Noted educator Marshall McLuhan long ago quoted a phrase that remains extremely relevant to the study of multicamera production: the medium is the message.
One way of applying it is to consider that the medium a message is conveyed through (say multicamera video) actually adds additional meaning to the message it emits (say “eighties”).
Explain how various production processes influence the content of television stories. Multicamera, Single Camera, Hybrid Camera, Film, Video and HD should factor into your discussion. As usual, your article should contain specific examples from television we watched in class together.
READING MATERIALS THAT MIGHT HELP YOU ON THIS TOPIC:
- Carter, Bill: “Thanks to YouTube Fans, ‘ Nobody’s Watching’ May Return from the Dead,” New York Times, July 3, 2006: carter_times.pdf
- Friend, Tad: “Laugh Riot,” The New Yorker, September 28, 1998: friend_nyer.pdf
- Goodman, Tim: “‘Earl’ and ‘Chris’” Rescue Sitcoms from Mediocrity,” SFGate.com, Jan 30 2006: goodman_sf.pdf
- Hagan, Joe: “Funny Business,” Wall Street Journal, Jan 21 2006: hagan_wsj.pdf
- Kukienski, Valerie: “TV Comedies Get a Makeover,” LA Daily News, Nov 10 2005: kukienski_ladn.pdf
- Levy, Don “How Different Is Posting HD?” Film & Video, May 2004: levy_filmvideo.pdf
- McDowell, Joanne: “Evenings at the Improv,” Time, October 2002: mcdowell_curb.pdf
- Rice, Lynette: “TV Comedy is Broken,” Entertainment Weekly October 6, 2006: rice_ew.pdf
- Rosen, Lisa: “It’s Such a Deal; For an inside showbiz peek, TV show tapings are hard to beat — and your only investment is time,” Los Angeles Times, Sept 28, 2006: rosen_latimes.pdf
- “Sony’s 24P Cinealta Production Format Stars in 2002-2003 Television Season,” Sony Cinealta News, October 2002: sony_24p.pdf
- Swidey, Neil: “Family !@%$#%’ Ties,” Boston Globe, November 27, 2005: swidey_bostonglobe.pdf
—On reserve in the the Newhouse 3 reading room—
Television: The Critical View, edited by Horace Newcomb,
A collection of essays about television criticism and culture.
- Excerpt: Timberg, Bernard: “The Unspoken Rules of Television Talk”: newcomb.pdf
February 5, 2008 at 2:09 pm
The concept of the message being the medium is very well exemplified in ER, more specifically, the behind the scenes that we watched in class. The directors, producers, technicians, actors and everyone involved in the filming process went very very far out of their way in order to make the scene one continuous shot from one camera. Why? This is in immense inconvenience and extremely difficult on everyone’s part to pull off. However, it is clear that the extra effort went a long way. A continuous one camera shot of ER pulls you into the action, whether you like it or not. It makes an already compelling story even more intriguing. The one camera shot also creates an unmistakable real-time atmosphere that makes the viewer not want to miss a second. This particular ER sequence would have failed as a multi-camera segment because it would have taken away from the authenticity of the dire situations taking place within the show.
February 5, 2008 at 6:11 pm
When producers are putting together a show, not only is it important that they know what kind of show it is, they also have to know how they want to shoot it. At first mention, it doesn’t seem like such a grappling question. However, the stylistic differences in television greatly influence the visual experience for the audience, be it a drama or a sitcom.
After taking a look at different television shows, it’s clear to see the differences in how they are presented. As we saw in class, some shows are more effective when shot in multi-cam and others with single-cam. For instance, the living room scene in Seinfeld is shot on multi-cam. The quick and consistent cuts between Elaine and Jerry talking facilitates a smooth exchange of dialogue. It’s important to have quick cuts to make the scene more engaging, seeing as how many sitcoms are heavily dialogue driven.
