It’s plenty old nonetheless—and, as with everything old, seemingly ever new. It is always being freshly discovered. Every six or seven months, some venerable magazine or newspaper discovers that there are playwrights (playwrights!) writing for television. There’s a kind of undercurrent of marvel to these articles: Isn’t it just so amazing that playwrights (playwrights, I say again!) are supporting themselves with money earned by writing? And writing for television, no less? The idiot box! The boob tube! Come, everyone, and gawk at the geeks, these articles seem to say. Behold the half-artist/half-hacks!
Yep, it’s an old, old story—even older than the dawn of television. It follows an old Faustian template, in which artists sell their souls in exchange for filthy lucre.
This is not that story. Not at all.
2 comments:
The basic idea that I got from this article is that TV is a more stable industry than theater, and therefore many playwrights are turning to television. I felt like this was kind of a pointless distinction to make-- clearly, TV is more easily accessible than theater in the most practical sense, not even taking into about the social implications behind both theater and television. The thing that I didn't understand is the reasoning behind the old stereotype that playwrights only turn to television once they can't make it in theater anymore. The only explanation I can think of is that, because television is a more readily available platform and caters to the masses, it is considered less valuable than theater. I feel like, especially with the attitude towards television that the article describes, this is an outdated concept and therefore doesn't really make sense in the current context. From a completely plebian perspective, I don't understand the difference in value between writing for theater and writing for television, although there may be a cultural/artistic difference in value that I don't take into consideration.
Perhaps somewhat naively, I had no idea there was such a divide and dichotomization between playwrights and writers for theatre in contrast to writers for television programming. And I certainly never conceptualized - as many people evidently do - as one form of writing being lesser than another. I view writers that move from stage to screen, or vice versa, as merely pursuing another interesting option. While there is a great monetary difference between the two worlds, it is nigh impossible to be in either region of show business (theatrical or screen) for the money. As Sarah Treem outlined, time with one medium can improve and enhance one's abilities and craft in the other. It is frustrating and narrow sighted for people to belittle one form as inferior to the other. I think there needs to be more widespread recognition of the fact that there is a very substantial difference between the mediums themselves, and that the strength of both can sometimes lie in their commonalities.
Post a Comment