In a rare moment, I actually did the most cursory bit of research as the idea for today’s post was forming in my mind. As readers of previous posts will know, I am a big watcher of television. Not only that, I am a passionate advocate for television. I have plenty of cinephile friends and, in yet another form of FOMO and/or imposter syndrome which I am afflicted by, I always been like the poor relation in any discussion about film (note, American friends = films, not movies, films). This dynamic is further contorted by the frequent lack of reciprocity when you try to discuss TV with film-loving friends. Everyday conversation still to some degree still reflects the long-standing bias towards cinema as the superior art form. That bias though is changing.
That change is where my research came in. I remembered reading an article, perhaps in the New Statesman, which talked about the growth of television as an art form. A quick search and I rediscovered the piece: Ed Smith arguing that if William Shakespeare were alive today he’d be writing for HBO (beware the paywall). The emergence of major shows (with major budgets) certainly lends this argument credence; with more and more actors and creatives jumping from the big screen to the small screen, exemplified recently by Harrison Ford making his TV debut in the Yellowstone-prequel 1923 (and making his second major TV appearance in the soon to be released Apple TV show Shrinking).
Trying to track down that article, I read that The Guardian’s Stuart Heritage was making the same argument: the opportunities for storytelling with deep character development and expanding a universe are great strength’s in televisions arsenal. For me, changes to the way we consume our television is also helping the medium. Historically, where television was accessed via channels, our choices of what to watch were limited (albeit these limitations were lessened by the advents of cable/satellite) but also how we watched. Waiting each week for the latest episode of a serial or season; or even day-to-day for the new instalment of a soap, the inflexibility of TV and inevitable incompatibility with our lives from time to time meant that some people couldn’t get into shows in the same way. Now, between streaming services and catch-up services, we can pretty much watch what we want when we want. While some shows retain the novelty of a weekly release, others allow for a binge at the point of launch.
Another shift could probably be summarised as ‘less is more’. When TV was dominated by channels, especially in the US, shows conformed to the rhythms of TV seasons and very often this came with a certain number of episodes being rolled out each year. This limited what shows could achieve and the quality it could sustain. Now, with more and more shows only ever produced with streaming in mind, executives and creatives can produce shorter seasons, hopefully giving the show a better chance of being all killer, no filler.
One yet-to-be-seen evolution in the fast-changing landscape of television is the future of channels. I suppose the strength of channels is the sense of identity which they have, which informs their content, and their reputation which is build on quality control. Channels all have to have an audience in mind, whether broad or niche. So with the advent of streaming services, channels can double-down on gate-keeping and tailoring a quality-controlled curated service for their target audience. There is definitely a role for this and, I think, a desirable service which is qualitatively different to the learning algorithms used by streaming platforms.
The other still-to-be-seen evolution, this time in ongoing tussle between small screen and big screen, is the impact of streaming services on films. Films make up a big chunk of streaming services offers. There will always be an audience for films. I guess the potential threat of TV means films need to double-down on what makes them different to TV. They need to tell stories in a way which is specially suited to cinematic conventions. And there will always be some stories which are especially suited to watching in a cinema itself. Cinema is already working out that it needs to be an event. It is no longer just a way of consuming media. There is an atmospheric and social dimension to going to the cinema, of watching a film in the company of others, even though they are mainly strangers. Then there is the physical dimension of the silver screen. Films like Star Wars, Avatar or No Time To Die are simply better when you watch them on a cinema screen. How many of these films can be turned out each year, of sufficient pulling power, is the big question here. The answer to that question is central to the future of cinemas around the world. For sure, there will always be cinema-lovers, in the cinema-going sense, who will watch independent and arthouse features, which possibly do translate readily to watching in the comfort of your own home and which wouldn’t get most people to go out to watch, but is the cinema industry going to give up on the commercial mainstream theatre-goers?
I don’t think it is obvious where cinemas will end up. That isn’t keeping me awake at night though. As I say, I’m a very proud television lover (a telephile, according to that well-known bastion of language called Urban Dictionary) and after a decade which has given us Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, the resurgence of Star Trek, the proper arrival of Star Wars on the small screen, The Crown and countless other shows, I’m happy bingeing on my box sets.
Commonplace 