Posted on January 9, 2010 at 11:20 PM |
A decade ago, such a question would be ludicrous. Television, better than film? Preposterous! Television is free to all and cheap to make; it merely acts as a means for corporations to promote their soul-destroying merchandise, whereas film... well film IS the product people are going out and paying for, and therefore its quality must be above reproach.
But these days... well, I look at shows like Dexter, Brotherhood, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Shield, The Office, 30 Rock, Battlestar Galactica, The Sopranos, The Wire (hell, anything on HBO!) -- televison of such beautful writing, staggering performances, awe-inspiring production values, and thematic boldness... And then I turn my gaze to the silver screen, with its jive-talking robots, tween star-vehicles, torture porn, coma-inducing CGI, and endless thread of remakes/sequels & videogame/comic-book adaptations, and and I can't help but wonder if cinema, like the music industry, has declined to the point of utter cultural irrelevance. I mean, how hollow do films like 3:10 to Yuma and Troy look in comparison to the gravitas of Deadwood or Rome. Sigh...
Now, obviously I realize 80% of television is still reality-show/talent-contest/tabloid-driven/formulaic drivel, and there have been some top-notch films released this year (e.g. Inglorious Basterds, District 9, Samson and Delilah)... BUT if I want something new; something fresh, something gritty and complex and deep; something that treats me like an adult, rather than some ADD-infected, testosterone-fueled, sex-crazed, illiterate 13-year old... I find myself flicking to the TV Guide rather than the Session Times. Thoughts?
The words you entered did not match the given text. Please try again.
Oops!
Oops, you forgot something.