Small Screen Aesthetics

Home , Liquid Television, Norway Corporation

Contents

ACknowledgments iv IntroduCtIon 1 towards a new methodology of media Aesthetics 4 Choices and Chronologies 8

1 EARLY TELEVISION: Creating an Image 11 3 THE CONVERGING SCREEN: The Influence see It now: liveness, Intimacy and Hybridity 15 of Cinema and the Internet on TV 84 CAse study: I Love Lucy (CBs, 1951–7) 26 Home Box office: tV goes to the movies 86 do not Adjust your set: motion, montage and Flow 29 CAse study: The Sopranos (HBo, 1999–2007) 101 CAse study: The Avengers (ABC/ItV, 1961–9) 45 PCtV: tV surfs the web 104 CAse study: Interactive tV 111 2 TV COMES OF AGE: A Medium in Its Own Right 51 liquid television: Promos, Blendos and Pomos 53 4 WEB TV: The New Small Screen 116 CAse study: Cnn International 64 Peepshow: exhibitionism, Authenticity and the real world: Pop docs, Fly-on-the-wall and ‘the graze’ 118 walk and talk 68 CAse study: the webcam 126 CAse study: The Osbournes (mtV, 2002–5) 79 Internet killed television: webisodes, micro-soaps and liquid comics 130 CAse study: Kony 2012 137

ConClusIon: endings and Beginnings 142 notes 145 BIBlIogrAPHy 161 Index 173

InTrODuCTIOn

Aesthetic judgement is one thing and personal taste is another. The values of art, like all else aesthetic, can only be analysed contextually. Abraham Kaplan, ‘The Aesthetics of the Popular Arts’ (1966: 364)

When the ‘cinématographe’ was first revealed to the public in the 1890s, startled spectators were often shown filmed images of charging horses and a speeding train. Francis Doublier presented a Lumière show around Europe in 1896, recalling that sometimes ‘these films even caused panics’, explaining that he ‘had to make a brief speech to convince spectators that neither the horses nor the trains could come out from the screen and endanger the audience’ (cited by Bottomore, 1999: 178). It is arguable whether the ‘train effect’ was actually true or simply part of a clever publicity machine (see ibid.), but such was the undoubted popularity of these short films that the stakes were soon raised and cameras were put onto the front of trains to produce ‘phantom rides’ for a thrilled audience (see Bordwell and Thompson, 1994: 18–19). In stark contrast, when Vladimir K. Zworykin first assembled a complete working electric television system for a demonstration in 1925, it consisted only of an ‘X’ painted on the face of the camera tube.1 A year later, when Édouard Belin and Dr Fernand Holweck gave a demonstration in Paris of their new cathode-ray television system they only showed outlines of faces or figures (see Smith, 1995: 22–3). Even when John Logie Baird successfully produced his first television picture in his laboratory on 2 October 1925, it was the head of a ventriloquist’s dummy (nicknamed ‘Stooky Bill’) that he chose to transmit first.2 These early differences between the cinematic and televisual image can partly be understood through technological considerations, but they also suggest the contrasting expectations that practitioners and audiences have traditionally possessed with regards to the two media. Television’s ability ‘to bring you live pictures’ may partly explain this tendency, the immediacy of television startling enough that the pictures themselves did not need to be grand or sensational. Perhaps the implicitly ‘domestic’ nature of TV also played a role in the type of image that the new medium chose to transmit. While the larger audience for early cinema demanded the rollercoaster ride of the circus or funfair, the small screen aesthetics of television tended to mirror its home-based viewer with a reassuring ‘talking head’ – an image that has arguably remained central to television aesthetics ever since (see Chapter 1). As John Fiske explains, television

is normally viewed within the domestic familiarity of the living room, which contrasts significantly with the public, impersonal place of cinema. In going out to cinema we tend to submit to its terms, to become subject to its discourse, but television comes to us, enters our cultural space, and becomes subject to our discourses. (1987: 74)

However, as interesting as these aesthetic comparisons are, it is always easy to fall into the problem of essentialism when trying to define the nature of a medium as complex as television. As Milly Buonanno

2 S M A L L S C r E E n A E S T H E T I C S

Television: normally viewed within the domestic familiarity of the home

points out, there is always a ‘tendency, founded more on speculation than empiricism, for the nature of the televisual medium to become fixed in a set of distinctive characteristics’ (2008: 30). But aesthetics are never set in stone and the stylistic nature of any medium is always in a state of potential change and development, influenced by technological innovation, economic, institutional and political pressures and so on. Indeed, one of the distinct purposes of this book it to carefully reveal and explain how small screen aesthetics have changed so radically since their early origins in the 1930s and how it is never easy to tie TV down to any enduring and eternal characteristics. So, while I will sometimes employ the ‘clear brush strokes’ (ibid.) that Buonanno warns about, it is not with the intention to universalise one televisual aesthetic, but to reveal just how complex the televisual text really is and how the boundaries between all media are often in a subtle state of flux. Indeed, early television was, above all, the history of a media continually in a process of transformation, quickly learning to adapt to an ever-changing set of complex conditions and picking and choosing styles and techniques from other media. As David Thorburn explains (2004: 7):

American television during the broadcast era is not a history of unremitting refinement and improvement … but it is a history impossible to understand without an awareness of the aesthetics of media transition, a

I n T r O D u C T I O n 3

recognition of the complex, ongoing ways in which the medium learned to use and then to exploit more subtly such defining constraints as the commercial interruptions, the reduced visual scale of the screen, the formulas, genres, performing styles and actors it inherited from radio, theater and the movies, the 30- or (somewhat later) the 60-minute time slot, the domestic environment in which TV is experienced.

