What are some of the advantages of live television and why do you think it was the prevailing format during TV's first decade? What are its disadvantages? How is "liveness" (or the illusion thereof) used by TV today?
Television is an art form unique to itself in the realm of moving pictures. Its “liveness” sets it apart and makes it easy for an audience to identify and connect with the programs they see. Although this theme of liveness has evolved to something different today, in televisions early years this format dominated. This is due to the fact that the general population was making a transition between viewing entirely live performances such as vaudeville or shows on Broadway to entertainment coming from a box in their living rooms.
Live television offers many advantages, especially for the population of this early time period. This format offers a sense of realism that an audience would be used to experiencing from live performances, as well as offering a connection between the performers and the audience. Since both parties are experiencing these events in real time it could be perceived as more real, and therefore a connection can be made. It created an illusion of audience interaction, like a person watching from their home was actually right alongside the actors. Live television also offers a more raw performance from the actors which many people enjoy more.
Today the illusion of liveness comes into play almost solely in comedy. Live television functions as a change from the usual recorded dramas or cartoons, and offers us an in on the actors world in real time, similarly to how it has functioned in the past. However, I believe the most popular television of our time is not live but instead well thought out dramas or stories.
Live television can be and is spontaneous. It doesn’t matter how much the scene is rehearsed; each performance will be different and unique. In one case the actors may interpret their characters differently as to how they rehearsed them or the host may switch one joke for another according to how the audience is responding. Live television has no second takes; it’s here, it’s now, and it’s present just like theater.
Though, I would say that television is not theater, nor is it film. It’s more of the combination of both with its own twist. Film tells a story, but rarely breaks the fourth wall. Theater can break the fourth wall and communicate with the audience, but even with spontaneity it’s the same story over and over again. In order to get variety out of theater would be to see different shows that, at times, are not available. Live television offers more. It can break the fourth wall, it can tell multiple stories, it can offer theater and film without having to travel farther than your living room. I feel that television simply made it easier to watch film and theater along with concerts, games, and other forms of entertainment. It was all made accessible through a box in the living room. Why would I want to go and see a game at the ballpark when it was being televised right into my home? I can even have children toss me baseballs for the effect of foul balls heading my way. Maybe, I’ll have better luck in catching one.
The problem with television is that it’s very manipulative; it’s very controlled. In some form, everything is targeted towards the audience: products, characters lifestyles do’s and don’ts, morals, and various other things that don’t come to mind at the time. Television seems to have created and normalized what the “middle-class” family should look like and act like. It’s as if television is telling the viewer how to behave, what to eat, how to sleep, how to be an “American.” I guess I’ve gone off topic, but I feel that the overall disadvantage of television was and is that it targets the audience in some very aggressive ways. Maybe, I’m just paranoid. Probably.
Either way, television is more divers today. It offers a lot more than it did when it first started out. In some forms it’s still manipulative and controlling, but at the same time it has evolved to be less manipulative and controlling. “Liveness” has come to have various meanings. In some cases, a show can have the look and feel of being live when, in fact, it was taped hours before. In other cases, live tends to be nostalgic of the “olden days” of television. Live television seems to try and bring back that family togetherness that the “olden days” use to promote.
There is just something special about experiencing live television, even today when everyone seems to have a DVR. It is a private act, done in one’s own home, and yet extremely communal. When you go to see live theatre it is a public event where you are surrounded by others going through the same experience of you. With live television, this sense of communal experience is not physically apparent, but it is still there. You may just be sitting in your living room with a few friends watching a live broadcast of Saturday Night Live, yet you know that there are thousands and thousands of other people around the country doing the same thing. It is like going to watch live theatre from the comfort of your couch. People are all brought together to experience the unpredictability and the excitement for the fact that no one knows what is going to happen next. Watching a DVR recording of a live broadcast will never be the same as watching the event in the moment. This is especially apparent on shows like the previously mentioned SNL where anything can go wrong at any turn. For your viewing pleasure, an example of the kind of event that can happen on a live broadcast of SNL:
It's impossible to discuss Television history without connecting it to Film history. Going to a movie is and was a social event where people came together to learn about the news, see a movie, and hit the town. Television is and was a much more private form of media that had to make a new path to separate it from film. It had to make itself "unique" (in the words of the previous commentors). Television in the home is a much more personal experience that watching a film in a crowd. Likewise with the direct address seen in many TV programs in the first decade creates a much more personal relationship between the viewer and the actors/actresses. Live TV is another method of differentiating TV and Film with new entertainment styles.
