Elisberg Industries
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Products
    • Books
    • Movies
  • About Elisberg Industries
    • Our Corporate Board
    • Information Overstock
    • Elisberg Industries Entertainment Information
    • Elisberg Statistical Center of American Research
    • Consultancy Service
  • Contact
    • How to Find Us
  • Kudos
  • Good Things to Know
    • The BOB Page
    • Sites You Might Actually Like
Decent Quality Since 1847

TV, or Not TV, That is the Question

7/31/2013

1 Comment

 
An article here in Think Progress by Alyssa Rosenberg covers a Directors Guild symposium, headed by DGA president Paris Barclay.  The article tries to make the case that (what a surprise!) TV is a directors medium.  She seems to buy into the flimflammery, and links to an article by New York magazine TV critic Matt Zoller Seitz -- written however for the website Vulture -- which she refers to as a "flag-planting piece."  That article, which you can read here, has at its core the statement --

"The notion persists that TV is not a director’s medium—that any creativity comes from the writer or producer, whose jobs fuse in the P.T. Barnum–esque title 'showrunner.'

"But here’s the thing: It isn’t true and maybe never was."

Mr. Seitz's article is thoughtful and well-written.  And it's admirable in the attention he gives to subject and its history.  It also comes across as huge  revisionist theory, and has little bearing on how television shows are, and have been, physically made. 

It's important for me to put a big disclaimer here.  I traded a bunch of tweets with Mr. Seitz over the article.  (A terrible medium to do such a thing.)  In them, he makes some points that I thoroughly agree with.  That directors shouldn't be totally dismissed as meaningless in TV and its history, and that directors shouldn't be denigrated in TV any more than writers should be in cinema.  And he ended by noting --

@RobertElisberg @AlyssaRosenberg Much as I admire Paris Barclay, I fear he re-framed my argument to suit his own purposes & distorted it.

— Matt Zoller Seitz (@mattzollerseitz) July 31, 2013
If all I had read were the tweets, I think I'd almost completely agree with Mr. Seitz (a very good and thoughtful critic who tends to care about the subjects he writes about, something rare and impressive).

But I read both articles, and whatever his and Ms. Rosenberg's intent, I think another impression comes through.  Even if that wasn't the intent, I fear most readers will think otherwise.  And I also think that in his trying to make a perfectly reasonable case, too much bending in the other direction took place, and therefore suggests offering another perspective.

What Mr. Seitz does do is postulate a well-presented theory about how our perception of TV is due to it being such a new medium.  He writes --

"One explanation is that movies have a half-century head start on TV, so there’s been more time for critics to settle on terms and definitions. I like to tell people that TV, as both business and art, is at roughly the same place in its development as cinema was in the late fifties, around the time that the French floated the auteur theory. We’re still figuring out who the “author” is on TV shows."

Leaving aside the argument of the "auteur" theory that drives writers nuts, and has always been a sort of self-congratulatory flagellation (there's a legendary, perhaps mythic story about the writer Robert Riskin walking into his partner's office, the director Frank Capra, dropping a blank ream of paper on his desk and saying, "Let's see you give that the Famous Capra Touch"), this TV theory above -- while understandable -- doesn't have a significant enough overlap with history.  Early movies were always a director's medium, most particularly because there was no sound!  Early TV was always a writers medium because of it was radio that had a camera stuck in front of the actors.  It has nothing to do with a half-century head start.  And further, there is no argument about whether directors are the "author" on TV shows.  Except perhaps in the DGA -- and I'm not sure even there.  Maybe with Paris Barclay.

I have a great friend who directs on a successful TV show and was recently made a producer on the show.  He was initially hired and later promoted by a mutual good friend of ours -- a writer...who is the showrunner in charge of everything on the series.  My friend the director loves directing and directors.  I can't even begin to imagine him walking up to our showrunner friend and explaining that he's the author of the episode he's directed.  First of all, the show has been on the air for about five years.  (A writer created it.)  Each year, the writing staff comes in 3-4 months early, ahead of everyone, and breaks down the entire season ahead of time, what the episodes will be, how the season's stories will develop, how characters will develop, and then begin writing the shows.  About 10 days before an episode is to be shot, the director finally comes in.  He gets up to speed, shoots the episode, oversees the editing -- with the showrunner -- and leaves.  And the writing staff continues writing, developing and planning the rest of the season.