As this suggests, television was a hybrid medium from its earliest origins, blatantly borrowing aspects of theatre, radio, cinema and journalism in the gradual and sometimes difficult formation of its own aesthetic identity (see Chapter 1). This hybridity has perhaps become no less apparent in recent years with the arrival of a culture of ‘media convergence’, one that has arguably seen television rapidly assimilate and reformulate aesthetic styles and artistic techniques more commonly associated with media such as the cinema and the computer (see Chapter 3). Furthermore, with the arrival of the moving image on the internet in the mid-1990s, we have now arguably witnessed the emergence of a new small screen, one that, while clearly having its own unique set of aesthetic characteristics, is also strangely reminiscent of the early days of television and cinema, perhaps even seeing the return of TV’s incarnation as ‘the intimate screen’ now manifest itself in the shape of ‘Web TV’ (see Chapter 4). As this suggests, where ‘television’ starts and ends is increasingly difficult to determine in a world where we now watch TV on a number of different media platforms, meaning that any aesthetic characteristics of ‘TV’ (if we can now even call it that) seem to be as transitory and as ephemeral as the ever-changing technology on which it is broadcast. In fact, the term ‘broadcasting’ itself appears an outdated synonym for a linear, time-based medium that arguably no longer exists in a world of VOD, DVr, YouTube, iTunes, iPlayer, web stream- ing, mobile video, online TV and so on (see Chapter 3). It is with some caution, then, that I approach this new account of small screen aesthetics. So, rather than imply that I understand what the essential aesthetics of television are (particularly when compared, for example, with radio, cinema, journalism and the internet), I hope this book reveals just how varied, multifarious and historically situated any medium-specific aesthetic style really is. The study of aesthetics is, of course, never an exact science (see below); no doubt other accounts of small screen style will differ in places, offering various readings and interpretation that will clash with, complement and contradict my own. Yet, I hope that this book will offer a strong contribution to this relatively neglected area of discussion. For, while seminal works like raymond Williams’s Television: Technology and Cultural Form (1974), Horace newcomb’s TV: The Most Popular Art (1974), John Ellis’s Visible Fictions: Cinema, Television, Video (1982), John Thornton Caldwell’s Televisuality: Style, Crisis and Authority in American Television (1995) and Jeremy G. Butler’s Television Style (2010) have offered enormous contributions to the aesthetic examination of the medium over the last four decades (ones that will be extensively and exhaustively acknowledged throughout this account), there has arguably never been enough discussion of the very fabric and design of the television text and the issues and debates related to its critical and academic examination. This book, then, is partly an attempt to add to the growing (but still relatively slender) work on small screen aesthetics, almost uniquely incorporating both television and the internet into one single volume.3 In doing so, it hopes to isolate the aesthetic characteristics of each medium, but only within a clear chronological time frame that shows how each period is unique to itself and also how each historical ‘phase’ is part of a wider dialogic discussion between all media, as well as other social, cultural, economic and political forces. rather than universalise, I hope that it reveals just how varied this field really

4 S M A L L S C r E E n A E S T H E T I C S

is, this book simply an attempt to keep the discussion of small screen aesthetics alive, confronting some of the methodological problems of the past and hopefully suggesting ways to keep its presence felt at the heart of television and media studies long into the future.

TOWArDS A nEW METHODOLOGY OF MEDIA AESTHETICS When the modern use of the term was coined by German philosopher Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten in the eighteenth century, he perceived aesthetics as a relatively value-free concept. The word had been used differently since the time of the ancient Greeks to mean the ability to receive stimulation from one or more of the five bodily senses. However, in Aesthetica (1750), Baumgarten appropriated the term to refer to taste or a ‘sense’ of beauty. In so doing, he gave it a new conception, one that helped develop its modern understanding. It was this subtle but important significance that was then taken up by Immanuel Kant who believed that it is our faculty of judgment that enables us to have an aesthetic experience and an appreciation of beauty (both of nature and the arts). As such, he argued that aesthetic beauty was transcendent and timeless and that such value judgments were not only necessary but universal i.e. that we would expect others to agree with us. In the Critique of Judgement (1790) he sets out to explain some of these ideas, arguing that beauty is not a property of art or nature but is a consciousness of human pleasure. As Christian Helmut Wenzel explains (2005: 6):

Kant’s aesthetics is concerned with feelings (Gefühle) of pleasure and displeasure, and not with sensation or perception as a form of cognition. Although Kant admits that perception is a first step towards cognition, he insists that a feeling never is. His aesthetics then is an investigation of a special kind of feeling, namely the ‘satisfaction in the beautiful’ (Wohlgefallen am Schönen).