The spontaneity of Live TV created TV personalities like Milton Berle (whose nickname was Mr. Television). His ad-libbing of material, his ability to bounce back from a failed joke, and the shows ability to create topical material all represent the advantages of Live TV. His fallibility along with his topical material created a relationship between him and his viewers. In-class we were told that film's attempt to show TV programs in theaters failed. I believe that part of the reason for this is the lack of connection in a communal experience.
The uniqueness of the live programs is that it incorporates the actors/actresses into their characters. When watching a movie I have to take a step back and view the performance of an actor/actress after enjoying his/her character for the past two hours. In live television this connection is impossible to avoid. On the spot comments can only be connected to an actor/actress' cleverness. This can be misleading as seen by the TV personality of Lonesome Rhodes in A Face in the Crowd, but regardless the audiences of these TV programs feel a connection to the person on the other side of the screen.
Side-Note: This personal relationship also made advertisements more successful within programs.
The advantage of live television came in the fact that it suited many of the shows that were created for that time period. Early television consisted of live comedy shows, detective dramas with long fight scenes, and what were basically plays. The comedy shows gave the show host chances to have large amounts of standup to fill in time and it made it much easier to plug the products of the companies that sponsored your show. The ability to plug products is something that went across all three of the main three types of TV shows made popular. When it came to detective shows the placement came with what characters used what things, good guys smoked cigarettes and bad guys didn't innocent people drank coke and the bad guys blew it up. Along with product placement the live shows came with the flexibility needed to incorporate the very long fight scenes that viewers and actors alike enjoyed because it made it so that less improve would have to be done to fill the rest of the time for the show. Finally there were hour long dramas these were good because they were basically plays being recorded.
Live. We see the word and we gravitate to whatever show title it's placed after; whether it's SNL, a news broadcast or a sporting event, we see that one word and we are immediately drawn in. We're attracted to the fact that whatever is happening on our TV screen is what's happening somewhere in the world at that exact moment in time (without considering the few seconds it may be delayed). It's the idea of being a witness of reality that we crave so much and that we're bummed about if we ever miss. There's just something special to watching a live production from the comfort of your own home and I think we can all agree that it's the idea of being one with the show; it's the feeling of being a part of the broadcasted event without physically being there - it's the knowing that you are one out of a number of people that are experiencing it in the now - and, lastly, it's the excitement that comes with it.
We know what to expect of a live program to a certain extent, but we can never fully pinpoint what's going to happen and that's where the excitement comes in. Live shows offer us a different experience unlike any scripted, prerecorded movie or program could ever provide us. Live productions not only allow us to feel unified with them, but also places us on the edges of our seats due to the unknowingness of what might happen; live may as well be the one word synonym for the phrase "anything can happen."
And now, after reflecting on my own views, it's clear as to why live TV was so popular in it's first decade. Not only was the TV a revolution in itself, but the ability to watch something live on it was beyond any innovation of the time. It offered viewers a different experience from going to the cinema; it was real life, unscripted actions happening right before their eyes AND from the privacy and comfort of their couch.
Live TV connected life within suburban walls to the distant world beyond them - it unified the actors with the viewers and the viewers with the actors. It brought about the feeling of being there and the sense of experiencing the events first hand. But overall, it banished the distance between here and there and appears to continue to do the same today!
Regardless of the time, live TV will always be more appealing than any prerecorded production.
From the shows we’ve seen in class I would infer that part of the reason that live television was the prevailing format of early TV was simply to show off its very “liveness.” With any new technology, there is a period of time after its inception in which people seem to be fascinated with it no matter what it does. For example, early films that showed something as simple as a train pulling into a station were received with awe, mostly because people had never seen something like that before. This seems to be the case with live television, with early tv shows pointing out, even flaunting the fact that they were live. In Texaco Star Theater Milton Berle ad-libbed and improved during sketches, much to the delight of the crowd, and probably, the audience watching on their tv sets. He seemed to be talking directly to both groups, fostering a sense of community while also playing up the fact that he was indeed appearing live. Likewise, George Burns broke the fourth wall on his show and actually poked fun at his partially deconstructed set as if to say, “Hey, look what this new technology can let me do.” He was not laughing at the audience, but rather with it.
So, live television’s biggest advantage is that ability to create in viewers a sense of a communal activity. It is also obviously a good tool for providing people with information as it happens. However, its disadvantage is of course that its liveness also makes for a greater margin of error, meaning that mistakes made live can never be taken back. It is perhaps for that very reason that live television does not hold a large place in modern television programming. Instead, it is mostly saved for big events (awards shows, sporting events, news reports) so that now we see live programs as more of an anomaly than a normality. Thus, live television programs now seem to be an event on to themselves.