“One of the common perceptions,” Alyssa Rosenberg writes in her article, “ is that directors in television are simply translating the on-page vision of the writers and show-runners.”  This leads to Paris Barclay correcting that supposed mis-perception. And it comes from one of the funniest lines in the Mr. Seitz’s article is when one particular director proudly states that he goes on location scouts, which somehow seems to endow him with great authorship powers, he apparently believes.  If that's the case, then the set designer who goes along also has claims to authorship, as does the location scout...and all the writers on the scout.

Mr. Seitz singles out specific shows, specific episodes and specific shots to push his theory that TV is a director's medium.  And all the examples indeed are great samples of directors doing impressive work.  It's one of the things he does well, as a student of TV history.

But still.

Forgetting for a moment singling out specific shots -- or even especially well-directed series -- what most critics (of TV and film alike) tend to overlook is that sometimes there's a really great shot because (are you ready?) -- it was described in the script!  Not always, to be sure, but seriously, it really does happen.  No, really.  It does.

By the way, to be clear, there are absolutely magnificently-directed TV series.  And directors at their most basic do solid, critical jobs in television.  But to single out "Remember that shot where...?" as proof of authorship is to ignore the road that got you to that shot, even if you single out a dozen example, or hundreds.  There are 700 minutes of script for just one single TV show in a single season.  Multiply that by all the shows every week, of every network, of every season, of every decade for the history of television.  There darn well better be some great shots in there.  And great directed episodes, and great-directed shows.  And there are.

And it's important to remember to that, much as film directors like to talk about the characters they helped mold in their movie (that a writer created), in TV that actor and character has been created and well-set and solidly established long before most directors step on the set. There's very little explaining who a character is and what he or she is thinking, when that character may have existed for three years already, or far longer, on the page and in the performance.

And again, almost all those great directors came to the show a week or so before the episode, while the writers oversaw it all.  Mr. Seitz notes that today directors are producers on series.  True.  But this is a new manifestation, as he himself notes.  Not something that always "was."  And those directors-now-producers proudly now are staff are themselves surrounded by a full staff of producers who are almost all writers.

Moreover, a TV sits in a home.  The audience invites its series in.  And decides if it wants to invite you back week after week.  And the heart of that is whether that audiences sitting at home (or watching on a computer or tablet) likes the characters.  And is involved in the story.  No matter how brilliantly directed a show may be (and many are) -- its character and story that involve an audience and get you invited back.  A one-off feature film can bowl you over with cinematic magic.  A TV series -- series -- has to get you asking it to come back.

Please note:  it is no denigration of directors to say that TV is a writers medium.  Nor should anyone suggest that directors don't play an important part, as Mr. Seitz notes.  They absolutely play an important part, just as writers do in feature film.  However, it's a writers medium not because writers are Better or More Important that directors -- that's a matter of ego and subjectivity -- it's a writers medium for a very objective reason:  because reality demands it.

And this, for all I've written above, is really the most important thing why the theory of TV being a directors medium has no bearing in reality.

That's because Nature gives us seven days in a week.  And 24 hours in a day.  And 60 minutes in an hour.  And no matter how hard you try -- you just can't get around that.

A feature film might have a detailed schedule down to the day, but it's free-floating, and if a director goes over-schedule, he might get chewed out or even fired, but the movie will flow on and eventually finish.  When cutting that movie together, it might be 107 minutes -- but if it's decided to recut the film and an extra minute gets added, fine, it'll end up 108 minutes.  If a movie's release date has to get moved, so be it.

But when How I Met Your Mother is scheduled for 8 PM on a Monday -- it darn well better go on at 8 PM on Monday, and it better be exactly, to the dot, 22 minutes and 30 seconds.  (Or whatever the requirement is.) 

TV schedules are voracious monsters, and their demanding needs must, must, must be met.  There's no wiggle room for a director wanting to get the perfect shot, or keep doing retakes until he or she gets it just right, or trying to experiment with an interesting angle or...well, fill in the blank.  Almost all of that has been worked out long before by the writers, in the writers' room.  Down to the second.  There occasionally can be some room for rich creativity by directors, and we see the results of that and revel in those results and appreciate them.  There are great, visual TV shows and moments.  But even then, the writers are usually on the set, watching everything, and making sure that it's all correct, and tweaking it as it goes along.  (Look for a writer on a movie set, and you might need a telescope.)  That's because the voracious beast of the Realty of the Schedule is always rearing its ugly head in TV.  We Need the Episode Now.  Get it Done.  It Must Be Shot, It Must Be Edited. It Must Be Gotten to the Network by 2 PM on Tuesday.  Must.  Must.  It MUST Be on the Air. on Friday.  At 9 PM.  And Off at 9:27:30.

Must.

That's why TV is a writers medium.  There's no other alternative.  It's not about creativity or talent -- though the best of TV is wildly creative and majestically talented.  It's because Nature created a week with 7 days.

And no amount of revising history, no matter how thoughtful or well-written, will ever change that.  Nor, as long as Nature is around, can it.

I admire that Mr. Seitz is trying to right a wrong, where the contributions of directors in TV shouldn’t be denigrated.  And of course he’s absolutely right about that.  But I suspect that this colored my perception of the article, since for 50 years writers have been trying to correct the perception of the Director As Auteur  in movies – and much longer, the concept that writers just “word it in.”  Writers being denigrated doesn’t even begin to describe it.  “Schmucks with Underwoods” is how famed studio owner Jack Warner depicted them and their typewriters.  So, to finally see a correction, and have it be how poor directors have been overlooked, it just went too far for me.  I know the article was about just television, but in ignoring the larger history, and in going so overboard to change a perception (one which, by the way, I do believe is based on a valid truth) an unfair sensibility was given.

In the end, I'm glad to know that the point Matt Zoller Seitz says he was making is something I largely agree with.  I just think the article -- with its solid thought and scholarship -- leaned too far in trying to make a point, and left out what are to me more valuable realities.  I think that happens sometimes.  You want to make a point and focus on it.  And though the point behind it valid, the larger truth gets shunted to the side.
1 Comment
Kevin
7/31/2013 03:04:22 am

The claim is boarderline insane. Some directors are incredibly talented and elevate the episode to be sure - but any hint of authorship is ridiculous. Not only are shots described in script, directors have hours long tone meetings with showrunners where every scene is described and shots discussed. If the director deviates too far from the look of the show - decided on by said showrunner - the AD will call the showrunner. The location scout the director went on? Probably had a writer guiding, and if it didn't, was led by a location scout the showrunner chose and who has a clear idea of the kinds of locations the showrunner likes, with locations probably previously vetted by the showrunner.
Rather than using cinema to make the case for directors under appreciated role in TV, you could also use TV to make the case for writers underappreciated role in cinema. But authority in both seems to be granted by one thing: Who has the last word. In cinema, the director could feed lines to a character that are not in the script. He or she could certainly re order script in editing. But in TV, not only does the writer have the first word, they have the last. They can overrule the director at any point, and have final cut.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Picture
    Picture
    Elisberg Industries gets a commission if you click here before shopping on Amazon.
    Picture
    Follow @relisberg

    Author

    Robert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. 

    Elisberg is a two-time recipient of the Lucille Ball Award for comedy screenwriting. He's written for film, TV, the stage, and two best-selling novels, is a regular columnist for the Writers Guild of America and was for
    the Huffington Post.  Among his other writing, he has a long-time column on technology (which he sometimes understands), and co-wrote a book on world travel.  As a lyricist, he is a member of ASCAP, and has contributed to numerous publications.

    Picture
           Available on Amazon

    Picture
           Available on Amazon

    Picture
           Feedspot Badge of Honor

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013

    Categories

    All
    Animals
    Audio
    Audio Land
    Books
    Business
    Chicago
    Consumer Product
    Education
    Email Interview
    Entertainment
    Environment
    Fine Art
    Food
    From The Management
    Health
    History
    Huffery
    Humor
    International
    Internet
    Journalism
    Law
    Los Angeles
    Media
    Morning News Round Up
    Movies
    Music
    Musical
    Personal
    Photograph
    Piano Puzzler
    Politics
    Popular Culture
    Profiles
    Quote Of The Day
    Radio
    Religion
    Restaurants
    Science
    Sports
    Technology
    Tech Tip
    Theater
    The Writers Workbench
    Tidbits
    Travel
    Tv
    Twitter
    Video
    Videology
    Well Worth Reading
    Words-o-wisdom
    Writing

    RSS Feed

© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2025
Contact Us    About EI    Chicago Cubs
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Products
    • Books
    • Movies
  • About Elisberg Industries
    • Our Corporate Board
    • Information Overstock
    • Elisberg Industries Entertainment Information
    • Elisberg Statistical Center of American Research
    • Consultancy Service
  • Contact
    • How to Find Us
  • Kudos
  • Good Things to Know
    • The BOB Page
    • Sites You Might Actually Like