Movies vs. Television: Making My Case
Re-watching The Social Network (2010) I was struck most of all by the moment when douchey, fearless Facebook ‘founder’ Mark Zuckerberg (Jessie Eisenberg) declares they are moving their quick-growing entity from the hallowed internet connections of Harvard to Yale and Columbia. “And Stanford,” advises his C.F.O. Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield). “Why Stanford?” wonders Zuckerberg. The next scene is in a sunlit bedroom between a guy (Justin Timberlake) and a girl (Dakota Johnson) we don’t yet know. Now, we could assume the movie has been moved to the campus of Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, but we don’t know for certain, do we? Not until the girl climbs out of bed, strolls to the shower and we realize the red underoos covering her fetching derriere is emboldened with the words ‘Stanford.’ I laughed out loud. THAT’S how you expose information, wannabe screenwriters of L.A!
Of the many debates ceaselessly raging in cinematic and/or entertainment circles, one that has been afforded much face time in recent years is this: Is TV Better Than The Movies? Film writer extraordinaire Mark Harris, on a recent podcast, confirmed “TV is the dominant cultural force.” The esteemed A.O. Scott of the esteemed New York Times wondered if movies were that bad or if TV was just better in September of 2010. Devin Gordon of The Daily Beast declared over 5 years ago, in February 2007, “television is running circles around the movies.” But wait! Bruce Fretts of Entertainment Weekly declared in 1995 - 1995!!! – TV was already better than the movies. How, oh how, are movies even still being made then nearly 20 years later?! Shouldn’t the war already be over?
Allow me to be clear, I am not here to argue for or against. I’m not here to declare that TV is definitively better than the Movies nor am I here to declare that Movies are definitively better than TV. Such a stance would be folly. As evidenced, these arguments are more eternal than we typically realize and the ebb and flow of moving image entertainment is non-stop. What I will say is that I infinitely prefer movies to TV, whether or not we are in a so-called Golden Age Of Television. Even if this is a Golden Age for the small screen, I am actually watching less television than I have at any point in my life. I have access to so many movies in so many ways and I live in Chicago where cool movies – big, little, or medium – are almost always opening every weekend that every time someone tells me “Dude, you have to watch (insert name of TV show here)” I just sigh and say something like, “I could lie to you and say I will, but I won’t.” For every TV show you tell me I have to watch, there are three movies I would rather watch instead.
Not that I’m completely against TV. I’m an enormous fan of Justified, I still get a kick out of 30 Rock and I am a devotee of Parks and Recreation. And because it would not be fair to discuss the two mediums by comparing, say, Citizen Kane to Real Housewives Of Greensboro, North Carolina nor by comparing Transformers: Optimus Prime At The Gates Of Dawn to The Sopranos, let’s pit two of my favorites against one another. The argument is that because TV is not adherent to a strict 90-120 minute run time it has hours and hours, years and years, to weave its varying tapestries.
Writing for Indiewire, Oliver Lyttleton states: “TV is able to focus on rich, complex characters and spider-web plotting because it has the time to do so: two hours of storytelling real-estate will rarely be able to achieve as much as, say, the 70-odd hours of The Wire.” Justified spent its second season examining the roots and the latter day bad blood between three families in Harlan, Kentucky. Aside from all the, you know, gunfire and bluegrass accents, it’s not unlike The Descendants which examines not only Matt King and family but envelopes the family of the man with whom Matt’s wife was having an affair.
And while Justified was afforded 13 episodes at about 42 minutes an episode which leads to roughly 546 minutes for exploration, The Descendants had just two hours. Yet consider the sequence in The Descendants in which Matt enters the hospital room where his wife lays in a coma just after he’s learned of her affair and unleashes a tirade which is followed by his oldest daughter Alex entering to unleash a tirade of her own on her mother which leads to Matt scolding her for unleashing a tirade which leads to his youngest daughter Scottie entering and unleashing a few curse words beyond her age which leads to Matt wondering where she learned such language which leads to Scottie pointing at Alex. This is, what, three minutes of screen time? And yet it demonstrates the fingerprints of a family – how they got from Point A to Point B to Point C – just as clearly and dramatically – more so, even – as anything in all of Justified’s second season.
Let’s consider Aaron Sorkin, a man who has dabbled in both forms. In his critically acclaimed The West Wing, Sorkin, in the course of the first two seasons, employed a grand total of 44 episodes to encapsulate the first four years of President Jed Bartlett’s term. In The Social Network he (and director David Fincher) managed to encapsulate the four plus years of the launch of Facebook and the ensuing lawsuits it triggered in just a hair over two hours. Not only that, but while The West Wing serves up a Presidential Election and Syrian airstrikes and multiple sclerosis and an India/Pakistan showdown and an assassination attempt, etc., The Social Network gets by on the start-up of an internet site and people sitting around and discussing the start-up of an internet site. I don’t mean to suggest The Social Network is undoubtedly “better” than The West Wing or any such thing – no, I merely mean to state officially for the record that to my way of thinking (I speak for no one else), The Social Network is far, far and away the more impressive accomplishment. If The West Wing had filmed a special episode on the campus of Stanford University where President Bartlett was giving a commencement speech, they would have taken great lengths to establish where they were and how they got there. In The Social Network, it just takes a pair of underoos, and that just so happens to be a particular brand of craft closer to my heart.
