Pro Film, Evie Deavall
Film is Art and Television is not. By ‘Film’, I’m not referring to the mediocre and shoddy: television can rival that any day. Instead, I’m talking about the gritty, consequential stuff: the sort of thing that wins Oscars. If you get a really ‘good’ Film, for example, something by Jeunet, Arnold or Bigelow, its basic aim is to combine visual and audio elements with an uncompromising plotline to create a sensical indulgence: films such as Amélie, The Wave and The Shining immediately spring to mind. Ultimately, a Film is just another way of channelling creativity. Your senses are heightened; you become alarmingly aware of the physical and emotional world around you. Films draw out raw, deep-seated emotion; Film exploits human vulnerabilities. This is the purpose of Film.
You may argue that Television too can offer a gripping storyline, character development and visual niceties; programmes such as the BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, Spooks and the critically acclaimed and visually arresting Wallander are good examples of this. The difference is, however, that the medium of Television is vacuous, void of depth and appeals only to the apathetic masses who watch, passively, to kill time. With Television you drift, oblivious, in and out of a storyline but with Film you will be dragged kicking and screaming.
What, then, is the purpose of Television? To be honest, its almost acceptable if the only thing that Television does is provide light entertainment and escapism. But what I do take issue with is audiences concentrating their energy on Television when Film can offer them so much more. When it comes down to it, however, you cannot compare the two. This is not because they are such different media, but because they are, in essence, polar opposites of the same medium: Film as the crowning glory and Television lagging far, far behind. Hence, it is hardly worth the comparison.
Pro TV: Helen Pye
TV better than film?! Surely they’re completely incomparable! Well you’re right, television is better in so many ways. People think television is just mind-numbing reality programmes and Jeremy Kyle saying ‘put something on the end of it’, and while I admit there is such drivel shown on TV, don’t forget some of the amazing drama that’s available. Think of Desperate Housewives, Lost, Mad Men, The Wire; what do they all have in common? They’re long-running series that people watch week after week, because they take the time to go deeper – characters are developed and sub-plots are introduced. Just think about the intricate story-lines and twists in the US drama FlashForward; a 2-hour film simply doesn’t have the time to develop like television.
Film often resorts to throwing money at CGI to impress people or falling back on a predictable and over-used formula (name any rom-com you like). But there’s more than just entertainment on TV. I’m the first to confess to tuning into channel 4 and catching ‘the man who ate his lover’ or ‘the girl with two faces’ and thoroughly enjoying it. Would I ever have learnt so much if I’d decided to watch Harry Potter instead? And don’t get me started on how much better comedy is on TV with quiz shows, stand-up and sketch shows. Plus watching a TV programme is a social event. Just think about those Christmas days crowded round the TV with your family, glued to Eastenders. Film, conversely, is a couple of hours in a dark cinema being shushed by the irritable person next to you, sticky with popcorn and so uncomfortable it’s hard to focus on the unsatisfying characters on the screen in front of you. Film isn’t ground-breaking now; instead you get a barrage of money-pinning franchises. Film is on its way out while TV is coming into its own so stay home and switch on the TV.