In a drama like ER, the use of a single-cam would be a better option. By using single-cam, there is more of a sense of spectatorship and urgency. The camera follows the course of action as if you are really there. In the scene with the woman giving birth, one camera maneuvers around the emergency room. When the audience is witnessing the action through one sole lens, they get a sense of first person perspective, which successfully captures a high-adrenaline environment. Like Julie says, ER would fail as a multi-cam program. Execution of camera style is a major factor in making a show successful or not.
February 5, 2008 at 7:29 pm
When people think about creating a Television show the first thing that probably goes into their head is the content that the show will contain. The last thing they are thinking about is the production style and medium that they would like to shoot the show in. Although this is many times overlooked in the beginning stages of development it is a very important aspect. Choosing how a show will be produced has a critical effect on both the style and “feel” of the show.
The hard question becomes which format is better single camera, multicamera, high definition, or film. I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer to this and many shows have to chose wisely between these choices or use a combination of them in order for their shows to work.
When thinking of sitcoms such as Seinfeld, which we viewed in class, I think it was smart of them to use a combination of the single camera and multi-camera production formats. Obviously their shots outside by Cramer’s car were in a very open environment in which there was much movement between the actors. This would be hard to catch using multiple cameras simply because it would be hard to keep other cameras from entering other shots. When you are inside Seinfeld’s apartment and we switch to the multi-camera format this proves more vital for the enclosed studio environment. Multi-camera has many benefits in the Sitcom. For one, it’s cheaper to use and I think it provides room for spontaneity and Improv which gets you away from boring scripted jokes. It was funny to learn in Joanne McDowell’s article Larry David only has an outline to his show Curb Your Enthusiasm. It’s great that he simply turns the cameras on and just “sees what happens”. I think this creates a feeling of realism in his show and gives it style that is very unique when compared to others out there. Personally I think multi-camera has more function in sitcom then drama.
It’s very hard to shoot, as Lynette rice puts it, a “mini movie” each week if you use the single camera format in tv. Then again sitcom’s such as The office have used this format from the start and have been highly successful. Single camera format as well has the advantage of putting you right in the action with long takes and limited cutting in editing. As we saw in the viewing of ER there is an extensive amount of staging and practice that goes into a single shot, but in the end you are close to the action.
It is definitely safe to say that there is no one set format that TV should follow, but making that decision is one of the most crucial aspects in developing a excellent show with a distinct style.
February 5, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Ok. So usually when I eat lunch in Schine, munching on my delectable turkey sandwich with pickle, I am lucky enough to get to gawk at Drew Carey’s miserable attempt to fit in with Bob’s Beauties, and to pretend like he knows how the show actually works. But I was there a bit later today, so instead I was able to treat myself to some wholesome soap opera antics.
Now I must admit, back in the day, I was a ‘Passions’ fanatic. In middle school, my sisters and I would have our mom tape the show at two, so we could watch it at three. We would have Passions Parties where we’d invite over our friends and watch all of the witch-and-demon-filled episodes from that week. And who didn’t love Timmy, the adorable living doll? But as I sat there today watching this (clearly inferior) soap, I began to question its production.
It’s common knowledge that soap operas have a lesser production value than other shows. This is because they need to produce five episodes a week, pretty much year-round. Also, they merely don’t have the budget. So unlike primetime shows, soaps are shot on video, and in multi-cam. This is much more economical, since scenes only need to be shot once. But as a result, it produces an overly staged feel. Even putting the painful overacting aside, it all feels very theatrical. This can be greatly contrasted to shows such as ‘ER,’ which are shot on single-cam, and makes it feel like you are part of the action. I think it’s safe to say that while watching ‘Passions,’ no one felt like they were actually on the Crane estate, watching Whitney ‘make love’ to Chad, her soon-to-be outed gay half-brother. But furthermore, there’s just no need to feel this way in soaps. While in ‘ER,’ it’s exciting to feel like you’re racing around the emergency room, from patient to patient, on soap operas it’s almost better to feel like you’re watching these people from afar. Since their lives are truly much too absurd to do anything other than observe them from a distance and laugh.