Studying philosophy with the neo-Kantian Hans Cornelius and completing his post- doctoral thesis on Kierkegaard’s aesthetics in 1931, Theodor Adorno was well versed in the field when he helped to found what would become known as the Frankfurt School, one of the first critical move- ments to take mass (or popular) culture seriously. As Marxist intellectuals, the Frankfurt School tended to find Kant’s conception of ‘beauty’ dangerously class-biased, its universal criteria simply reflecting the tastes, standards and manners of the bourgeoisie. In contrast, they argued that it was only radical modern art that could produce ‘truth’ through the negation of traditional aesthetic form and conventional norms of bourgeois ‘beauty’. It was here, then, that the school’s controversial conception of ‘high’ and ‘low’ art was partly formulated. Only the avant-garde could preserve aesthetic ‘truth’ by capturing the reality of human suffering. In contrast, ‘mass culture’ was regarded as simply a standardised product of capitalist industrialisation and a manifestation of ‘The Culture Industry’.4 So, while ‘art’ was produced by a single author (preferably struggling in an attic to create an original piece of aesthetic ‘truth’), popular culture was mass-produced in industrial quantities, each ‘product’ as identical and standardised as the next. ‘To study television shows in terms of the psychology of the authors’, Adorno sarcastically suggests, ‘would almost be tantamount to studying Ford cars in terms of the psychoanalysis of the late Mr. Ford’ (1954: 226).5 Contemporary thinkers have tended to be less dismissive of popular or mass culture in their accounts of modern aesthetics, but the general rejection of the Kantian notion of ‘aesthetic beauty’ continued. Terry Eagleton’s The Ideology of the Aesthetic (1990), for example, argued that texts can only be properly

I n T r O D u C T I O n 5 understood in the context of their historical circumstances or the ‘conditions of their production’. He suggested that like art itself, aesthetics must always be regarded as an ideological and historically con- ditioned set of discourses. ‘The construction of the modern notion of the aesthetic artefact is’, he argues, ‘… inseparable from the construction of the dominant ideological forms of modern class society, and indeed from a whole new form of human subjectivity appropriate to that social order’ (3). Such thinking was also reflected in works such as Hal Foster’s The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture (1983) which tended to argue that the traditional focus of aesthetics on ‘beauty’ was a seductive distraction from discussing works that were politically and socially critical. Beautiful art can never achieve this consciousness-raising because it does not force its audience to see the horror and inequalities of social injustice all around them. Like Eagleton, then, this conception of aesthetic beauty tends to be regarded as an instrument of bourgeois taste and sensibilities, a means of establishing particular forms of ‘beauty’ as legitimate, while dismissing others as worthless. As Charlotte Brunsdon puts it, ‘there are always issues of power at stake in notions of quality and judgement – Quality by whom? Judgement by whom? On whose behalf?’ (1997a: 130). With the arrival of TV studies in the 1970s, one might expect that such critical debates quickly found their way into its teaching and methods. However, with rare exceptions like newcomb’s aforemen- tioned TV: The Most Popular Art, the discipline tended to shy away from aesthetics. This was partly because its low cultural status often prevented it from being taken seriously as a form of artistic expression. Writing in 1978, Herbert Zettl argued that ‘television has quite erroneously been considered more a distribution device for ready-made messages than a genuine “art form” in a traditional sense’ (3).6 raymond Williams’s (1974) account of the medium did little to change this perspective, rather than conceiving TV as individual expressions of art, he preferred to think of it as one long continuous ‘flow’ (see Chapter 1). Other early accounts conveniently sidestepped issues of artistic judgment by concentrating on the medium’s sociological ‘effects’ or its ideological construction. John Fiske and John Hartley’s Reading Television (1978), for example, offered a semiotic account of the medium that interpreted its ‘codes’ and ‘conventions’ rather than any aesthetic design. By taking emphasis away from the ‘text’ and placing it on the role of the ‘reader’, the rise of audience research in TV studies in the 1980s allowed researchers to avoid such issues. Indeed, by the turn of the century, TV critics like John Caughie were arguing that such strategies had devalued the very purpose of textual criticism (2000: 232):

Simply (or not so simply) to relocate value onto consumption not only misrecognizes ethnography, it also leaves behind it a problem in the aesthetics of production – a problem which has both critical and political dimensions. It gives criticism, and critical theory, no way of knowing what it is for: no way, that is, of arguing for one kind of production against another, or of valuing some forms over others. Critique is replaced by commentary, and by an act of faith in the capacity of consumers to do surprising and amazing things with what they daily receive.