Television is unlike any other medium in that programs can be instantly viewed in the privacy of one’s home. This sense of immediacy also brings with it an awareness of reality, which is something that film did not really provide. What set television apart from film during TV’s first decade, were the live shows in which viewers were seen as much more active and involved. Viewers felt that what they saw and heard from a live show was in the present, and therefore more real than anything they had seen before. There is also a feeling of suspense that comes with a live show, in that something could go wrong, or off script at any moment, and because a live show has no edits or cuts or “redo’s,” the excitement associated with live TV is what captivates viewers nowadays. However, this could be seen as a disadvantage to live television—the fact that a single show could go terribly wrong—but the beauty of a live show is that each performance could generate a different show. Furthermore, the relationship between live-performing actors yields an enactment somewhat different than a recorded program in that the viewer is able to see the rawness and the realness associated with it.
Today, live television is usually found in the form of widely broadcast events, such as the Emmy’s or the Oscar’s, and sometimes in special series’ episodes. These shows usually garner millions of viewers that are interested in the “raw material” and the immediacy of real-time viewing. Nowadays, audiences around the world are then able to instantly contribute to a greater discussion of the programs they have just viewed—on Internet blogs, etc.—enhancing the idea of immediacy and a sense of being involved. Live TV provides a community feeling, where viewers are captivated by every move of the actors and how their live interactions take place. This in turn gives the viewer a sense of attachment and nearness to the actors.
Based on the format of the shows we’ve watched in class, as well as reading performed, I think the biggest advantage of live television is topical shows. The biggest problem with non-live television shows, things like Captain Video, is that the poor production values at the time, and the inability to make a believable stage impeded enjoyment of such shows. In various shows we watched, there were examples of jokes being made relevant to things happening in the world at the time. It was probably easier to make the shows we watched, of a similar style to Saturday Night Live, at the time based on the technology available to television studios at the time. Stages were less elaborate, and the worlds more believable, because it was not necessary to create new ones. The primary disadvantage to live television is the easy possibility to make mistakes. Actors often make mistakes and redo scenes, but when on live, an actor only has one shot to perform their lines. If they mess up, they mess up and the opportunity to do the scene is gone. Messing up can be funny and endearing sometimes, but it would be very easy to get nervous and make many mistakes, causing an actor or actress to ruin the show and possibly lose their job. Nowadays most shows don’t make any illusion of liveness, as there is no need to do so due to improved technology and production values allowing full and live worlds to be crafted on the screen. However, some genres of television still utilize crowds, occasional fourth wall breaking, and similar techniques to add comedy or reality to their shows. This is very typical in sitcoms and other comedy shows with laugh tracks and background clapping. To me it seems the biggest reason for this use is stimulating nostalgia in the viewers.
Live television is the format in which television got its start and it a format that continues to be relevant even today. In the beginning, live television was the dominant form for a number of reasons. First off, with any form of new technology, it has to progress at the rate of the audience's comfort level. Most people are fascinated and intrigued by new things but they also have to understand it in relation to things they are familiar with. So when television first entered the society, most people were used to information and entertainment from radio and the theater. Both of these are live entities. So the best way to get people on board with television was to give the public what they liked on a new medium. Television is like radio, only you can see the people speaking. Television is like the theater, only you don't have to go to the theater. Once people were comfortable with the concept of television, then stations could experiment with different genres and uses of television. Another advantage of live television is that it makes it more relatable to the audience. They get to see their favorite stars as real people who interact with the audience and sometimes make mistakes. The audience became more invested in the shows and endeared by the actors since they felt more involved in the process.
Television also has its disadvantages. Live television allows mistakes and slip-ups to occur that could destroy a reputation of either a person or a business, as shown in A Face in the Crowd, when Lonesome’s microphone is turned up during the credits of the show. Or another example would be Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction at the Super Bowl halftime show with Justin Timberlake. Granted, neither reputation was destroyed, but it caused a lot of controversy for some time afterwards. Also, live television can lead to unsuccessful programming if there are awkward pauses or the rhythm of the story is off or the audience does not react in the anticipated manner and the actor doesn’t recover well. All are things that can be worked out in editing if the program is pre-recorded. Editing, however, makes the performances and people seem flawless and can, as a result, distance them from the audience. These are all things that should be considered when choosing the style of a television program.