Another technique unique to soap operas is the vast amount of close-ups that are used. This is most likely due to video’s lower resolution, as well as the emotional content that is ever-present in the storylines. And although I am clearly not a lighting expert and in fact am completely lost on the subject, there is obviously something distinctive in the lighting of soaps that make it extremely easy to categorize the show as a soap opera, even at first glance. And finally, something else that stands out involves the blocking of the actors. It seems to be a common practice where two actors will be speaking face to face, and then one will turn 180 degrees away from the other, yet the two will continue to talk. This would obviously never happen in real life, and adds to the theatrical feel.
So overall, in regard to the “medium is the message” issue, I’d have to say that for what soap operas are concerned with conveying (i.e. a daily, entertaining, overly-dramatic and far-fetched program), this style seems to work just fine. Especially because, from the very first time you sit down to watch one and recognize it to be a soap, you know what you are in for, the good AND the bad.
February 6, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I believe that the medium of a show does send out a message, but the whole message of the show does not solely rely on the medium. Many other aspects of the show need to be factored in as a part of the message, because a show is not simply defined by it’s medium. The message in relationship to the show is also more complicated than what the medium can provide. The medium is an integral part of the message, but we must understand that the medium is only makes up parts of the message, not the whole.
Going a bit arbitrary, the art of painting is very similar to the art of film. A painting sends out a message, and anyone that looks at the painting will feel a certain way about the painting. The message sent out by the painting will encompass an idea, a feeling, or both. The viewer depicts the message out of the object, the medium, and the style of the painting. Even though artists may paint the same object, they can paint it in countless ways. They can choose to paint in watercolor, oil, pastels, color pencils, acrylics… Those are just some of the mediums an artist may use, but on top of that, each medium can be used in different ways. For example, Van Gogh’s flowers will turn out very differently from Picasso’s flowers (if he painted any), and both painters work mainly with just oil paints.
To sum up my point, the medium expresses the message, but it only expresses one aspect of the message. In order to fully analyze a show, one must look at the medium of the show, but also all the other factors that plays into the message.
February 6, 2008 at 6:07 pm
The discussion we just had in class on this topic was interesting. In regards to our new show, we were discussing if we want to shoot it in standard definition or high definition. Even though the class decided we should shoot this student production about a rural town type setting, I am still on the fence. I have always said you cannot put a boy in a suit and call him a man. You cannot try to be something that you are not. However, maybe the best way to look more professional is to use as much of the latest standards as possible. So as nervous as I am about the decision to go with HD here, I am looking forward to seeing how it turns out.
Since the issue of singlecam vs. multicam was touched on in Blog #2, when talking about “medium is the message”, to me that means more film vs. video. Film is usually associated with higher quality, more importance, and more expensive. The picture is more grainy, so it feels more real. Video is considered a less expensive, cleaner look. However, video looks best for realtime pictures. Besides it being cheaper, this is why live events like sports, talk shows, news, and performances usually are done on video. That live feeling of being a part of the event as it happens to the people at the event cannot be as easily captured on film. Nonetheless, for cinematic and narrative storytelling, the film approach is best. Besides “Roseanne” and the majority of Disney’s sitcoms, singlecam shows on film is what is dominating the television world (at least in network primetime).
The medium is the message. Film tells and communicates a different message than video, and vice versa. The same is true with singlecam as opposed to multicam. Nonetheless, I feel that the real message has always lied in the story itself. There is a reason “Roseanne”, a sitcom about a working class family was shot in video. And there is a reason HBO Sports and NFL Films use film to better show the drama of their sports content. “Curb Your Enthusiasm” is a sitcom that uses all the above approaches, and it is very successful. Bottom line, the medium, how a story is shot, can add to the message, but it is not the primary teller of the message.
February 6, 2008 at 7:33 pm
I think that some mediums are the message. For instance, multi camera work in fiction implies comedy to most people (at least in america, I don’t know about other countries) and, for a time, single camera meant drama. That doesn’t mean good drama or well written drama, but it did mean drama. Now, while multi camera work still implies comedy, single camera just tends to mean that it is more cinematic.