The above quote comes from the last section of Caughie’s book, Television Drama: Realism, Modernism and British Culture, an epilogue that is subtitled ‘the return of value’. Expanding on ‘Adorno’s reproach’, in an article he first published in Screen in 1990, he takes the opportunity to rethink the relationship between television and aesthetic judgment. While he acknowledges that ‘the failure or unwillingness of Adorno and Horkheimer to find difference in the cultural field which they survey in the “Culture

6 S M A L L S C r E E n A E S T H E T I C S

Industry” essays – American popular culture of the 1930s – is damaging’ (228), he still believes that their endeavour to talk openly about questions of ‘judgment’ and ‘value’ in criticism is as valid now as it was then. This, he argues, is the real purpose of cultural criticism, to make critical judgments about art in the hope that it may become better. ‘I believe that theoretical and critical debate’, he concludes, ‘gives us a way of imagining a television and a television drama which still has the possibility of being other than it is’ (ibid.: 233). It was a bold claim in the light of the postmodern rejection of aesthetic value, a reassertion of the belief that some form of aesthetic criteria could and should continue to be used to reach artistic judgments about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ art – in this case, television drama. ‘Simply to dismiss their [Adorno and Horkheimer’s] work as “pessimistic”’, he argued, ‘… or to use it emblematically as a naïve position which we know better than to take seriously, seems to me hopelessly to devalue the cur- rency of critique’ (231). Openly inspired by Caughie’s rallying cry, Jason Jacobs’s ‘Issues of Judgment and Value in Television Studies’ (2001) further discusses the implications of such critical thinking. One of the ‘central problems with the judgement of television’, he argues, ‘has been its uncertain relation to “traditional aesthetic criteria”, combined with an abhorrence of that criteria and its appropriateness manifested by television studies’ (429). While he is absolutely clear that different genres can never be adequately judged through overarching criteria, there are instances where certain TV programmes of a similar style can and should be compared. The example he gives is of American television drama serials such as ER (nBC, 1994–2009), Buffy the Vampire Slayer (WB, 1997–2001; uPn, 2001–3), The X-Files (Fox, 1993–2002), The Sopranos (HBO, 1999–2007) and The West Wing (nBC, 1999–2006) that ‘go beyond the merely “good” and begin to demand criteria that have to account for their excellence’ (432).7 unlike ‘shows made before the 1980s’ (434), this ‘excellence’, it would seem, is partly down to their ‘cinematic forms of expression’ manifested through their ‘symbolic density’, a ‘rich mise-en-scène’ and the ‘promotion of identi- fication as a means of securing audience proximity’ (433). In a later article, ‘Television Aesthetics: An Infantile Disorder’ (2006), he ponders this ‘aesthetic turn’ in more detail. ‘We should open up, rather than close down’, he argues, ‘the opportunities for those scholars who, like me, are motivated by gratitude in the face of achievement and excellence on television and who wish to share this within the academic community and with the wider public’ (32).8 As initially seductive as some of these claims may seem, I am reluctant to employ aesthetics in a similar manner here. I admire Jacobs’s work (Chapter 1 particularly owes a great debt to his research on early British TV drama), but I cannot adhere to this form of methodology. This is partly because I believe that such an approach would seriously narrow the horizons of this particular project, allowing artistic judgment to get in the way of any attempt I may make to map the historical evolution of TV and the internet as an aesthetic form. Take, for example, the claim made by Jacobs that certain serial dramas made after 1980 are ‘excellent’ because of their ‘cinematic’ qualities. By isolating their ‘cinematic’ qualities, he seems to be implicitly suggesting that certain types of TV drama can only become ‘excellent’ when they ape or acquire the qualities (or ‘richness’) of a certain aesthetic style. This aesthetic judgment not only enables him to dismiss the less ‘cinematic’ television drama of the period, but also allows him simply to write off all television drama made before the 1980s as less significant in terms of artistic ‘excellence’. Consequently, one type of aesthetic style (the ‘cinematic’) is prioritised over another i.e. one elevated to the level of ‘art’ while the other (ironically, what he perceives as the more traditionally ‘televisual’) dismissed as ‘textually anaemic’ (2001: 434). not only is such an approach simply ‘golden age

I n T r O D u C T I O n 7 theory’ (i.e. ‘things aren’t what they used to be’) in reverse, it unproblematically compares programming across different historical periods, producing an implicitly universal and ahistorical conception of TV aesthetics that appears to judge the ‘quality’ of one medium (TV) by the aesthetic characteristics of another (cinema). In my view, such an approach would be unnecessarily reductive for this particular project, implicitly selecting certain small screen styles as ‘superior’ to others and allowing debates about artistic merit to get in the way of a more general and less prescriptive analysis of aesthetic form. In contrast, this book will attempt to view all aesthetic styles equally, to see them all as potentially interesting and con- textualise them all within a deeply historical context so that no one single period, text or technique is ever regarded (however implicitly) as artistically ‘superior’ to another. In other words, it is about all types of small screen aesthetics and it will endeavour to treat all aesthetic forms as equal in order to give as wide ranging an account of the media as possible. As John Ellis puts it, such an approach to TV will

