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