Live television had and still has the unique potential of making an audience feels as if they are sharing an experience with the viewed subject without being physically present. This was the main argument that attracted television critics during TV's first decade. Critics believed that unlike film, which was about voyeuristic spectatorship, live television was THE recorded medium that made both the audience and the subject aware of each other. This not only contributes intimacy, but also allows the audience to feel a thrill of immediacy--what happens in front of them happens in the now, and therefore is much more relatable and real.
Unlike film's emphasis on perfection, critics saw live television's potential to bring realness to an audience as an ample mode of brining a human experience between the screen and the viewers. This human experience meant that there would be an emphasis on the humans within the show--meaning the characters must carry the attention of the audience. The emphasis on realness called for television's compelling characters that spoke "as if they were bing wire tapped." The combination of character and realism lead to a profound literary approach to television in which the scripts must be compelling and ruminate on real life themes--not depending on flashy images or sound effects like film. This was what critics of the time believed television was about: giving the audience "real" humans with whom they could share "real" time in order to reflect on the “real” human experience.
Of course, there were and still are advantages of live television--all very obvious. There are the time constraints, the budget constraints, the limited ability for costume or location change, and the inability to cover mistakes. However, at the time in which live television prevailed, these challenges were seen as conducive to quality television--challenging the actors to BE their characters and challenging writers to make something compelling out of the small.
Today, it is surprising to think of live television as a literary advancement. Though writers are still considered the most important part of fiction television, fiction television has done away with liveness. Even the dying multi-cam sitcoms are not broadcasted live. What is live today is the opposite of literary scripted television--what we have on live television are sports, talent shows, sketch shows, and award shows. What do these genres have in common? They are genres that have an audience on hand that we actually see. Before, we were to just imagine ourselves as part of the unseen audience, but now, we are spectators to both the subject and the viewers. I'm not sure if this is because we now need more reassurance of ourselves as an audience member, or if we have a stronger desire for realness that makes us need to watch and live vicariously through a visual audience that really is on the spot of the show. Either way, it creates an event--which is what live television today is all about. It is no longer about witnessing real story, but about sharing an event or keeping up on an event and knowing this pressing event’s outcome as soon as it happens in order to avoid all spoilers.
As a native of Chicago, IL, I am involved in the improvisational comedy scene at The Second City and iO. Based on my studies there, I think that the advantage of “liveness” is the communal atmosphere. With “liveness,” the audience feels like a contributor as the actors create characters, settings, and stories in their presence. The audience actively experiences the process rather than passively viewing the product. A relationship, a trust thus exists between the actor and the audience during live performances. Since television infiltrated people’s private lives during its first decade, I think that “liveness” allowed people to trust television, to remember that this machine is a human creation subject to mistakes. “Liveness,” or the illusion thereof, is used by television today to create exclusivity. With OnDemand available from our living rooms at home and Netflix available on our laptops at work, the stream of television seems constant, ready, and mundane. Viewers adopt television series years after the series finale. Viewers tastes differ from that of family and friends. And so, television viewing becomes a solitary activity. When “liveness” combines with social media, however, the communal effect of television is resurrected, but in a more exclusive form. For example, just weeks ago, the 2013 Video Music Awards premiered live and Miley Cyrus proved herself to no longer be associated with the Disney Channel. During and after her risqué performance, Twitter accounts competed to crack the best 140-character joke and Buzzfeed articles replaced her face with Nicholas Cage’s. If you didn’t tune in during Cyrus’s performance, you were excluded from the uproar on social media.
Live television was the prevailing format during TV’s first decade of existence. When television was first invented, it was a way of showing people live acts and performances without forcing them to leave their homes. Live television was simple, everything happened at one time in one place. Actors showed up at the studio, performed and left. The studio filmed, edited and broadcasted the program all at the same time. Everything happened at once and it was easy to keep up with every week. That being said, there are some disadvantages of this. One of the main drawbacks is that fact that the actors could mess up and it can’t be fixed because everything that happens is broadcasted home. Also, choosing what camera to show to the viewers had to happen in the moment. There was no time to contemplate which shot was the best.
Today, most TV is shot before it is aired. This means that all the editing and post production is done before the episode or show airs to its viewers. However, there is still this illusion of “liveness” going on. Many sitcoms have laugh tracks attached to them to make the viewer think that it is being performed in front of a live audience. Also, talk shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live and David Letterman are filmed in front of a live audience, but are aired later in the day, so that any mess up or camera problems can be fixed before broadcasting.