This is also the case with video style. While video was used in sitcoms in the past, the use of video does not translate well to HD and isn’t used as much. Even SD shows are done in video now. This is the same with live shows like SNL or even sports. I think when old style video was king there was a noticable difference in quality but this difference is gone with HD. When Enterprise switched from film to HD very few noticed. The only major difference in most television styles today is the number of cameras people use. I think that one can show low class people or small town people just as well in HD as they can on old SD video, just look at My Name is Earl. I think that what matters most is the scripts, the directing, the music, the editing and the performances. If those are fine tuned, than the medium will be a vehichle for the message, it won’t be the message.
February 6, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I agree with what some others have said so far….that the medium is secondary and the writing, directing, characters, etc are what carry a show. Flashy things are always going to draw people, but the problem is that we can never be satisfied. If newer technology is out, and prettier pictures are available, we’re going to want to see them. BUT I also don’t think that it lasts. It’s kind of like a really flashy, expensive new restaurant….people will go check it out, but it won’t be the place people go to regularly. Maybe I am full of shit and that is a bad example. What I mean is that if you create characters that people can relate to, the medium isn’t that important.
TV has the advantage over film that its audiences don’t expect flashy necessarily. TV can still get away with some minimalism as long as it’s well done (funny helps.) As far as HD and all that fancy new stuff is going, I still think it’s going to be a long time before that becomes an issue. Nowadays, (I don’t have an HDTV, so maybe this is why I am saying this)–UNLESS you are watching something like a nature show, or a show in which high def beautiful picture quality matters, for normal shows it doesn’t really matter. We’re in a high tech time, and low cost, low quality shows can still look great.
What I think is the point of this question, though, is that the medium kind of says something about the time period. I noticed this especially in the Rice article in Entertainment Weekly. The time line was really helpful…
Multi-cam, laugh-tracked shows are dated. I don’t watch any shows like that any more…all of my current favorites do not have a laugh track–and yes. I STILL LAUGH. They are also single cam. I’ve noticed that now, when I watch multi-cam sitcoms, I kinda feel like, even though I like it, my brain is secretly making fun of them. Whenever we talk about multi-cam sitcoms, I picture in my head, the punch line of a joke or outrageous statement, the laugh track, and during which, we see the reaction shot of the other character. It was once modern and new…and appropriate.
TV is taking on some different styles. There aren’t MANY shows that are successfully funny, I guess, but I’ve got a lot of new favorites and they are really creative, well done shows that make me laugh without a laugh track.
If you tried to make a new show and make it a hit…I would be willing to bet that if it was a classic 90’s multicam, laugh track show, it wouldn’t work. I think that what the new medium (single cam? no laugh track?) is a wide variety. There are a lot of DIFFERENT shows that ARENT based on the middle class family with the fat guy and pretty wife finally….and a lot of damn funny shows that don’t need to tell me when or trick me into laughing. Maybe television is becoming more sophisticated. Didn’t people once think that film was trashy and worthless? And of course, TV has had that rep for a long time now..but it’s getting better.
I think that TV is coming to an interesting point. It’s like we are mixing all of the old ideas together, using it, but also breaking out of it. And, as was stated well in the Rice article, TV works in cycles (and unfortunately spawns off little formulaic imitations of its success. ) We learned from the old sitcoms. They don’t seem real any more (to me, anyway). So maybe we are taking what we learned from them, and from people wanting reality in TV, and NOT wanting any more “reality TV”, which isnt real, and trying out new ..mediums.
Sorry bout all the parantheses.
February 6, 2008 at 8:58 pm
I was just watching an episode of How I Met Your Mother, and I realized that the only way muti-cam works for me is if the characters and story are engaging. Multi-cam creates a theatrical atmosphere. I am usually not an engaged theatre-goer, if the show isn’t – well – engaging, because there generally isn’t much flash to theatre unless the flash is the draw in the first place. The patron (and, similarly, the multi-cam viewer) has to put in the extra work to transfer her or himself into the context of the story – to be brought into their world and to forget about the stage.