try to define what is specific about television as a medium. It examines the technological set-up of TV, the feel of its images and sounds, the determining ways in which it is received and used, the distinctive nature of its texts and ‘how it creates and organises meaning’ (2006: 13). As such, my chosen methodology will have more in common with aspects of ‘medium theory’ than with the Frankfurt School or any form of art criticism. First coined by Joshua Meyrowitz in No Sense of Place: The Impact of Electronic Media on Social Behavior (1985), ‘medium theory’ partly picked up on Marshall McLuhan’s famous phrase, ‘the medium is the message’ (1994; orig. pub 1964: 7) by taking emphasis away from the content of communication (for example, is it a work of art, is it a work of propaganda?) to the medium of communication itself. This means that rather than being concerned with what exactly a medium says, it is more concerned with how it says it. In this way, it tends to analyse the characteristics of each medium, sometimes focusing on what makes it different from other media. Thus, medium theorists might study how television differs from radio and cinema, but also how electronic media (including TV, radio and the internet) differ from print media (such as books, magazines and newspapers).9 While I do not suggest that the methodology in this book is predominantly ‘medium theory’ (these theorists place a great deal more emphasis on the social impact of the media than I do), the shift away from the aesthetic judgment of meaning towards examining the aesthetic expression of meaning is one that I will endeavour to follow. This is not exactly new, developing newcomb’s approach (1974), critics like nikos Metallinos have more recently argued that the purpose of aesthetics is simply ‘to describe, and to define the devices (the instruments, materials, and techniques) television employs, and to underline the unique aesthetic factors and compositional principles that govern it’ (1996: 200). The shift, then, is away from making judgments about quality and taste, towards a more systematic analysis of aesthetic forms. To define my own approach in more detail, I believe that the time is now right for the theory of media aesthetics to embrace a more rigorous form of methodology.10 In particular, I would argue that it needs to move away from simply offering a subjective and primar- ily ahistorical (or ‘universal’) appreciation of abstract terms such as ‘art’ or ‘quality’, towards a clearly defined historical approach which views aesthetics through a number of interpretive and critical strategies. As

8 S M A L L S C r E E n A E S T H E T I C S

Christopher Anderson and Michael Curtin put it, the media ‘historian’s goal is to account for the dynamic interplay of forces that together constitute what we refer to as “radio” and “television” at any given moment: industry, technology, regulation, programming, reception, and use’ (2002: 22). Following a similar approach, I propose six major critical frameworks through which my own historical understanding of small screen aesthetics will be conceived. These are:

1 Modes of Production The technological developments within the industry that have influenced small screen representation (how, for example, the technological constraint of liveness helped to shape and determine much of the aesthetic style of early TV [see Chapter 1]). 2 Modes of Distribution The changes that have taken place within the technical distribution of small screen images (how, for example, the arrival of new satellite and cable channels in the 1980s helped to change television’s aesthetic image [see Chapter 2]). 3 Modes of Institution The economic, institutional and political context of television and the internet (how, for example, the aesthetic style of British TV responded to and reflected the arrival of commercialism in the 1950s [see Chapter 1]). 4 Modes of Transmission The technology by which audiences watch the small screen image (how, for example, the arrival of digital ‘home cinema’ has increased the ‘cinematic’ aspirations of the TV image [see Chapter 3]). 5 Modes of Reception The conditions of consumption (how, for example, the small screen aesthetic responded to and reflected the domestic environment in which TV is generally viewed [see Chapters 1 and 4]). 6 Cultural Theory The small screen regarded as reflecting and responding to wider cultural issues (how, for example, aspects of television aesthetics can be understood within the cultural and theoretical frameworks of modernism and postmodernism [see Chapter 2]).

At the root of all these six ‘sub-methodologies’ is, of course, the text. This is because it is the text that I am interested in, not whether I think it is ‘art’ but what makes up the constituents of its sound and images, how it is influenced by technology, institution, economics, production, culture and consumption. This is not to say that the discussion of small screen ‘art’ is not important per se, only that I believe its subjective consideration is irrelevant to a study that wants to discover a medium’s fundamental characteristics and consider its historical development and evolution over time.

CHOICES AnD CHrOnOLOGIES Without any strict artistic criteria to judge the small screen by, how do I go about choosing particular textual examples to discuss and illustrate certain issues and techniques that arise in my discussion? The case studies (there are two in each chapter) have been chosen because I believe they are popular examples that may reveal an aspect of the discussion that needs to be addressed in more detail; it is important that they are well known because I want the reader to be as familiar with as many of them as possible.11 In

