Fiona wrote:
>In many ways, modern television programmes seem to be trying to be more 
like
>cinema films, and as such to place more emphasis on the director than on 
the
>writer. This unfortunately makes for poor television in three regards;
>firstly because it fails to play to the real strengths of the medium,
>secondly because a programme lacks the budget of a film, and finally 
because
>most television directors are, unfortunately, mediocre.
Not sure I agree with your latter sentiment. The 'Inspector Morse' series 
seemed to get more and more cinematic in its conventions as time went on, 
and on the whole seemed to succeed (at least if you like pix of some 
mediocre provincial university town...)
I also think film and television budgets overlap more than one might at 
first think; I've seen some excellent micro-budget films, as well as stuff 
like Morse, like the beeb P&P, that was big budget, popular, and on the 
whole relatively entertaining.
So what are the real strengths of the televisual medium? At least in the 
UK, high audience penetration must be important, surely? I'd imagine more 
people would watch something aired during the evening on one of the major 
channels than any but the most well-publicised cinema films, let alone a 
theatre production. Again specific to the UK, public subsidies to the beeb 
should allow them to take risks in a way that's rarely in evidence in films 
(not that one would notice).
Tavia