With single camera, it’s different. You already feel like you are in the character’s world – or, at least, it is easier to become part of the world you are watching. You become trapped within the Gilmore’s Stars Hollow or wherever they are on Lost.
Film and video are merely artistic methods that consistently tell the viewer, “You are looking at this story, in this way.” If you change any of them throughout the ride, the magic is gone, like in the live ER episode.
I predict (I’m not saying anything original here) that film, which is losing to the more economically viable options out there, will be a production technique that is used for nostalgic or artistic purposes alone. But, I’ll be sad to see it go. I still think it’s got the best look, if you’re going for that whole pictorial/cinematic thing.
The only comment I have on HD is that it is the only production process that has even come close to making me enjoy football. I mean, it looks so cool…
February 6, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Sorry, mine’s kinda long.
Form follows function, I hate that saying because I don’t like words that start with F though you wouldn’t know that from my excessive use of that one almighty F-word. As much as I hate the alliterativeness of the expression, it is entirely accurate. I took a poetry class where I had a to write a paper on poetic form. I took the same concept for a poem and tried to write it in a few different forms. Guess what. It seems that the form of poem the poet chooses, ghazzal, sonnet, free verse or otherwise, greatly affects the overall message and tone.
I wouldn’t necessarily say Medium is the message, while it certainly contributes a great deal to the message it is not itself the message… although Mr. Marshall McLuhan probably meant to emphasize importance of medium with hyperbole rather than be literal. In either case I would rather say “medium follows message.” It is important to frame our messages in ways that deliver it most efficiently to the audience meant to hear it. Take our class project for example, the ideas and messages came out of us first then the decision on medium was made when we realized the potential for emotion and the importance of the setting (though it didn’t take much realization). The terrorist idea could have been done in almost any medium depending on how we flushed out the underlying message Schoony tried to beat into us.
So medium isn’t the message but the medium does say a lot about who the message targets or what the creators are trying to exploit in their message. The reason Roseanne was shot in multi-cam video was because it was more cost effective, more conducive to the lower-class characters/situations and more theatrical. It also flattened the the image forcing us to focus more on the sound thus exploiting the witty writing (Sort of along the lines of that amplification through simplification idea taught to us in 255). Also the mere sight of Roseanne can be hard for some people to take, so the limited resolution of video at the time made her easier swallow. Most of the humor in the show was in the delivery of the script, I don’t recall a whole lot of sight gags.
Flash forward to Scrubs or The Office which are shot in single cam film (I think they’re film, I’m pretty sure they’re film). Look at the way the medium affected the message of these shows. They’re still sitcoms but they employ more sight gags that are easier to see with the higher definition of film. Also, the single camera brings you into the show more and invites the audience to feel the characters during more touching moments. Roseanne’s touching moments had to rely almost entirely on the writing and acting to move their audience. Back to The Office and Scrubs, these shows rely heavily on reaction shots. Reactions are the punch-lines of the “jokes” we see on film and TV a lot lately. There are tons of moments in The Office where Michael Scott says something insulting and then the camera pans to the perfectly disgusted, hurt or confused faces of Pam, Kelly or the rest of the cast. That type of message isn’t conducive to tape or Multi-camera production, it requires higher definition and the reality of the moment that Film provides.
Lastly, back before sound and decent resolution, film actors and actresses had to use exaggerated gestures to convey anger or surprise. When sound became widely recordable, the gestures didn’t have to be so manic and monkey-like because the dialogue could bring out more of the emotion. Then film technology increased and the subtle facial expressions told more of the story. Traditional sitcoms with the theatrical feel similarly relied on blocking and exaggerated gestures to help drive the stories and jokes (though not as exaggerated as the earliest films). But now as we graduate to single cam video sitcoms, the resolution coaxes more humor out of facial expressions rather than over-the-top gestures or the excessive need for quick jabs like on Two and a Half Men. Ok, so that idea could be flushed out more, but you get what I’m saying and the parallel is there. Obviously, quick jabs and wild flailing limbs are important in newer sitcoms like The Office but subtle looks are almost as important now. I just thought that was interesting.