But my preference for film goes far beyond mere technicalities, and I realized this when I happened upon The Social Network on Encore, fully intending to just watch that blistering opening sequence (which, by the way, charts a break-up and what led to a break-up all while also establishing the film’s theme and setting up events for later in 300 seconds while in 1638-plus minutes Justified still hasn’t decided if Timothy Olyphant and Natalie Zea will or won’t) and then finding myself immersed and not able to turn it off or walk away. Film offers an emotional involvement that cannot be duplicated by the television. You go down into a cinematic submarine and only re-surface when the credits roll, while TV is a stopping, starting, internet message boarding affair. Yes, one could argue that there are times when you go into a TV submarine and watch 6, 7, 8 episodes of a show in a row on DVD but those marathons always leave me feeling exhausted and bleary-eyed, as opposed to a great film leaving me exhilarated and astonished.
For a long time I was under the impression this was on account of what I like to call The Glorious Darkness Of The Movie Theater. The lights go down, the ‘projector’ fires up and you’re off to never-never land. Except my TV rewatching of Social Network clarified that never-never land can appear with my old-school HDTV and Encore, too. Maybe this throws a bit of unfortunate dirt on my belief in the theater experience, but it simultaneously re-enforces my belief in the movies in general. I have watched every episode of Justified on that same TV but none of them has affected me like that second go-around with The Social Network.
I watch TV. I experience movies.
YOUR TURN! MOVIES? TV? AND WHY? SOUND OFF BELOW!
18 Comments
Wow, interesting post, Nick! I really believe that it’s a preference and varies from person to person. I’m a huge fan of both film and TV and would have a difficult time choosing one over the other.
You mention the idea of how a film can effectively balance the same amount of time (4 years) within two hours while a TV show could take a season or 2 or 3 or 4 for the same amount of time. But in TV, you get more details.
Regardless, both have to work within the bounds of time. When TV shows try to have too much happen in each episode, it’s a turn-off. Take a look at Glee – after 9 or 10 episodes in the first season, everything big that COULD happen DID happen. (Personally, I can’t stand the show now and watch only for musical numbers because I dig musicals.) In TV, the characters have the opportunity to be fleshed out.
The argument can come from the other side, too, though (something that you mentioned) – why do they take FOREVER to get a point across? or forever to get a couple together? or forever to reveal ______? It’s annoying having to play the waiting game too. Both TV and film really depend upon a good balance to be struck in terms of time and how soon/late things take place.
It also makes you consider the idea of sequels. Why tell the story in one film when you can make 2 or 3 or 7 sequels? Good post for discussion, Nick.
Sorry, just had to pick up on your Glee comment – it could have been a great show. It was initially like you said, in those first handful of episodes. It was gloriously dark and it was all about the story. Then the TV execs and studio realised how much money they could make out of the songs and albums and that’s what the TV show turned into.
Some TV shows go on well past their use by date.
That’s definitely another issue with TV, and one that’s often beyond the creative forces’ control. They want to milk the show for all its worth and, in turn, loses all focus. Granted, there are plenty of movies that are just trying to take a pitch meeting and turn it into a whole movie so they can reap the box office.
You’re absolutely right, it is just a personal preference. But I’m definitely a movie man.
I don’t think either is better, just that there are individual strengths(and weakness’s) for each medium. Yes TV does offer the potential for longer stories and plots, but that always doesn’t work for the better. Actually keeping a show good season after season is something not everybody accomplishes. Heck, my all time favorite show Buffy has season i would consider weak, and the last season of true Blood left me completely unsatisfied. And some shows start off weak but get better.
Movies are a more self-contained affair, and can’t cram in as much as a show can. But they can still be as effective when done right. Also tv shows haven’t yet gotten to the point where they can match the special effects of blockbusters.
So for me i watch a lot of tv and a lot of movies, and i find both equally satisfying.
Movies often can’t cram in as much character and development, you’re right, but when a really good/great movie hits on a piece of characterization, however short, I personally just feel so much more of a rush. Like Rooney Mara wiping her nose on her sleeve right at the start of Girl With A Dragon Tattoo. It’s just a second – a second! – but it says so much! I just love that stuff.
There have bee a few episodes of various tv shows i’ve watched that feel have really hit me on a emotional level. In fact one of those episodes is the reason why i have gotten obsessed with a certain actress
Ya know, this has kind of inspired to possibly make a blog post about tv episodes that have stood out to me.