Television is an art form unique to itself in the realm of moving pictures. Its “liveness” sets it apart and makes it easy for an audience to identify and connect with the programs they see. Although this theme of liveness has evolved to something different today, in televisions early years this format dominated. This is due to the fact that the general population was making a transition between viewing entirely live performances such as vaudeville or shows on Broadway to entertainment coming from a box in their living rooms.
ReplyDeleteLive television offers many advantages, especially for the population of this early time period. This format offers a sense of realism that an audience would be used to experiencing from live performances, as well as offering a connection between the performers and the audience. Since both parties are experiencing these events in real time it could be perceived as more real, and therefore a connection can be made. It created an illusion of audience interaction, like a person watching from their home was actually right alongside the actors. Live television also offers a more raw performance from the actors which many people enjoy more.
Today the illusion of liveness comes into play almost solely in comedy. Live television functions as a change from the usual recorded dramas or cartoons, and offers us an in on the actors world in real time, similarly to how it has functioned in the past. However, I believe the most popular television of our time is not live but instead well thought out dramas or stories.
Live television can be and is spontaneous. It doesn’t matter how much the scene is rehearsed; each performance will be different and unique. In one case the actors may interpret their characters differently as to how they rehearsed them or the host may switch one joke for another according to how the audience is responding. Live television has no second takes; it’s here, it’s now, and it’s present just like theater.
ReplyDeleteThough, I would say that television is not theater, nor is it film. It’s more of the combination of both with its own twist. Film tells a story, but rarely breaks the fourth wall. Theater can break the fourth wall and communicate with the audience, but even with spontaneity it’s the same story over and over again. In order to get variety out of theater would be to see different shows that, at times, are not available. Live television offers more. It can break the fourth wall, it can tell multiple stories, it can offer theater and film without having to travel farther than your living room. I feel that television simply made it easier to watch film and theater along with concerts, games, and other forms of entertainment. It was all made accessible through a box in the living room. Why would I want to go and see a game at the ballpark when it was being televised right into my home? I can even have children toss me baseballs for the effect of foul balls heading my way. Maybe, I’ll have better luck in catching one.
The problem with television is that it’s very manipulative; it’s very controlled. In some form, everything is targeted towards the audience: products, characters lifestyles do’s and don’ts, morals, and various other things that don’t come to mind at the time. Television seems to have created and normalized what the “middle-class” family should look like and act like. It’s as if television is telling the viewer how to behave, what to eat, how to sleep, how to be an “American.” I guess I’ve gone off topic, but I feel that the overall disadvantage of television was and is that it targets the audience in some very aggressive ways. Maybe, I’m just paranoid. Probably.
Either way, television is more divers today. It offers a lot more than it did when it first started out. In some forms it’s still manipulative and controlling, but at the same time it has evolved to be less manipulative and controlling. “Liveness” has come to have various meanings. In some cases, a show can have the look and feel of being live when, in fact, it was taped hours before. In other cases, live tends to be nostalgic of the “olden days” of television. Live television seems to try and bring back that family togetherness that the “olden days” use to promote.
There is just something special about experiencing live television, even today when everyone seems to have a DVR. It is a private act, done in one’s own home, and yet extremely communal. When you go to see live theatre it is a public event where you are surrounded by others going through the same experience of you. With live television, this sense of communal experience is not physically apparent, but it is still there. You may just be sitting in your living room with a few friends watching a live broadcast of Saturday Night Live, yet you know that there are thousands and thousands of other people around the country doing the same thing. It is like going to watch live theatre from the comfort of your couch. People are all brought together to experience the unpredictability and the excitement for the fact that no one knows what is going to happen next. Watching a DVR recording of a live broadcast will never be the same as watching the event in the moment. This is especially apparent on shows like the previously mentioned SNL where anything can go wrong at any turn. For your viewing pleasure, an example of the kind of event that can happen on a live broadcast of SNL:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LsyDYwG2f4
It's impossible to discuss Television history without connecting it to Film history. Going to a movie is and was a social event where people came together to learn about the news, see a movie, and hit the town. Television is and was a much more private form of media that had to make a new path to separate it from film. It had to make itself "unique" (in the words of the previous commentors). Television in the home is a much more personal experience that watching a film in a crowd. Likewise with the direct address seen in many TV programs in the first decade creates a much more personal relationship between the viewer and the actors/actresses. Live TV is another method of differentiating TV and Film with new entertainment styles.
