Ryan McNeil
More than once since the turn of the calendar, I’ve bemoaned the fact that there is nothing good to be seen in cinemas right now. Sensing a warm spell that might break this winter of my discontent, I finally hit the multiplex this weekend…only to be let down once again. Guess I’ll try my luck again in March.
But in the midst of this moviegoing wasteland, I have found solace on my couch…with television. Amazingly good television.
In the wake of my ‘Monumental’ disappointment, I turned to old episodes of shows like Friday Night Lights and The Wire, followed by new episodes of The Walking Dead and True Detective. In them, I found the entertainment, distraction, and enjoyment that the multiplex hasn’t given me since the credits rolled on THE WOLF OF WALL STREET (which for me was six weeks ago). All of this made me think of a podcast discussion I had last year, and something that’s begun to gnaw at me more and more through the years:
Maybe television is where it’s at.
This past year, one of my favorite directors – Steven Soderbergh – claimed to be retiring from film. In a keynote speech, he laid out his reasoning, saying that it was getting hard to get people to come see movies that weren’t action-packed blow-em-up’s, especially when there was so much good TV out there. Almost to prove his point, the final feature he directed – BEHIND THE CANDELABRA – couldn’t find soil with theatrical distributors. It was handed over to HBO, where it was critically acclaimed and picked up all sorts of awards for television.
I’m also reminded of a somewhat snarky comment I read last year where a blogger asked why so many lists and articles of “The Best TV of All Time” was populated with current shows. His confusion stemmed from the fact that in television the greats are usually older, while in TV the greats are far more modern. His question underlines where we are at in the evolution of the medium. We are at a point where creators are less restricted on what they can show, have a broader base of subject matter, and are getting bigger budgets to work with. In short, there’s no comparison. On top of all this, you have networks like HBO, Showtime, FX and AMC who are content to make the rules up as they go. Don’t want a show’s season to be 24 episodes? No problem. Don’t want to launch your show in late September when everyone else is? That’s fine. Want to make audiences wait more than 12 calendar months for the next season? Done.
That’s not even taking Netflix into account, who are marching to a drum all their own.
Where film studios feel stuck in stasis offering to the widest possible audience, TV networks are playing a game of one-upsmanship looking to spur the next big thing. What’s more, audiences are willing to play along! Time and again, audiences complain about films that are two hours (or – God help you – longer) feeling “too long”. But give them some sexy vampires and some T&A, and they’ll happily stay glued to their couch for a ten-episode, 500-minute bender .
I still believe in the power of cinema, and that there are things it can do with its scale and reach that television cannot. But as this drought continues, and the prospects for this year fail to fill me with much enthusiasm, I must continue to wonder…if maybe television is where it’s at.
This season can be dry for films, but I’ve also found some of my favorites come out around this time in a given year. Titles like ZODIAC, LIKE SOMEONE IN LOVE, THE ILLUSIONIST and more came out around this time in their given years.
However, I do think you hit on something: right now TV is evolving and growing in leaps and bounds in a way that isn’t true of cinema. People are figuring out all kinds of way to play with the structure of the form which is leading to really interesting television. That novelty of seeing a kind of show that is different and unique and fresh is something I feel like we get less and less of in cinema.
There aren’t really revolutionary films anymore, but something like the Netflix model for House of Cards and Arrested Development or the almost movie-like episodes of Sherlock feel like new, exciting forms of Television that make the medium seem vibrant in the times where movies wain from season to season and are peppered with re-makes and sequels.
I’ve found some favorites from this part of the year in years past as well! Titles like HAYWIRE, SHUTTER ISLAND, and RANGO have carried me in years past…but this year it totally seems like we’re feasting on scraps.
I remain hopeful that film can do something different, and perhaps that will come in the way it interacts with TV. For now though, I don’t see them reinventing the wheel any time soon.
Yes, there’s some good TV on right now. However, to say that there is nothing worth watching at the cinema is just a matter of taste. For instance, I went to see THE LEGO MOVIE this past weekend and had a great time.