Interesting article, Nick. I’m not much of a TV watcher these days but I think your closing thought ‘I watch TV. I experience movies.’ resonates with me. There isn’t a lot of TV series (miniseries is sort of a different animal) that gets me so emotionally involved like a lot of movies do. There are a few exception of course, like my fave 90s show Wings for example, I really like all the main characters in that one and they’re so well-developed. I think shows like Downton Abbey might be as close to a movie experience to me just from what I’ve seen so far.
I do have a certain amount of emotional involvement with Parks and Recreation. For all its absurdities those relationships always feel very real to me and affect me to a degree. But still (and I’m now I’m just name-checking Rooney Mara right and left, but so be it), none of it compares to that shot of Rooney Mara in her dorm room when she realizes what Eisenberg wrote about her. (Collapsing onto the floor.)
I think I’m going to echo fellow commenters thoughts. I don’t think either is better. I am a TV addict. I can consume hours and hours of it. Everything from the likes of Battlestar Galactica to Community. I love tuning in week after week and catching up with some of my favourite characters. Yes, I can agree that some movies can do as much character development in 2 hours as some TV shows do in 3 seasons. But it’s the experience of following these characters and to see where they go.
I love film. I love stopping and losing myself for a couple of hours. Watching a self contained affair. Knowing that it’s going to end in a short amount of time. Whether I’ll be satisfied or not is up in the air. It’s a short term thing. Like you said… films are an experience. There’s only a handful of TV shows that have some sort of resonance for me. There are more films that have had a real impact on me.
“…it’s the experience of following these characters and to see where they go.” That’s a very good point but it just seems like the few shows I do follow all the way through – and this was sort of referenced above – just start to lose focus and so often leave you on a sour or less affecting note, rather than building to to a perfect dramatic conclusion like the best movies do.
Oh, Battlestar Galactica!! That’s actually a perfect example where a TV series that have some truly great characters. I still talk about BSG from time to time with my husband. We actually caught up w/ the series much later so we did a mini-marathon of sort. There hasn’t been a series as addictive as that one for us yet.
I believe that movies are superior to TV shows. My logic is that TV shows can produce 13 one-hour episodes every 6 months or so, whereas a 90 minute movie gets worked on anywhere from 6 months to several years. Plus the producers have a bigger role in what gets aired on TV where as a director has more say in a movie. The worst problem with TV is that merit is largely ignored. Good shows that receive universal praise from critics can be axed after a partial season. (Prime Suspect). A terrible TV show can be on for years because it gets better marketing or timeslots. (2 Broke Girls) (Tyler Perry’s House of Payne” So I believe that movies are a better medium. TV has more time to weave plots, but doesn’t use that time as wisely. Plus, a movie can always extend its story with sequels. (Jason Bourne)
There are exceptions. Justified and The Sopranos are good examples. I’d include Dexter and Lost in there as well. But The Sopranos could have been a terrific film franchise if they had chosen to go that route.
In conclusion, movies are awesome.
Yes.
Movies are awesome.
A to the men.
I go back and forth on my preferences. It really depends on what I’m watching at the moment. What it comes down to is these are different mediums, and TV shows and movies can be equally great but for different reasons.
I hate to say it because I like Justified… but I think there’s a lot better TV out there than Justified. Boardwalk Empire, Game of Thrones, The Sopranos, The Wire, ESPECIALLY Breaking Bad… It took Justified a season and a half to approach the quality that those shows had from day one.
What I just said is all completely moot, though, because I’m a firm believer (and lover) of both mediums. I think comparing the two makes for a great discussion but, IMO, it’s apples and oranges.
The Wire is certainly better than Justified. I’ve watched the first four seasons of The Wire, and that’s pretty much as good as it gets. But as good as, say, my 5 favorite movies from 2011? No way. Not to me. But, like you say, that’s just because I much prefer apples.
Great article Nick.
I think it really depends on what you are going for. TV is a perfect medium (like you mention) to fully flesh out a character. But that also gives it the potential to go off the rails a bit. Look at House, started off being rather clever and now (well its last season) I can not even bother to watch it.
Also each medium has a different set of challenges and commercial interests. Like House above, popular network TV shows end up becoming advertising heaven and that seems to wear on the quality of the programming.
So I guess I am kind of in agreement with John above – they are separate media so my expectations and pleasure derived are a bit different depending on what I am watching.
“Also each medium has a different set of challenges and commercial interests.” Very true. That’s what makes it so impressive that a show like The Wire could be so good so consistently for a full four seasons (I haven’t seen the fifth season). One older TV show that I was a devotee of was “Alias” and, man alive, did that thing get bad in its last two seasons (although I was in denial and kept watching).
They are entirely separate mediums, but I’ve just been getting tired of reading people asking if TV is better than the movies. Partially because it’s not an entirely fair question and partially because, well, I really don’t think it is better.
Trackbacks