February 6, 2008 at 9:54 pm
That thing isn’t like amplification through simplification. I remember now I got a two out of ten on that question.
February 6, 2008 at 10:18 pm
it’s time to move on, phillips.
February 6, 2008 at 10:37 pm
I hate this. Everyone has written about the profound idea I had!!!
Anyway, I agree with the fact that medium is not the message but rather a part of the message. I think the medium is an integral part of conveying the message and making the show what it is, but that isn’t the only thing that would make a show successful. A show with a bad script, and a show that wasn’t about something concrete would never make it. As Mike pointed out, even in class we decided the medium of our semester project after we had fleshed out the idea, realized the potential for drama and movement. So the medium for me is secondary to the basic idea/meaning/message of the show.
Saying that, I do not want to disregard the importance of the medium in conveying the message. Single cam or Multi cam, Film or Video impact the feel of the show drastically. Single cam conveys more drama, more movement and makes the audience more involved with the characters on the show. With Multi cam, the scope of movement is restricted to only about 180 degrees or the cameras would be in the shot. The feel is more theatrical (as almost everyone has pointed out) and the audience feels as it is watching the show from a distance. Film is a more expensive medium for calls for a different feel than video. It has greater contrast and shows more depth. Video on the other hand is more economical, but has a flatter image. Roseann for example was shot on video because they wanted that flat dull look. However again, here the kind of show called for the kind of medium used.
The medium is one more aspect which is involved in telling the story. The feel of the story would not remain the same if its medium was changed. It would seem wrong. Most stories require, almost demand a certain medium and if that medium was changed it would looked warped. A live episode would loose its appeal if it was shot on video. I guess what I am trying to say here is that although the medium chosen can make or break or show, it is still secondary to the story/message of the show. The message the show is trying to convey demands a certain format. The medium is just one more way to tell the story the way it is.
February 6, 2008 at 11:14 pm
It seems that the previous posters have already done a good job of covering multi vs. single – cam and film vs. video. So rather than rehash what they have already said, I reckon I’ll apply the medium as message idea to a new medium that we haven’t talked about yet; animation.
Since there are no creative restraints on the writers of animated shows, this often leads to extensive gags which rely on non sequitur celebrity appearances since they do not actually have to have the celebrity there, or even their consent. Prime examples of this are Family Guy and South Park which often insert celebrity cameos without actually getting the celebrity to do the voice (Family Guy example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKjOqHtmKDE , South Park example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBrEGml9P8A).
As is obvious in those clips, animated shows tend to trend towards absurdity. However, since the medium lends an air of ridiculousness, actual guest stars will play up their absurdity.
A good example of this is a recent episode of the Simpson’s where Moe the bartender is discovered as a Bukowski-esque poet and is invited to a literary festival. While at the festival he runs into Tom Wolfe and Gore Vidal (who were actually making guest appearances on the show). The two literary titans portray goofy caricatures of themselves, Vidal carries around a tape recorder of student laughter from a lecture he once gave in the 80’s and Wolfe demands to have all the left over mashed potatoes from everyone’s plate in a banquet hall.
This is in sharp contrast to many of the live action cameos from earlier sitcoms where celebrities show up occasionally to teach the cast a lesson. However, if Wolfe or Vidal had given a straight performance it would have horribly contrasted with the animated medium.
February 6, 2008 at 11:17 pm
It seems that the previous posters have already done a good job of covering multi vs. single – cam and film vs. video. So rather than rehash what they have already said, I reckon I’ll apply the medium as message idea to a new medium that we haven’t talked about yet; animation.
Since there are no creative restraints on the writers of animated shows, this often leads to extensive gags which rely on non sequitur celebrity appearances since they do not actually have to have the celebrity there, or even their consent. Prime examples of this are Family Guy and South Park which often insert celebrity cameos without actually getting the celebrity to do the voice.
As is obvious in those clips, animated shows tend to trend towards absurdity. However, since the medium lends an air of ridiculousness, actual guest stars will play up their absurdity.