I n T r O D u C T I O n 9 fact, in some cases the case study might even be a TV channel like ‘Cnn’ (see Chapter 2), a form of media technology like ‘Interactive TV’ (see Chapter 3) or simply a piece of technical equipment like ‘The Webcam’ (see Chapter 4), but they have all been chosen as illustration of a wider specific trend, rather than for any implied reasons of ‘quality’. The same criteria apply to all the case studies (deliberately taken from an array of genres), as well as all the texts discussed. I do not suggest that all of these (or, indeed, any of these) are ‘works of art’, I simply include them as well-known examples and illustrations of wider aesthetic trends. As I have argued elsewhere (see Creeber, 2004a), I am not interested in con- structing a television ‘canon’, I simply hope that my selection of case studies will provide an interesting and revealing illustration of topics around a central ‘text’. As this suggests, this book is interested in identifying, locating and explaining different aesthetic styles, how they have created certain types of small screen content and how they have changed, developed and evolved over time. The chapters of the book, therefore, follow a loosely historical and chronological structure, starting with the arrival of television in the first chapter and ending with the emergence of ‘Web TV’ in the last. Each chapter will also be divided into two distinct but complementary sections, each accompanied by their own particular case study that reflects certain significant aspects in that section. Chapter 1 (‘Early Television: Creating an Image’) begins with the entrance of television on the cultural scene in the 1920s and 1930s, defining its ‘experimental stage’ and exploring its three formative aesthetics i.e. ‘liveness, intimacy and hybridity’. As such, the first section (‘See It now’) takes the years 1936–55 as its approximate time frame, looking at how TV gradually moved away from an inherently ‘theatrical’ medium and started to express itself in more ‘three-dimensional’ terms. I Love Lucy (ABC, 1951–7) provides a revealing case study, an example of how early TV was gradually producing something uniquely ‘televisual’, its use of the ‘three-camera set-up’ and other techniques helping to reshape and reinvent the former limitations of television. The second section (‘Do not Adjust Your Set’) then looks at how TV changed with the arrival of commercial TV in Britain in 1955, how advertising techniques may have influenced programming aesthetics and how this development of a new televisual style (aided through the arrival of cheaper and easier-to-use recording techniques, lighter camera and sound equipment) was developed until the end of the 1970s. The case study for this section is The Avengers (ABC/ITV, 1961–9), a piece of ‘Action’ or ‘Pop’ TV that illustrates many of the aesthetic changes and technological innovations that took place during this period, perfectly capturing the new sense of energy and excitement that the medium could now create. Chapter 2 (‘TV Comes of Age: A Medium in Its Own right’) begins in the early 1980s with the arrival of cable and satellite channels on the television landscape. The first section (‘Liquid Television’) discusses the impact these channels had on the cultural scene, particularly looking at the role that channels like MTV and new digital technology played in the aesthetic transformation of the television image. So radical is its reinvention that issues of postmodernism will also be examined, the chapter arguing that a postmodern aesthetic is clearly discernible in many of the examples discussed. The case study will focus its analysis on Cnn: International, a twenty-four-hour cable news channel that provides a particularly revealing insight into John Caldwell’s (1995) notion of the ‘videographic’ look. The second section (‘The real World’) will explore the impact of new documentary techniques, tracing them back to the 1970s and suggesting ways in which a new form of popular documentary (or post-documentary [see Corner, 2002]) evolved that helped to produce an emerging breed of ‘reality TV’, while also shaping and influencing a

10 S M A L L S C r E E n A E S T H E T I C S

whole manner of other genres. The case study focuses on The Osbournes (MTV, 2002–5), a mixture of both new documentary techniques and the ‘MTV look’ that enables a number of issues to be discussed that are applicable to the chapter as a whole and illustrated through a wide selection of aesthetic and generic styles. Chapter 3 (‘The Converging Screens: The Influence of Cinema and the Internet on TV’), examines the way that ‘media convergence’ has helped produce a new form of ‘televisual’ aesthetic since the late 1980s and early 1990s. The first section (‘Home Box Office’) begins with the increasing ‘cinemaisation’ of the television image, showing how new production techniques and digital technology (both within the industry and in the home) have transformed many aspects of the image and allowed the small screen to aspire to the same aesthetic standards and qualities of the cinema. The case study considers The Sopranos, one of a new breed of HBO dramas that reflects both aspects of televisual and cinematic styles, revealing a complex hybrid of aesthetic and generic influences. The second section (‘PCTV’) will then look at the way that TV has responded to the arrival of the internet in the 1990s and beyond. In particular, it examines how the TV image tried to increasingly emulate the multitasking ‘windows aesthetic’ more commonly associated with the computer. The case study charts the history of ‘Interactive TV’, how it has evolved and developed historically and examines its role in influencing aspects of contemporary TV aesthetics. Chapter 4 (‘Web TV: The new Small Screen’) ends the book by discussing and examining content made solely to be broadcast and watched online. The first section (‘Peepshow’) will focus on the arrival of YouTube in 2006 and user-generated video content as a whole, discussing its new aesthetic style and revealing its return to earlier forms of representation, particularly those associated with ‘experimental television’ and ‘precinema’. The case study looks at the role of ‘The Webcam’ as part of this new aesthetic, concentrating on its seemingly ‘genuine and authentic’ representation of an intensely private self. The second section (‘Internet Killed Television’) then investigates more narrative-based examples of ‘Web TV’, particularly the way that these complex video creations now offer new narrative possibilities but still often rely on harnessing the aesthetic dynamics of the ‘intimate screen’. The case study on Kony 2012 (2012), is a timely, internationally popular and revealing example of how Web TV can now utilise a number of aesthetic and generic styles to create a hugely persuasive and influential portrait of the contemporary world. In this way, I hope to give the reader an introduction to the aesthetic origins and developments of the small screen, charting its rise in the 1920s and 1930s all the way to the present day and its aesthetic reinvention online. While such a book can never hope to cover and acknowledge every important aesthetic style and innovation of the last eighty years or so, I hope it will still act as a tourguide to a remarkable historical journey that continues as I write. In particular, I hope that it will explain, illustrate and solid- ify certain aspects of the field in more detail, helping to situate changes and developments within a strongly historical context and bringing the discussion of small screen aesthetics firmly up-to-date. While any attempt to take on the aesthetic history of TV and the internet together is rather foolishly ambitious, I simply hope that this small addition to the field offers a timely, relevant and interesting contribution to an area of study that is, in my view, only now finally attracting the sort of critical attention it deserves. I will leave others to decide whether a particular text is a ‘work of art’ or not, I just hope that this book will add to the continued understanding and appreciation of small screen aesthetics – however they are conceived.

