Film is a visual medium and television is not... but why?

Jon Starr

Jon Starr

Veteran
Alright, so I've gone through the film school route and time and time again I've heard that film is more about visuals, and television is more about talking. When asked why, the answer has always been:

Film's history started without sound, and television 'developed' from radio.

But the question I pose to you guys, is... why? I mean really why? Is it about tradition, or does it have something more to do with how people react to the medium, or what they expect out of the medium?

I'm not talking about live TV, but the fiction. I notice in some shows it's a big emphasis on talking. To be honest if it's done well it keeps me in. There are always exceptions to the rule, but you have some films out there where the first 20 minutes of the film will have no dialogue whatsoever. Why can't there be more 'talky' films and more visual television shows?

(As I'm writing this I can think of a few very talky films, even early films, like the Maltese Falcon, hmmm)

So what is it? Aside from the history? Or is that the only thing? Or am I missing something?
 
This is a good question

TV is indeed too much talk. (Exposition) ?

I cannot even imagine seeing something like NO COUNTRY on ABC Tuesday nights.

If anything, I think TV caters to more White Bread America than any other demographic. This is a good question and I have no idea either Jon.
 
Really? Even these days? There is a lot of pretty amazing television (visually also) out there.

Wouldn't cinema have been a visual medium because of the size of the screen? An 11" black and white CRT wasn't exactly a visual medium, but I'd wager that a 50" hi-def plasma can be.
 
Although television has come a long way and this argument may well be nihil, I'd say it has to do with overall budget and duration, primarily.
 
I suppose with TV, it is something we see each and every week getting to know the characters; which is why we keep watching.
 
I think it's because usually TV has a lot more time to develop things that film doesn't have the time to do, so FILM helps tell the story visually, while TV just explains it with words.
 
Fahad said:
i believe you mean the opposite :)
Click to expand...

a film has 2 hrs. A TV series (if picked up) gets at least 12-22 hrs to play with in a season. Most standard tv shows don't utilize CU's, Inserts, etc to help move the story forward like film does. (mostly thinking sitcoms not shows like Boardwalk Empire, Sopranos, etc)
 
Yeah, I agree with some others here. TV is not so much about exposition as it has the time to grow things. In a film, you have to use a lot more shorthand, which can be done with really great visuals (picture worth a thousand words). TV shows more like novels to me now. Some have great visuals, like Breaking Bad, great art direction MAD MEN, but on the whole they are shot in pretty plain terms, because the focus is on characters and story above all else. I say it all the time, but it's why soap operas can last decades while being shot in the worst ways.
 
Mark Harris said:
great art direction MAD MEN,
Click to expand...

my offices used to be in the building that Mad Men is shot in. LA Center Studios, which was the Union 76 corporate headquarters in the 1960's... and still looks like it today. although one floor is a police dept/fbi set where Numbers and now Law & Order LA shoot.
 
all good points. i'd say another part may have to do with getting people to watch. you go to a movie and the room is dark and quiet (hopefully), so there's really only one thing to focus on. at home there are many distractions, so we may need more than pretty visuals to keep our attention. the more senses the TV can satisfy, the better.
 
Jon Starr said:
Film's history started without sound, and television 'developed' from radio.
Click to expand...

I think there is some truth to that statement, however, these days there are a lot more TV series that are cinematic, or at least very visual. Mad Men, Boardwalk Empire, Breaking Bad, Battlestar Galactica, Caprica, Stargate Universe, Band of Brothers, The Pacific, Deadwood, Lost, and probably more, but those are the first ones that I could think of.

A lot of modern films have plenty of talking too. Now, if we are talking about certain Kubrick films, or Tarkovsky, then yeah, there isn't anything I can think of from the tube that compares to those types of films were just about everything is told through visuals and audio.

Thing is, once sound was introduced, the whole "film is visual" thing kinda got diluted. I'd say now that film is both and audio and a visual medium. Sound is really important to the point where I can't agree with the film is a visual medium statement anymore.
 
I believe it's because with TV they have to keep people engaged even when they are distracted and not looking at the screen. They are trying to deliver viewers for the advertisements, so they need strong sound cues to keep people from losing attention.

Also, TV picture quality was complete garbage for many years, and the cameras were large and relatively immovable, so they couldn't rely on visuals the way they do now with digital cable, satellite and HD.
 
Not sure what the situation is in the US, but I recently had a similar discussion with one of the most well known TV actors here for the last 30 years.