ReplyDeleteThe spontaneity of Live TV created TV personalities like Milton Berle (whose nickname was Mr. Television). His ad-libbing of material, his ability to bounce back from a failed joke, and the shows ability to create topical material all represent the advantages of Live TV. His fallibility along with his topical material created a relationship between him and his viewers. In-class we were told that film's attempt to show TV programs in theaters failed. I believe that part of the reason for this is the lack of connection in a communal experience.
The uniqueness of the live programs is that it incorporates the actors/actresses into their characters. When watching a movie I have to take a step back and view the performance of an actor/actress after enjoying his/her character for the past two hours. In live television this connection is impossible to avoid. On the spot comments can only be connected to an actor/actress' cleverness. This can be misleading as seen by the TV personality of Lonesome Rhodes in A Face in the Crowd, but regardless the audiences of these TV programs feel a connection to the person on the other side of the screen.
Side-Note: This personal relationship also made advertisements more successful within programs.
The advantage of live television came in the fact that it suited many of the shows that were created for that time period. Early television consisted of live comedy shows, detective dramas with long fight scenes, and what were basically plays. The comedy shows gave the show host chances to have large amounts of standup to fill in time and it made it much easier to plug the products of the companies that sponsored your show. The ability to plug products is something that went across all three of the main three types of TV shows made popular. When it came to detective shows the placement came with what characters used what things, good guys smoked cigarettes and bad guys didn't innocent people drank coke and the bad guys blew it up. Along with product placement the live shows came with the flexibility needed to incorporate the very long fight scenes that viewers and actors alike enjoyed because it made it so that less improve would have to be done to fill the rest of the time for the show. Finally there were hour long dramas these were good because they were basically plays being recorded.
ReplyDeleteLive. We see the word and we gravitate to whatever show title it's placed after; whether it's SNL, a news broadcast or a sporting event, we see that one word and we are immediately drawn in. We're attracted to the fact that whatever is happening on our TV screen is what's happening somewhere in the world at that exact moment in time (without considering the few seconds it may be delayed). It's the idea of being a witness of reality that we crave so much and that we're bummed about if we ever miss. There's just something special to watching a live production from the comfort of your own home and I think we can all agree that it's the idea of being one with the show; it's the feeling of being a part of the broadcasted event without physically being there - it's the knowing that you are one out of a number of people that are experiencing it in the now - and, lastly, it's the excitement that comes with it.
ReplyDeleteWe know what to expect of a live program to a certain extent, but we can never fully pinpoint what's going to happen and that's where the excitement comes in. Live shows offer us a different experience unlike any scripted, prerecorded movie or program could ever provide us. Live productions not only allow us to feel unified with them, but also places us on the edges of our seats due to the unknowingness of what might happen; live may as well be the one word synonym for the phrase "anything can happen."
And now, after reflecting on my own views, it's clear as to why live TV was so popular in it's first decade. Not only was the TV a revolution in itself, but the ability to watch something live on it was beyond any innovation of the time. It offered viewers a different experience from going to the cinema; it was real life, unscripted actions happening right before their eyes AND from the privacy and comfort of their couch.
Live TV connected life within suburban walls to the distant world beyond them - it unified the actors with the viewers and the viewers with the actors. It brought about the feeling of being there and the sense of experiencing the events first hand. But overall, it banished the distance between here and there and appears to continue to do the same today!
Regardless of the time, live TV will always be more appealing than any prerecorded production.
From the shows we’ve seen in class I would infer that part of the reason that live television was the prevailing format of early TV was simply to show off its very “liveness.” With any new technology, there is a period of time after its inception in which people seem to be fascinated with it no matter what it does. For example, early films that showed something as simple as a train pulling into a station were received with awe, mostly because people had never seen something like that before. This seems to be the case with live television, with early tv shows pointing out, even flaunting the fact that they were live. In Texaco Star Theater Milton Berle ad-libbed and improved during sketches, much to the delight of the crowd, and probably, the audience watching on their tv sets. He seemed to be talking directly to both groups, fostering a sense of community while also playing up the fact that he was indeed appearing live. Likewise, George Burns broke the fourth wall on his show and actually poked fun at his partially deconstructed set as if to say, “Hey, look what this new technology can let me do.” He was not laughing at the audience, but rather with it.
ReplyDeleteSo, live television’s biggest advantage is that ability to create in viewers a sense of a communal activity. It is also obviously a good tool for providing people with information as it happens. However, its disadvantage is of course that its liveness also makes for a greater margin of error, meaning that mistakes made live can never be taken back. It is perhaps for that very reason that live television does not hold a large place in modern television programming. Instead, it is mostly saved for big events (awards shows, sporting events, news reports) so that now we see live programs as more of an anomaly than a normality. Thus, live television programs now seem to be an event on to themselves.
