Other than the distribution channels, what are the REAL distinctions between Film, TV and on line media? Other than economics, prestige and tradition, there is no difference.
For instance, if you are a writer with a brilliant script, you want to maximize the exposure and influence of your work. If you are approached by producers of various media, you’d hope to get to the “top of the food chain”.
Naturally, you’d choose a Film contract-assuming that the budget would be high, as it always is-each film requiring a unique production crew, sets, even a unique accountant. Plus, you’d hope, that each scene would have intense focus and blood, sweat and tears poured into each shot for ultimately 90 minutes of story.
TV has scales of efficiencies, presumably a production company already in place, cranking out “Made for TV Movies”, or better yet-they’d allow your idea to grow and breathe, beyond the scope of 90 minutes. Maybe a miniseries?
Online media (i.e. Youtube, or ANY other video that exists online) can run the gamut to DIY or on-demand Amazon/Netflix studios. Then it is a matter of how eager you are to get your idea committed to a screen and how much prestige/packaging you are willing to hold out for (gamble on?)
This post was sparked in part by the passing of William Goldman, a true Renaissance man (back when that was nontraditional). He wrote books and screenplays that got made into movies that were seen in theaters (in/by droves of viewers) and the echoes of his influence are still seen on broadcast tv/cable regularly. For most viewers today, they’d be more likely to run into his work by accident, in the stream of movies (presented uncurated) on most cable stations. “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” seen as a western, or a comedy, or the namesake of the film institute. Or maybe, some of his work might be seen in a classroom (“All the President’s Men”) or called out as a recommendation/on demand (“Princess Bride”). If you were not around for the initial impact, his works are still reverberating around to feel like part of the immediate past.
To expand the multimedia perspective, here is a radio salute to him and his movies. Note that even radio has evolved into Podcasting, something distinct from its broadcast self, yet still underscored by its original form. The New Yorker (i.e. a MAGAZINE-yet ALSO a podcast) explored the nature of how podcasting became seductive audio narration. NPR was known for straight news, then This American Life came on the scene, and had the controversial storytelling bumps in the road (circa 2012), but eventually spawned Serial and STown. Which circles us back to our writer and the choices to be made.
To quote from the NYer article:
“In Hollywood, there is considerable interest in podcasting as a relatively inexpensive means of developing an idea. Whereas it can cost five million dollars to make a TV pilot, an eight- or ten-episode podcast series can be made for five hundred thousand dollars. If the podcast becomes a hit, a TV or film producer will feel greater confidence in the story’s broad appeal—and will have a built-in audience for the adaptation. So far, only a few podcast-to-screen projects have been brought to fruition, and the results have been mixed. Last year, Gimlet’s clever “Startup” podcast became “Alex, Inc.,” a feeble ABC sitcom, starring Zach Braff, that was cancelled after two months. But another Gimlet podcast, the scripted thriller “Homecoming,” has just been adapted into an Amazon series, starring Julia Roberts, and it is receiving strong reviews.”
Podcasts are now comfortable doing storytelling takes on True Crime, unhindered by their origins in journalism, but yet not falling into the territory of Old Time Radio Drama circa 1930’s to 1950’s. Even original scripts recorded by modern voices have an eerie naivety, as if the emotions exist unchecked; audiences of today KNOW not to open the creaky door in the haunted house, and if they have, they have carefully considered the ramifications of appropriating the narratives of the undead. Magazines and newspapers have been categorized as fake news and for those who want to tell stories, there is an audience eager to hear every part of the spectrum. The audience, like true democracy, will take in everything as opinion, and judge according to their own opinion. Facts being just another element of storytelling, their true relationship to the truth being a matter up for grabs.
One of the ONLY areas that has not successfully managed to make a transition into modern media is Theater. Broadway in particular. It’s just another source of content, but a troubling one at that. Too close for comfort as a medium for storytelling, it cannot scale, it doesn’t transfer to film directly-and even then, not particularly well. Elitist in terms of time and space, you have to move your body to accommodate the timing of the viewing, rather than the other way around. And at several hundred dollars a pop, economics make it even LESS feasible. Broadway chooses shows that will have a broad appeal, and even then, deep pockets & patience are required for the birthing process. Hamilton grew out of The Public Theater (and the deep pockets of investors), but the Drama Bookshop which gave shelter and comfort to the playwright is no more. And where are the OTHER musicals that are supposed to follow in its wake?
So now we have: screen media, audio media and in person media. The distinction between film/TV/video or radio/podcast are quickly becoming a thing of the past. Theater has been dying for forever, but still hasn’t changed form-nor has it needed to. It just keeps going as a primal force, individualized and all the more precious for its fleeting moments.
Note: I have ALSO published this over at my other blog: Media Worth Watching
Comments