In a way, it is the very embodiment of upwardly-mobile, 1980s Americana. So I bestow him with a sobriquet apropos of the (Reagan) era: The Great Communicator.
Awwww!!! I LOVE this moniker. :) I was never a huge fan of movies, but we used to watch "Siskel & Ebert" and I always agreed more with Ebert, because he seemed to like more movies. Even at eight years old, he liked movies I liked. I've always felt very strongly about critics not becoming too elitist, and he seemed the furthest thing from it. He could enjoy a blockbuster and an art film equally. To me, that's the mark of a truly great critic
( ... )
LJ is sadder and lonelier without you but I'm so glad you stopped by (heh, remember when it was ME leaving anon comments on YOUR LJ?).
It's all about the cable and pay cable series with the minuscule amounts of viewers.Hee, and well I'll admit I can be a bit elitist about TV. (You know how I feel about MadMen for example.) You know what I think it is? You truly LOVE the medium, which is why you'd make an excellent TV crtic. Historically, I've always preferred films. And then the reality TV craze hit us in the early millennium and at one point I had nearly given up TV entirely. But then the glut of reality TV also opened up the medium and created a space in marketplace and on cable -- premium cable initially -- for shows like The Sopranos (which I never really got into that much) or SATC, Six Feet Under, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Rome (shows that I DID like). Those shows saved TV for me and I imagine it's not coincidence that the production values, the direction and writing play much closer to films and for me that's a large part
( ... )
Those shows saved TV for me and I imagine it's not coincidence that the production values, the direction and writing play much closer to films and for me that's a large part of the appeal.
Ooh. I don't think I'd ever heard it explained in quite that way -- but you're right! TV has always seen itself as the red-headed stepchild in Hollywood, and the closer they can get to the perceived quality of film, the more satisfied they become with their end product. TV is self-loathing in that way (which has always bothered me), because critics adopt that attitude of "nothing is good enough."
(For me, I've found TV infinitely more satisfying because it was designed for everyone -- it works within constraints of time, language and content and has to produce a product that appeals to a mass quantity of people in order to stay on the air. It's a balancing act, which is why I initially railed against broadcast and cable shows competing when the standards are so different -- shorter seasons, no language/content restrictions, some not having to
( ... )
TV is still in the "living room" or the "family room" for a reason -- because it was designed to be a mass medium, even on the smallest of scales.I do think films have the power to unite people too but in a different way than TV. Part of the power of TV is shared experience of watching at or almost at the same time as millions of other people. Films operate differently because we may see the same film weeks, months or years after one another. And yet it still operates on our collective psyche which manifests itself in other ways. And then an anecdote or reference to the film will come out and that interconnectedness will come to the fore. But most of the time it lies dormant. ... TV I think has a stronger, but briefer impact. With rare exceptions (cough, M/M, cough), what happens week to week doesn't stay with us long, but while it is on everyone's mind at the water cooler, it's the thing you can't wait to share and discuss with other people which is also important and meaningful. And of course, there's no question it's more "
( ... )
Comments 4
Awwww!!! I LOVE this moniker. :) I was never a huge fan of movies, but we used to watch "Siskel & Ebert" and I always agreed more with Ebert, because he seemed to like more movies. Even at eight years old, he liked movies I liked. I've always felt very strongly about critics not becoming too elitist, and he seemed the furthest thing from it. He could enjoy a blockbuster and an art film equally. To me, that's the mark of a truly great critic ( ... )
Reply
LJ is sadder and lonelier without you but I'm so glad you stopped by (heh, remember when it was ME leaving anon comments on YOUR LJ?).
It's all about the cable and pay cable series with the minuscule amounts of viewers.Hee, and well I'll admit I can be a bit elitist about TV. (You know how I feel about MadMen for example.) You know what I think it is? You truly LOVE the medium, which is why you'd make an excellent TV crtic. Historically, I've always preferred films. And then the reality TV craze hit us in the early millennium and at one point I had nearly given up TV entirely. But then the glut of reality TV also opened up the medium and created a space in marketplace and on cable -- premium cable initially -- for shows like The Sopranos (which I never really got into that much) or SATC, Six Feet Under, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Rome (shows that I DID like). Those shows saved TV for me and I imagine it's not coincidence that the production values, the direction and writing play much closer to films and for me that's a large part ( ... )
Reply
Ooh. I don't think I'd ever heard it explained in quite that way -- but you're right! TV has always seen itself as the red-headed stepchild in Hollywood, and the closer they can get to the perceived quality of film, the more satisfied they become with their end product. TV is self-loathing in that way (which has always bothered me), because critics adopt that attitude of "nothing is good enough."
(For me, I've found TV infinitely more satisfying because it was designed for everyone -- it works within constraints of time, language and content and has to produce a product that appeals to a mass quantity of people in order to stay on the air. It's a balancing act, which is why I initially railed against broadcast and cable shows competing when the standards are so different -- shorter seasons, no language/content restrictions, some not having to ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment