John August says: TV dramas better than films

[P.G. Bauhaus]

Re: John August says: TV dramas better than films

My friends and I have Desperate Housewives parties. We laugh and laugh through the pain that is the drama of our lives.

We've never, however, had a The Notebook party (which is the only movie I've seen recently). I think that spells it out pretty clearly.

And is that because of Desperate Housewives' dazzling narrative complexity and daring experimentation? Or because it's on every week and you've gotten to know the characters over a period of years and it has become a communal ritual?

[sarajb]

Re: John August says: TV dramas better than films

Estrogen overload.

[P.G. Bauhaus]

Re: John August says: TV dramas better than films

And how are those shows more creative and complex than cinema?

More to the point, can anyone point to one storytelling technique that a TV show has pioneered recently that could be used as evidence of this narrative complexity or convention busting? Apparently August thinks that Desperate Housewives' narration (narration!) is noteworthy despite the fact that narration has been increasingly popular in movies recently. Personally I think the narration in DH is laughably bad and almost as groanworthy as Carrie's little "witticisms" in Sex And The City.

[Biohazard]

Re: John August says: TV dramas better than films

More than one writer works on a TV episode. It's a room full of people all discussing the same ideas, pointing out what might work and what will not and why. It's similar to what Pixar does...so perhaps their movies are so much better than most others. Plot-hole free, entertaining stories with depth of character and superb structure.

To me, movies and TV are pretty much the same in terms of quality. There's good and there's absolutely awful...the former being more rare than the latter in both instances. The thing with TV is that it lasts through multiple seasons where as a movie is here and gone, so people are seeing greatness after greatness with each episode of certain shows every week, where as a movie is over in 2 hours.

[sc111]

Re: John August says: TV dramas better than films

Since P.G. asked, here's my take on John's list:

Narrative complexity -- Story. Layered with more complexity both in plot and character. Too many films are highly predictable. 'This title' meets 'that title' rehash. Second acts which drag because a thin story line was stretched to cover 1.5 hours.

Aggressive questioning of movie conventions -- IMO this means take risks on the conventions of genre as it relates to story & character, perhaps even structure.

Creative one-upsmanship. Something new verses going with tried-and-true. Pulp fiction when first released one-upped previous fare in its genre on a number of levels. Further back -- Lethal Weapon did the same, essentially created a sub-genre: buddy action-comedy. I can't name one film in the last 5 years which has done the same. Maybe someone else can.

Surprise over spectacle -- this one's straight-forward. Too many big special effects, eye candy that sometimes has nothing to do with the story. Just big boom-booms that play well in trailers.

Directors who give a **** about dialogue -- Self explanatory.

Corners that haven’t been rounded off -- Dumbed down story, dialogue, stereotype characters. Exposition for the masses.


On one of my scripts I received notes from my reps to rewrite because it was "too smart." So I asked, "You want me to dumb down the dialogue." "A little -- people may not get it." "Did you get it?" "Well yeah but most people won't."

I was also asked to add exposition to make something I had shown in the action lines clearer because, I was told, "Execs read down the middle. They'll miss it in the action lines. Call their attention to it in the dialogue."

Yet, I've been watching Sopranos in reruns paying attention to technique across the board. John August is right -- TV is no longer radio with pictures. Gone are the days of exposition and heavy-handed story telling yet the same has seeped into film.

[deadeye]

Re: John August says: TV dramas better than films

Tv does have the luxury of having the time to hook people in and really explore character. If the show is given the time. They often aren't.

At the risk of stating the very obvious, TV and movies are different mediums. catering to different audiences.
Movies are about immediate gratification. A transient ' I must see this' That doesn't mean explosions and gratuitious sex, though they help

The real question is what is quality? And that is very subjective. Why was Firefly cancelled, or Family Guy, or Studio 60?

There are many more Tv shows produced and aired than movies. Most don't make the cut in the US. Possibly for very good reasons. But no one gives a damn who the writer was.

The worst thing that can happen is that TV mentality takes on the same economic outlook as movie mentality. Tv shouldn't care about opening weekend. They should care about weeks down the line and a loyal audience. Because you are telling great stories with great characters week after week.

[sc111]

Re: John August says: TV dramas better than films

The way I read John August's argument is this:

Over the years, TV has become better. Often stealing from the film tradition.

Over the years, films have not become better. Hollywood often forgetting what it used to know. Even when they remake films they often strip away what was good about the original. (Stepford Wives remake for example -- oh what a sad thing is was.)

Look at the films that have become classics, some only 15 years old and now considered among the classics.

How many films made in the last 5 years would you say will become classics 10-15 years down the road. Other than Scorcese films? Considering his era he proves my point.

[sarajb]

Re: John August says: TV dramas better than films

I can't really speak for straight dramas, because I don't tend enough toward them for TV or movies, but where action, comedy and fantasy (and the drama therein) are concerned, the slight edge goes to movies, imo.

Btw, I think long before Lethan Weapon, Butch and Sundance qualified as buddy action comedy. I'll give some thought to current "innovations" for lack of better word, though, sc.

I think maybe TV has perhaps caught up with movies in some of the areas talked about or is more like them than ever before, but I wouldn't say it's better. I'm far more pumped to go see movies than I am about watching any TV show, in fact there isn't one on my must see list, right now.

This will likely change, should Time Warner ever get their act together and hook up my cable (dream of Californication!).

[deadeye]

Re: John August says: TV dramas better than films

How many films made in the last 5 years would you say will become classics 10 years down the road.

Who can say? Casablanca and Citizen Cane bombed at the box office on release.

I hear what you say though. I'd go for LOR 2, Wedding Crashers, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and Meet The Parents.

Like good wine, they'll improve with age

[sc111]

Re: John August says: TV dramas better than films

True -- Butch/Sundance might qualify for the buddy-action comedy genre retroactively but it was a Western for the most part. And you did not see a slew of buddy-action Westerns being produced after it was made.

Leathal Weapon solidified the sub-genre in execs minds in terms of marketing. I'm not saying it was an earth-shattering advance in film history. I'm just saying they took a chance on a cross genre, a chance that paid off.

I haven't seen many films lately that take real, new chances.

[P.G. Bauhaus]

Re: John August says: TV dramas better than films

Narrative complexity -- Story. Layered with more complexity both in plot and character. Too many films are highly predictable. 'This title' meets 'that title' rehash. Second acts which drag because a thin story line was stretched to cover 1.5 hours.

To me that mostly seems to be a function of the length of time that TV shows have to develop characters and ongoing storylines. If anything, individual TV show episodes are even more predictable and formulaic than your average movie. I think the litmus test is to take the plot of any individual TV episode and try to picture if it would work as a 90 minute movie. If it weren't for the audience's deep interest in the TV characters, developed over an extended period of time, most TV plots wouldn't work very well at all in my opinion.

Aggressive questioning of movie conventions -- IMO this means take risks on the conventions of genre as it relates to story & character, perhaps even structure.

I know what he means, I just think that the idea that this happens in TV and not in movies is laughable and I haven't seen any good examples to convince me otherwise. Where is a TV show that is half as agressively weird and experimental as Adaptation or Being John Malkovich?

Creative one-upsmanship. Something new verses going with tried-and-true. Pulp fiction when first released one-upped previous fare in its genre on a number of levels. Further back -- Lethal Weapon did the same, essentially created a sub-genre: buddy action-comedy. I can't name one film in the last 5 years which has done the same. Maybe someone else can.

Lethal Weapon? OK. I'm not sure how that movie managed to create the buddy action-comedy 18 years after Butch Cassady and the Sundance Kid.