Television is unlike any other medium in that programs can be instantly viewed in the privacy of one’s home. This sense of immediacy also brings with it an awareness of reality, which is something that film did not really provide. What set television apart from film during TV’s first decade, were the live shows in which viewers were seen as much more active and involved. Viewers felt that what they saw and heard from a live show was in the present, and therefore more real than anything they had seen before. There is also a feeling of suspense that comes with a live show, in that something could go wrong, or off script at any moment, and because a live show has no edits or cuts or “redo’s,” the excitement associated with live TV is what captivates viewers nowadays. However, this could be seen as a disadvantage to live television—the fact that a single show could go terribly wrong—but the beauty of a live show is that each performance could generate a different show. Furthermore, the relationship between live-performing actors yields an enactment somewhat different than a recorded program in that the viewer is able to see the rawness and the realness associated with it.
ReplyDeleteToday, live television is usually found in the form of widely broadcast events, such as the Emmy’s or the Oscar’s, and sometimes in special series’ episodes. These shows usually garner millions of viewers that are interested in the “raw material” and the immediacy of real-time viewing. Nowadays, audiences around the world are then able to instantly contribute to a greater discussion of the programs they have just viewed—on Internet blogs, etc.—enhancing the idea of immediacy and a sense of being involved. Live TV provides a community feeling, where viewers are captivated by every move of the actors and how their live interactions take place. This in turn gives the viewer a sense of attachment and nearness to the actors.
Based on the format of the shows we’ve watched in class, as well as reading performed, I think the biggest advantage of live television is topical shows. The biggest problem with non-live television shows, things like Captain Video, is that the poor production values at the time, and the inability to make a believable stage impeded enjoyment of such shows. In various shows we watched, there were examples of jokes being made relevant to things happening in the world at the time. It was probably easier to make the shows we watched, of a similar style to Saturday Night Live, at the time based on the technology available to television studios at the time. Stages were less elaborate, and the worlds more believable, because it was not necessary to create new ones. The primary disadvantage to live television is the easy possibility to make mistakes. Actors often make mistakes and redo scenes, but when on live, an actor only has one shot to perform their lines. If they mess up, they mess up and the opportunity to do the scene is gone. Messing up can be funny and endearing sometimes, but it would be very easy to get nervous and make many mistakes, causing an actor or actress to ruin the show and possibly lose their job. Nowadays most shows don’t make any illusion of liveness, as there is no need to do so due to improved technology and production values allowing full and live worlds to be crafted on the screen. However, some genres of television still utilize crowds, occasional fourth wall breaking, and similar techniques to add comedy or reality to their shows. This is very typical in sitcoms and other comedy shows with laugh tracks and background clapping. To me it seems the biggest reason for this use is stimulating nostalgia in the viewers.
ReplyDeleteLive television is the format in which television got its start and it a format that continues to be relevant even today. In the beginning, live television was the dominant form for a number of reasons. First off, with any form of new technology, it has to progress at the rate of the audience's comfort level. Most people are fascinated and intrigued by new things but they also have to understand it in relation to things they are familiar with. So when television first entered the society, most people were used to information and entertainment from radio and the theater. Both of these are live entities. So the best way to get people on board with television was to give the public what they liked on a new medium. Television is like radio, only you can see the people speaking. Television is like the theater, only you don't have to go to the theater. Once people were comfortable with the concept of television, then stations could experiment with different genres and uses of television. Another advantage of live television is that it makes it more relatable to the audience. They get to see their favorite stars as real people who interact with the audience and sometimes make mistakes. The audience became more invested in the shows and endeared by the actors since they felt more involved in the process.
ReplyDeleteTelevision also has its disadvantages. Live television allows mistakes and slip-ups to occur that could destroy a reputation of either a person or a business, as shown in A Face in the Crowd, when Lonesome’s microphone is turned up during the credits of the show. Or another example would be Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction at the Super Bowl halftime show with Justin Timberlake. Granted, neither reputation was destroyed, but it caused a lot of controversy for some time afterwards. Also, live television can lead to unsuccessful programming if there are awkward pauses or the rhythm of the story is off or the audience does not react in the anticipated manner and the actor doesn’t recover well. All are things that can be worked out in editing if the program is pre-recorded. Editing, however, makes the performances and people seem flawless and can, as a result, distance them from the audience. These are all things that should be considered when choosing the style of a television program.
