthetic for the soul" and even fodder for "prols".
What?!
Some of the greatest, funniest and/or most ground-breaking programmes I have ever seen have been on TV. I'm not just talking about the "golden age" they teach in UK universities either, where it's said that nothing has been funnier than Hitchcock's Half Hour, Steptoe and Son or Fawlty Towers; that no drama is as good or as thought provoking as Z-Cars or The Quatermass Experiment. What of Cracker? Prime Suspect? How about Hustle, Life on Mars, At Home With The Braithwaites? There's Undercover Heart, Hearts and Minds, Priest! Men Behaving Badly, Red Dwarf, The Brittas Empire...the list is endless. Whether you like these programmes or not, all of these TV programmes showed audiences something new, something not seen before, took risks. Of course, some praise did come on the UK list for various programmes - but did the Tony Jordans and Peter Bowkers of this world start with Life On Mars or Blackpool? No. They started with Eastenders and Casualty.
Soap operas get a really raw deal in this country in my view. Millions of people enjoy them - and it's not because all the people who watch them are "thick" (I'd love to know just who sets themselves up as being "above" others like this in any case! Who do they think they are??). I watch them. I know plenty of educated people who do. Is this simply because we want to "get away" from thinking? No. We want to be entertained. Some moments in soap operas are genuinely funny, tense or touching. The reason I like Coronation Street for example is that I recognise many traits in characters there within some of my very own Northern relatives. What is wrong with that?
When John Reith set up BBC TV over half a century ago, his values were not just about entertainment, but education and information as well. Soap operas adhere to all three counts in a very obvious fashion. There are strong moral messages within some storylines, but also clear educational messages on relevant issues as well as information at the end of programmes: "If you have been affected by this issue and want to talk to someone about your own story, please call this number or visit the website..." I read once that after a baby died of meningitis in Coronation Street, sixty mothers recgonised the symptoms in their own babies and took them to hospital where they were subsequently treated successfully. Sixty babies saved by a TV programme! That's quite a feat.
Some people rely on information they receive through dramatic representation. I live in an area where adult literacy is extremely low. Just think then if all writers rejected soap opera writing as demeaning - what would happen to these people? It might sound like an exaggeration, but I really think all the government poster and leaflet campaigns in the world do little to impact thinking if people read badly. However, a programme, even just on in the background of a room, could actually help get certain things through. Again, what is wrong with that?
This idea that writing Film is art and TV drivel I find quite extraordinary on a practical writing level too. For one thing, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Final Draft software knows there are different script conventions to writing TV scripts for starters. On top of that, in Film one has 90 - 120 minutes typical to put one's arena, characterisation etc across - a TV series has up to six hours in the case of something like Hustle and about a million (or seems like it!) in the case of a series like Lost. That's got to be pretty enjoyable for a writer: told to cut just about everything from Film other than the scantest of action in order to push the story forward, a writer HAS to include in TV what would be called extraneous in Film, hence the massive detours from the present in Lost into characters' personal POV's for example. Fantastic.
So, people can call themselves artists and write only Film. They can rage against the commercial nature of TV until they're blue in the face. But guess what? Film is commercial too. Television gives writers the start they need and the discipline to write to deadlines and within certain story constraints. I would venture most TV writers also want to write Film - but does that make their effort any the less? I don't think so. I think they do a great job: I watch TV every night, not DVD's after all. I don't believe there are many writers who go straight into the big blockbusters or even the low budget successes Film-wise. Of course, there are always exceptions to break the rules - but that's what those lucky writers are: exceptions, not standard.
bang2write at 09:53:00 o'clock BST Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | 
digg this
-
My brain is messed up??? Pot calling the kettle black there, Mr. Brain Whisper.
Thanks for spotting my DELIBERATE mistake... Was wondering when someone'd flag that up ; ) -
"nothing has been funnier than Hitchcock's Half Hour" What? Childbirth has messed your brain up woman.
I realise that Alfred hitchock could be quite amusing but when did he perform in sitcoms? Or did he write "THE BIRDS of a feather". I wish he had. Linda robson must be destroyed. Preferably by being pecked to death by crows, starlings and a chaffinch. Then pooped on by a pigeon that has eaten to much junk food. Like the ones we have in town that eat hotdog sausages and leave massive brown sloppy splats everywhere. -
Hey OSM, didn't I say maternity leave was for wimps? ; )
That's an interesting point and not one I'd thought of re: actors, probaby cos it doesn't really happen in the UK I think: Timothy Spall, Ian Mckellen, Catherine Zeta Jones, Patrick Stewart, Jim Broadbent, Jane Horrocks, Lindsay Duncan, Damian Lewis, even Judi Dench go between TV, Film AND theatre over here - and those are just the usual suspects, there's plenty more I've forgotten I'm sure. -
Well look who's up and about!
Yeah, one is kind of nitpicking, aren't they, if he or she splits the difference between film and TV.
I’ll say this, because one is free (okay, not counting the cost of cable or satellite) and the other we have to pay for, we put this divide up in our mind. I think that’s why actors have a difficult time crossing over from TV to film. When the masses get used to seeing them for free on TV, the audience bulks at having to pay to see them at the theaters. Not sure if it’s the same way in the UK, but here, TV actors do not often find success in film.
31/05/06 18:19
;-)