INDEx

Notes: Page numbers in bold indicate detailed analysis. Those in italic refer to illustrations. Films/programmes are only specified as ‘film’ or ‘TV’ in order to distinguish between identical or similar titles. n = endnote.

‘9/11’ terrorist attacks 65 An American Family (US, 1973) The Avengers cont. 24 (2001–10) 93, 109, 115 69–70 soundtrack 47, 48 48 Hours (1988–) 60 American Idol (2002–) 125 visual style 45–6, 47–8, 49 America’s Funniest Home Videos Avildsen, John G. 72, 152n93 Abrams, J. J. 105 (1989) 74 Acaye, Jacob 139 And Now for Your Sunday Night Babestation (2002–) 113 Accidental Lovers (2006–7) 114 Entertainment (1987) 148n50 Babylon 5 (1993–8) 96–7, 154n134 The Addams Family (TV, 1964–6) 80, Anderson, Christopher 7–8 Backman, Lorenz 114 83 Anderson, Marc 116, 156n159 Baird, John Logie 1, 11, 143, 145n2, Adler, Larry 148n48 The Andy Griffith Show (1960–8) 146n14 Adorno, Theodor W. 4, 5–6 26 Ball, Alan 154n125 ‘adult’ channels 113 animations 22 Ball, Lucille 26, 27, 28–9 advertising 9, 30–2 computer 96–7, 154n134 Band of Brothers (2001) 94–5, cinematography 31 on MTV 58–9, 150n74 154n127 expenditure on 30 online 133 Banks, Jack 60 frequency 31–2 and postmodernism 62–3 Barbarella (1967) 47 impact on programme content Appleton, Ron 149n62 Barbera, Joseph 22, 62 30–1 The Apprentice (2004–9) 134 Barker, Simon J. 49 jingles 21 Armageddon (1998) 98 Barnouw, Eric 24, 36 music 55 Armchair Theatre (1956–74) 19, Barr, Charles 15 online use of techniques 138, 34–5, 39, 45, 147n30, 149n54 Barron, Steve 56 140–1 Armstrong, Neil 59 Bartel, Paul 89 Æon Flux (1991–5) 58 Arnaz, Desi 26, 27, 28 Bates, John 47 aesthetics Arrested Development (2003–6) Batman (TV, 1966–8) 41, 47 critical frameworks 8 157n167 Batman Forever (1995) 100 historical context 4–5 L’Arroseur arrosé (1895) 159n200 ‘The Battle at Kruger’ (YouTube clip) modern methodology 4–5, 8 The Ascent of F6 (1938) 19 119 philosophy/theories of 4–7 audience Battlestar Galactica (2004–9) 96–7 Airport (UK docusoap, 1996–2008) changes in viewing habits 93–4, Baudrillard, Jean 62 77 107–8, 142–3 Baumgarten, Alexander G. 4 Album Tracks (1970s) 53–4 relationship of performers with BBC 12 Alexandra Palace 14 20, 29 broadcasting monopoly 13 Alfred Hitchcock Presents (1955–65) responses to Web TV 123–4, 124, early demonstration films 13–15 153n116 129–30, 130 ethos 13, 147n28 Ali, Muhammad 94, 154n119 targeting 149n63 funding 30 Allen, Gracie 20 see also ‘glance theory’; ‘graze’ interlude films 31 Allen, Michael 98 autocue, invention of 25 news coverage 25 Alley, Robert S. 98 Ave 43 (Internet, 2009–) 137 online material 153n111 Ally McBeal (1997–2001) 99 The Avengers (1961–9) 9, 41, 45–50, studios/equipment 14 Altman, Robert 89 46, 149nn60–2 teletext services 111, 155–6n152 Alward, Sharon 102 costumes 47 The Beatles 55 Amazing Stories (1985–7) 89 innovativeness 49–50 Beavis and Butt-Head (1992–7) 58, American Dad! (2005–) 157n168 set design 48–9 59