But anyway, you're going to tell me that there's not a creative one-upsmanship at play in movies like Sin City or 300. Of course that's a crass one-upmanship of visual spectacle and not something writerly. How about Charlie Kaufman or Wes Anderson and their legion of imitators?

Surprise over spectacle -- this one's straight-forward. Too many big special effects, eye candy that sometimes has nothing to do with the story. Just big boom-booms that play well in trailers.
Directors who give a **** about dialogue -- Self explanatory.
Corners that haven't been rounded off -- Dumbed down story, dialogue, stereotype characters. Exposition for the masses.

With these three, I know what he means and they sort of feel nice as soundbytes but I'm not really seeing the evidence. Maybe it's just me.

When I saw Brokeback Mountain I never once thought "I sure wish this movie didn't rely so much on spectacle." I have never seen a movie in my life and thought "gee, I sure wish this director gave a **** about dialog." In fact I'm glad that the '90s style tarantino/kevinsmith-esque gabfest trend is over. Rounded off corners, dumbed down stories, stereotyped characters and exposition for the masses? TV shows never suffer from those problems? Again, for August's list of 6 TV shows from a 7 year period, I could probably name 100 movies from that same time span that blow any TV show ever made out of the water. With the exception of Twin Peaks of course.



Thanks for the response!

[P.G. Bauhaus]

Re: John August says: TV dramas better than films

Oops, I see others beat me to the Butch/Sundance reference while I was typing that book.

[P.G. Bauhaus]

Re: John August says: TV dramas better than films

How many films made in the last 5 years would you say will become classics 10-15 years down the road. Other than Scorcese films? Considering his era he proves my point.

Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, Eternal Sunshine..., Rushmore, Royal Tenenbaums, Pan's Labyrinth, Children of Men, Brokeback Mountain, Pirates of the Carribean, Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Harry Potter (more for the whole phenomenon than the specific quality of the movies themselves), Monsters Inc. (pick your favorite Pixar movie), Borat, 40 Year Old Virgin, Kung Fu Hustle, Shaolin Soccer. Those are just a few off the top of my head from the last decade. Some may be stretching back too far but I don't feel like checking dates

[deadeye]

Re: John August says: TV dramas better than films

Thanks for the response!

Nice post.

Though I would say that formula is anthema as far as a writer is concerned, no matter what the medium. A writer sometimes, heck largely, has to fit story into what will sell. The trick is to retain the truth of why you wanted to do it in the first place.

[sc111]

Re: John August says: TV dramas better than films

Over in the TV forum I've been giving Mad Men a thumbs down. However, I have stuck with it to see if there's anything I can steal in terms of technique.

And I have to say it's growing on me. It's been promo-ed as along the lines of Sopranos but it really isn't. It's entirely different. So when I told myself to stop comparing it to the Sopranos and let it be itself, I'm digging it more.

There was a recent scene when the big ad exec Drapper was getting irritated with a client who was playing wag-the-dog. Essentially dictating his ad campaign -- as if Drapper was a secretary.

So Drapper takes a risk, rises to his feet and essentially dismisses the client. He makes a remark about the meeting being no more than Kabuki theatre.

Now, I bet many viewers never heard of Kabuki theatre. But instead of taking it out of the script the writers do something brilliant. They have the client say, "I have no idea what Kabuki theatre is but sit down." And the client submits to Drapper's direction -- no more wag-the-dog.

Having an ad agency background I know this little excahnge is still true today. And there is a technique we ad people use when we have a client trying to turn us into highly paid stenographers. Some call it getting a leash on the client. Show the lient they're not good enough for you. So I know how real the scene was.

One could agrue that the masses don't have an inside clue to the workings of ad agencies. But who cares? You teach the audience something. You surprise them.

I've loved films since I was a little kid. Many films were over my head -- and they taught me something. Sometimes forcing me to look up a word to make sure I understood it.

TV is aiming higher. Films, not so much. Jeeze -- I've seen TV commercials that dare to be smarter. Dare to aim above the mass audiences heads.