Seeds | The Blurring Line Between Film And TV
| Published Jan 17, 2012
10 years ago, this would have been unheard of. Never would a screenwriter get called out for praise like Aaron Sorkin is getting called out, and never would a TV show be allowed to be as cinematic as they are now. The causes for this blur are obvious: the widescreen TV, instead of the “boxed” TV, has become the norm, allowing TV shows to shoot in more cinematic formats; more TV channels allow for greater chances of artistic freedom; the rise of Netflix and internet streaming allows for more flexible viewing at home.
While this move has been great for TV (many, including myself, refer to this as a ‘golden age’ of sorts for the medium), what does this mean for the cinema?
Lars von Trier’s new film “Melancholia” was distributed On-Demand online before being released in theatres, causing a stir about whether this would be the new destination for film. Some were all for allowing everyone a chance to see it instead of the slow distribution that an arthouse film usually has; others believed that it was the beginning of the end of the movie theatre.
While I like the idea of not having to wait 12 weeks for the film to make its way to Lincoln, NE, there is no denying that “Melancholia” is a film that works better on the big screen--a truly cinematic experience, the type of film the movie theatre is built for.
While I’m glad that TV has finally been able to reach the same level as the cinema, I hope that the lure of On-Demand and internet streaming doesn’t stop movie studios from remembering that without the cinematic experience, the film medium loses its allure. Even “The Social Network” needed David Fincher’s cinematic vision to make that film more than just a made-for-TV movie.


Comments
Nobody has commented on this article.Post a Comment