A good example of this is a recent episode of the Simpson’s where Moe the bartender is discovered as a Bukowski-esque poet and is invited to a literary festival. While at the festival he runs into Tom Wolfe and Gore Vidal (who were actually making guest appearances on the show). The two literary titans portray goofy caricatures of themselves, Vidal carries around a tape recorder of student laughter from a lecture he once gave in the 80’s and Wolfe demands to have all the left over mashed potatoes from everyone’s plate in a banquet hall.
This is in sharp contrast to many of the live action cameos from earlier sitcoms where celebrities show up occasionally to teach the cast a lesson. However, if Wolfe or Vidal had given a straight performance it would have horribly contrasted with the animated medium.
February 6, 2008 at 11:46 pm
I don’t know if it’s just me, but it drives me crazy knowing that a set only has 3 walls. Of course, as Schoonie would say, there should be an illusionary 4th wall, but we never see it. And I think that has a lot to do with “the medium is the message,” because the director of Friends or Seinfeld doesn’t want people to be distracted by unique camera shots and what not. The focus is on the comedy — the situation. I don’t think it has anything to do with money, the fact that a studio is cheaper than on location. How much were the Friend’s actors making per episode — $1 mil or something?
Our show, as we decided today, is going to be shot in single cam, I think mostly because of our combination of on-set and on-location. But we chose that for a reason, because we think it’ll best convey our message (you create the place in which you live?)
February 7, 2008 at 12:46 am
I have to say I definitely agree with Liz (although I found football enjoyable long before HD). As much as the medium does have an effect on the message, the medium does not necessarily define the message. As we saw in class today, the cameras on single-cam shows are often considered part of the story. They tell us where to look, what to focus on, what movements are important, whose scene it is, etc. This process definitely can alter the message but, again, it doesn’t define it.
I also agree with Germane’s take on the show we will be producing. As I said in class, if I were to see our show on a network, I would expect it to be in SD. Liza made a solid counterpoint, saying we might need the professional look that HD promises in order to pull our product up from the pit of student projects. While I can definitely see that side of the argument, as Germane said, “you cannot put a boy in a suit and call him a man.” Yes, shooting our show in HD may make it look cleaner but none of that will matter if our storylines, acting, direction, editing, etc. aren’t up to par. I think students often find themselves stuck with the “school project” look because all aspects of their product are mediocre. The decision of whether or not to shoot our project in HD is one that we should put some serious thought into, however I think it should take the backseat to every other aspect. If what we are producing in front of the camera is high quality, the way we capture it shouldn’t (in theory) matter.
February 7, 2008 at 12:50 am
The Medium is the Message… I’m not sure what this means, but after reading a few articles and thinking about it for a few hours, I’m going to give my interpretation.
Basically, if you use multi-cam, people are going to expect a sitcom-y feel to it. A laugh track, obvious jokes, or continuous one-liners, perhaps. If you’re filming realtime, you are expected to provide honest, somewhat improvised content to match. Anything too rehearsed is a letdown; it’s just not sporadic enough. On the other hand, anything single-camera, HD films or shows is probably expected to be a serious drama. The reason is this: the way people watch something, the way it is presented, greatly affects the way they interpret it. So anything that goes against what the audience is expecting is bound to hinder the show. An improperly chosen format might tank something that would otherwise have been successful.
An example of this, from an unabated Aaron Sorkin fan at least, is Sports Night. Originally introduced with a laugh track, the sitcom-y style doesn’t work. The show’s not enough comedy to be considered a sitcom, but it’s not serious enough to be a drama. And so, Aaron Sorkin explains “It feels as if I’d put on an Armani tuxedo, tied my tie, snapped on my cufflings, and the last thing I do before I leave the house is spray Cheez Whiz all over myself.” And he’s right. It’s totally out of left field, and the audience didn’t dig it. Starting with the second season, the laugh track was gone, and the show became more interesting. Frankly I’m not sure there’s a better example of the medium dictating the message–at least, not that I’ve seen. While many things were done right on that show, the laugh track helped to mis-inform casual viewers of it’s categorization as a sitcom. Instead, the show really fit the bill of a comedy, neither designed to be too funny nor too solemn.