I’ll talk to you after I see it (which is to say Lego has never been high on my radar). Call me cynical, but I don’t see it measuring up to the sorts of springtime movies James mentioned in his comment above.
Great read, I definitely think we’ve seen some of the best TV in history over the past few years, and it’s still going strong. I definitely felt it last night watching True Detective’s new episode, and seeing Game of Throne’s behind the scenes footage. I almost went to Monuments Men today, but after reading all of these reviews, I’m glad I skipped it. What’s on TV is more interesting now.
One thing that I forgot to mention above that I love about True Detective is the way it’s choosing to structure its narrative. When we get to the end of these eight episodes – and lets adnire that, a season that’s eight episodes long – the show is going to reload for next season with a new cast and a new case.
Film franchises work their asses off to keep their cast and crew intact. Here’s a show that says “Fuck it; we’ll reload”.
No is my one word answer to your titular question. Perhaps in countries where good TV is easily accessible then you could argue that, but the simple fact in this country is the only way we can watch a lot of this stuff is through illegal or somewhat legally-ambiguous means.
I still think there is a lot of amazing stuff at the cinema – not everything is good, but you have to make smart viewing choices (this is not foolproof, I know). I’d even argue as a whole there is a lot more shit on TV than on the big screen (where do I even begin with the crap?). TV is like a buffet, of course if you only focus on the carved meats, it’s going to look amazing.
Side-note: in saying all of the above, the last 6 minutes of TRUE DETECTIVE S01E04 could be the best thing I’ve seen this year.
Admittedly, a big part of my grumpiness comes from the offerings at the theatre right now, and I think this is where the wonkiness of international release schedules is working in your favour. For all I know, you’ll have this feeling in June.
You’re right though – making smart choices is key. That’s part of the problem here though; the choice has been taken away from me.
You raise a good point that I’m ignoring a lot of devilled eggs on the television buffet. God knows 90% of what’s on television in a given day is a waste of time. But that last 10% – “the carved meats” as you so wonderfully put it – are so damned delicious!
Jess and I were discussing this prior to our last RI recording. I watch tv to an addictive amount these days, catching up on both old and new shows. One thing that strikes me is that the writing on these shows is so superior that I want more and more of these characters and worlds, which is something I almost never say of film anymore. I don’t want to live in a world that would stop after a mere 2 hours of the Starks, the Crawleys or Rick & Co.
I also feel as though I want to branch out more. There are certain film genres and sub-genres I typically avoid, because they feel repetitive or simply don’t interest me. But with my t.v. watching, nearly anything goes, as long as it’s not “reality t.v.”
There’s a podcaster I know who has given lecture-like presentations a few times. When discussing what makes a good podcast, he likened it to TV and said that most TV shows don’t suck you in with what story they’re telling so much as how they’re telling it.
You might not be the sort of person who goes for medieval fiction, but hand it over to the right production team, the right cast, and the right writers and you’re hooked.
The really crazy thing about that is the way it tends to eschew mimicry. Remember when Mad Men took off and the networks thought “We need to set stylish shows in the ’60s!”. How well did Pan-Am and The Playboy Club work out?
And I hear ya about branching out – how many hours have you lost saying “just one more…”
I agree that there’s a wealth of riches on TV and love the way that HBO, Netflix, and even some network shows are changing the medium and experimenting. I was skeptical about Netflix’s move into original programming, but Orange is the New Black was pretty great and very addictive.
That said, I’m with you that films can still be amazing. It’s a wealth of riches on both ends thanks to the access from VOD and other venues beyond the theaters. Also, there are still tons of things in the theater that I need to see. Heck, I just saw Gravity last night! There are benefits to being behind the curve.
You bring up a good point about the flaw in my argument: I’m too far ahead of myself.
If I’d been a little more patient and held myself back to one screening a week, I might still have a few leftovers to choose through. Heck in years past it’s taken me well into February to catch up with Oscar nominees like RABBIT HOLE, ANOTHER YEAR, and WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN.
I missed most of the Best Picture noms over the holiday because I accidentally watched an episode of Homeland on Christmas Day and needed to marathon to the end of season 3 as fast as possible.
So yeah. TV!
“Accidentally”?