Live television had and still has the unique potential of making an audience feels as if they are sharing an experience with the viewed subject without being physically present. This was the main argument that attracted television critics during TV's first decade. Critics believed that unlike film, which was about voyeuristic spectatorship, live television was THE recorded medium that made both the audience and the subject aware of each other. This not only contributes intimacy, but also allows the audience to feel a thrill of immediacy--what happens in front of them happens in the now, and therefore is much more relatable and real.
ReplyDeleteUnlike film's emphasis on perfection, critics saw live television's potential to bring realness to an audience as an ample mode of brining a human experience between the screen and the viewers. This human experience meant that there would be an emphasis on the humans within the show--meaning the characters must carry the attention of the audience. The emphasis on realness called for television's compelling characters that spoke "as if they were bing wire tapped." The combination of character and realism lead to a profound literary approach to television in which the scripts must be compelling and ruminate on real life themes--not depending on flashy images or sound effects like film. This was what critics of the time believed television was about: giving the audience "real" humans with whom they could share "real" time in order to reflect on the “real” human experience.
Of course, there were and still are advantages of live television--all very obvious. There are the time constraints, the budget constraints, the limited ability for costume or location change, and the inability to cover mistakes. However, at the time in which live television prevailed, these challenges were seen as conducive to quality television--challenging the actors to BE their characters and challenging writers to make something compelling out of the small.
Today, it is surprising to think of live television as a literary advancement. Though writers are still considered the most important part of fiction television, fiction television has done away with liveness. Even the dying multi-cam sitcoms are not broadcasted live. What is live today is the opposite of literary scripted television--what we have on live television are sports, talent shows, sketch shows, and award shows. What do these genres have in common? They are genres that have an audience on hand that we actually see. Before, we were to just imagine ourselves as part of the unseen audience, but now, we are spectators to both the subject and the viewers. I'm not sure if this is because we now need more reassurance of ourselves as an audience member, or if we have a stronger desire for realness that makes us need to watch and live vicariously through a visual audience that really is on the spot of the show. Either way, it creates an event--which is what live television today is all about. It is no longer about witnessing real story, but about sharing an event or keeping up on an event and knowing this pressing event’s outcome as soon as it happens in order to avoid all spoilers.
As a native of Chicago, IL, I am involved in the improvisational comedy scene at The Second City and iO. Based on my studies there, I think that the advantage of “liveness” is the communal atmosphere. With “liveness,” the audience feels like a contributor as the actors create characters, settings, and stories in their presence. The audience actively experiences the process rather than passively viewing the product. A relationship, a trust thus exists between the actor and the audience during live performances. Since television infiltrated people’s private lives during its first decade, I think that “liveness” allowed people to trust television, to remember that this machine is a human creation subject to mistakes.
ReplyDelete“Liveness,” or the illusion thereof, is used by television today to create exclusivity. With OnDemand available from our living rooms at home and Netflix available on our laptops at work, the stream of television seems constant, ready, and mundane. Viewers adopt television series years after the series finale. Viewers tastes differ from that of family and friends. And so, television viewing becomes a solitary activity. When “liveness” combines with social media, however, the communal effect of television is resurrected, but in a more exclusive form. For example, just weeks ago, the 2013 Video Music Awards premiered live and Miley Cyrus proved herself to no longer be associated with the Disney Channel. During and after her risqué performance, Twitter accounts competed to crack the best 140-character joke and Buzzfeed articles replaced her face with Nicholas Cage’s. If you didn’t tune in during Cyrus’s performance, you were excluded from the uproar on social media.
Live television was the prevailing format during TV’s first decade of existence. When television was first invented, it was a way of showing people live acts and performances without forcing them to leave their homes. Live television was simple, everything happened at one time in one place. Actors showed up at the studio, performed and left. The studio filmed, edited and broadcasted the program all at the same time. Everything happened at once and it was easy to keep up with every week. That being said, there are some disadvantages of this. One of the main drawbacks is that fact that the actors could mess up and it can’t be fixed because everything that happens is broadcasted home. Also, choosing what camera to show to the viewers had to happen in the moment. There was no time to contemplate which shot was the best.
ReplyDeleteToday, most TV is shot before it is aired. This means that all the editing and post production is done before the episode or show airs to its viewers. However, there is still this illusion of “liveness” going on. Many sitcoms have laugh tracks attached to them to make the viewer think that it is being performed in front of a live audience. Also, talk shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live and David Letterman are filmed in front of a live audience, but are aired later in the day, so that any mess up or camera problems can be fixed before broadcasting.