February 7, 2008 at 12:51 am
I think the medium as the message starts before the choice of single cam, multi-cam, etc. As a want-to-be writer, my first choice of lens for writing starts before that. Stories depend on whether we are talking about film, television, internet, phone, radio, whatever. The industry is now discovering that you can’t take a story made for one of them, and transplant it to others, especially the internet and mobile. I know I am preaching to the choir on this, but the simple fact is that the decision for which type of broader medium is an early choice that must be made, and essentially locks that story into a certain type forever since the methods of pitching and turnaround are so dramatically different.
When we get inside our tv box, how do we want it to feel? For Bumblef*ck, what is the message? Like Patrick said, single cam will certainly give it a feeling. How are we going to shoot it, at 24 or 29 fps? What if we did do 24 to give it a slower, more cinematic feel? I like the idea that our project might feel bigger than it is, and I support any means of making that happen, both in writing and in technical aspects. When we watched that one example of the VMAs last week, I really liked it. You might say it took the live edginess away, but I don’t like the notion that everything live has to be edgy. These things have a lot of planning and preparation that go into making them big and interesting. Why can’t we see that? I can watch sports on TV for edgy liveness.
One thing about 6% was that I thought the HD was too good sometimes. I remember seeing seems in the set walls, and a few other things. Watching these shows, we know they are on a set, but it works because it is close enough to warrant suspension of disbelief. When I see the construction, it makes suspension harder.
February 7, 2008 at 12:52 am
In response to some of you who have been saying that “the medium is not the only factor” and “you wouldn’t have a show without the writing, story, characters, etc.”; I think the medium is the essential part of a show’s success. The way a show is shot is almost decided without any argument because, as we discovered today, you just know what the feel of the show should be by talking about it. However, if a show should ever stray from its natural environment, the whole suffers because of its being out of place. For example, the live ER episode we watched a clip of looked terrible. It just wasn’t the same for me. It lost its hook, its appeal and I had no interest in watching. In addition, there are many shows that are quite bad (According To Jim, Two and Half Men) that would never ever work in any other way. Now, one might argue its crappy in multi cam as well, and it is, but it’s still going and people still watch it. It’s fits the comfortable formula of cheesy sitcom so it is accepted by people. It has its laughs and punchlines built into a formula that people can easily watch and know what’s happening. Once we leave this cocoon of comfortable and easy television, maybe these bad shows can finally become extinct and tv can evolve into a higher form of entertainment.
February 7, 2008 at 12:58 am
I know that the blog question wants us to “Explain how various production processes influence the content of television stories,” but a quote from Bill Carter’s article tells me otherwise “[Bill Lawrence, Garrett Donovan, and Neil Goldman] thought … that most traditional sitcoms had begun failing not because of form but because of quality: they were all bad.”
From that standpoint, no matter how a television story is created, be it Multicamera, Single Camera, Hybrid Camera, Film, Video or HD, the content of the story is the most important.
For example, yes, the visuals of “Lost” are beautiful, but if the one-hour episode was filled with a crappy story, horrible acting, and nonsensical dialogue, the program would be get canceled ASAP.
However, since the content is great, it produce process just compliments it (inadequate acting, great locations, and silly stories only seem to work for programs like “Baywatch,” which no one watches for content or expects them to win Emmys).
I understand that if a show is shot with multi-camera setup versus a single-camera setup, the set, production costs, etc will vary.
I’m going to counter the “medium is the message” quote with another quote by someone I can’t remember: “Content is king.”
It is true that we are filming our show with a single-camera setup, but that is only because the content that Stephanie has created has made us do so.
If she created a show complete with slapstick comedy, then perhaps we would go with the multi-camera route, since shows like “Seinfeld” and “I Love Lucy” (it’s a classic!) have that proven to be successful.
February 7, 2008 at 1:01 am
Correction:
The sentence should read:
“However, since the content is great, its production process just compliments it”