His response to this was that when TV became hugely popular there were no TV writers so they poached them from radio - of course radio is based on exposition so thus the trend continues today.
 
Some really great theories here.

Mark Harris said:
Yeah, I agree with some others here. TV is not so much about exposition as it has the time to grow things. In a film, you have to use a lot more shorthand, which can be done with really great visuals (picture worth a thousand words). TV shows more like novels to me now. Some have great visuals, like Breaking Bad, great art direction MAD MEN, but on the whole they are shot in pretty plain terms, because the focus is on characters and story above all else. I say it all the time, but it's why soap operas can last decades while being shot in the worst ways.
Click to expand...

That's a fair judgement, but what about shows with stand-alone episodes? Say Stargate Atlantis, Chuck, some of the more traditional tv shows. They're all about exposition. Chuck has a lot of action, but they speak about everything they feel. If anything, in this case I argue that exposition/dialogue is used to help speed up time, to tell a story in 44 minutes as opposed to a full hour and half to two hours.

I suppose it depends on how visuals and/or exposition is being used?

For example, something visual may take more time than just having a character explaining it. Say you see the life of one of the characters, rather than someone sitting down and explaining it under 10 seconds. So exposition can be more short-hand than visuals in some cases.

dust'n the callipygous said:
all good points. i'd say another part may have to do with getting people to watch. you go to a movie and the room is dark and quiet (hopefully), so there's really only one thing to focus on. at home there are many distractions, so we may need more than pretty visuals to keep our attention. the more senses the TV can satisfy, the better.
Click to expand...

This actually makes the most sense to me. Tv people can scan through. Exposition doesn't hold back, it tells it like it is, so you can get into it quickly. Film has time to visually tell a story because no one has their hands on a remote.

Noel Evans said:
Not sure what the situation is in the US, but I recently had a similar discussion with one of the most well known TV actors here for the last 30 years.

His response to this was that when TV became hugely popular there were no TV writers so they poached them from radio - of course radio is based on exposition so thus the trend continues today.
Click to expand...

Very true. It's what I mentioned before. It seems to be the old way of thinking. I mean teachers would ingrain this into my head. "Film is visual because it started without sound!" "TV is about talking because it started from Radio!"

But why hold onto that tradition? I'm glad a lot of modern shows are breaking away from that. A lot of people mentioned those more visual shows, like BSG, Mad Men, etc. Though there is still a good amount of dialogue in those shows, I think they're just able to add more visuals, action, movement, etc.

As someone mentioned, I can't see the beginning of no country for old men really working on a TV show.
 
Well, exposition is probably used to save money more than anything else. Many of these shows are basically producing half a movie every week. And when you listen to Ron Moore talk about BSG, he clearly states that when they had a heavy VFX episode, the next one would probably be a talker, because they blew the budget. So I think it's probably more about money than aesthetics. Shakespeare did exactly the same thing for he stuff he couldn't afford to show on stage...
 
I dunno . . . seems like most independent film is about talking. Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of talking. While occasionally lighting cigarettes. (Yes, yes, Sideways, I am looking at you. :) )
 
Mark Harris said:
Well, exposition is probably used to save money more than anything else. Many of these shows are basically producing half a movie every week. And when you listen to Ron Moore talk about BSG, he clearly states that when they had a heavy VFX episode, the next one would probably be a talker, because they blew the budget. So I think it's probably more about money than aesthetics. Shakespeare did exactly the same thing for he stuff he couldn't afford to show on stage...
Click to expand...

That makes more sense to me than anything. Aesthetically you could afford to do things visually. But if anything it's about time and money.

Some people are arguing that you have more time with TV shows. While you have more time to tell a greater story and develop characters, you have very little time for an episode, which is a story in itself with a beginning, middle and end. You can cut out a lot of the set-up, but it's still one story, even if part of a greater story arc.
 
David Jimerson said:
I dunno . . . seems like most independent film is about talking. Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of talking. While occasionally lighting cigarettes. (Yes, yes, Sideways, I am looking at you. :) )
Click to expand...

Ah, but my independent film has a twist. Talking, talking, talking...then lighting pipes...
 
I've always thought of it more in term of TV being a close-up medium (given in part to the smaller screen size), thus more actors blocked in tighter shots. Whereas film has the luxury of a gigantic canvas that can hold much more visual information without having to rely as much on close-ups for the action to be seen/noticed. As a result that huge frame needs to be production designed and is typically much more expensive to pull off.

Generally speaking, talking heads are way cheaper to shoot.


dmc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top