174 S M A L L S C R E E N A E S T H E T I C S

Beckett, Miles 132 Broomfield, Nick 77 Chase, David 101, 102 Beckett, Samuel 49 Brown, Ross 131 chat shows, online 133 Belin, Édouard 1 Bruckheimer, Jerry 98 Chataway, Christopher 25, 148n39 Bennett, Alan 100 Brunsdon, Charlotte 5 Chatroulette (Internet site) 128, Bennett, James 86 Bruzzi, Stella 37, 77–8 158n193 Berners-Lee, Tim 156n158 Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997–2003) Chayefsky, Paddy 15 Best Week Ever (2004–9) 119 6, 135 Chelsea Girls (1966) 149n52 Between Two Ferns (Internet, 2008–) The Buggles 51 Chen, Joan 91 133 Buonanno, Milly 1–2, 107, 136 Chiefs (1968) 149n53 Big Ben 21, 25 Burch, Noël 122 children’s TV, interactive 111, Big Brother (1999–) 62, 75–6, 76, Burgess, Jean 117, 126, 132 113–14 113, 125, 127 Burns, George 20 cinema Bignell, Jonathan 34 The Burns and Allen Show see The crossover of directors 89, 91 Billson, Anne 142 George Burns and Gracie Allen earliest examples 122 Bina, Eric 116, 156n159 Show increasing influence Biressi, Anita 76–7 Butler, Jeremy G. 3, 30–1, 39, 88, (1980s–2000s) 86–104 Black, Peter 87 116, 145n3 relationship with television 1, Black Hawk Down (2001) 98, 100 Butler, Robert 70 15–17, 22–3 Black Sabbath 79 Buxton, David 46, 88 Clarke, Alan 43 Blackman, Honor 45 Clemens, Brian 47 Blackwood, Nina 150n69 cable/satellite TV 149n64 Clements, Ian John 60 Blair, Gavin 150n74 channel logos 53, 149–50n65 Clerc, François 159n200 The Blair Witch Project (1999) 77, new channels 53 (see also MTV) Clive of India (TV, 1938) 19 152n100, 155n144 Cagney, James 102 Clocking Off (2000–3) 99 Blakely, Colin 35 Caldwell, John Thornton 3, 9, 22, close–ups 23–4, 37–8 Blakes 7 (1978–81) 97 52, 53, 56–7, 60–1, 64, 89, 98, in Web TV 121, 135, 135–7 Bleak House (2005) 60 108, 109, 110, 113, 145–6n10, CNN 9–10, 52, 57, 64–8, 109, 110, Blue Velvet (1986) 90 151n82 113, 151–2nn84–6 Boardwalk Empire (2010–) 94 Caldwell, Sarah 145n6 ‘coffeecam’ 127, 158n187 Bogart, Humphrey 102 camcorders, increased Colesberry, Robert F. 96 Boone, Pat 80 availability/use 74–5, 152n98 Collins, Jim 93, 151n78 Borgnine, Ernest 16 The Camera That Changed the World Collins, Russell 104 Boucicault, Dion, The Streets of New (2011) 149n51 colour TV, impact of 41–2, 45–6 York 13 Candid Camera (1960–2001) 20, 74, Columbo (1968–78) 89 Bound for Glory (1976) 71–2 127 comedy Bouza, Tony 70 Candid Microphone (radio, 1947–50) evolution 43–4 Bowie, David 62, 63 20 online 136 The Box (music channel) 113 Cannon, Danny 98 see also situation comedy boxing, coverage of 13, 94 Carnivale (2003–5) 94 commercial television Boyle, Karen 109 Carter, Bill 94–5 impact in UK 29–31, 32–3 Bracco, Lorraine 101 Cartier, Rudolph 87, 153n113 news coverage 32–3 The Brady Bunch (1969–74) 80 Cartoon Sushi (1997–8) 58 Conn, Billy 13 Brecht, Bertolt 40 Cathy Come Home (1966) 40, 62–3, Conrad, Joseph, Heart of Darkness ‘bricolage’ 110 73 139–40, 160n218 Brideshead Revisited (1981) 44 Caughie, John 5–6, 13, 19, 62–3, The Conversation (Internet, 2012–) Bridgewater, Tony 17 71, 148n46 133 Britain’s Got Talent (2007–) 113 Challenger (Space Shuttle) 65, Coogan, Steve 132–3 Britton, Piers D. 49 152n86 Cooke, Lez 35, 40 Broeren, Joost 123 Chamberlain, Daniel 107 Coppola, Francis Ford 102, 155n141 Brolsma, Gary 119–20, 120, 121, Channel 4 51, 89–90 Cops (US, 1989–) 75 125, 157n169 Chapman, James 45, 48 The Cops (UK, 1998–2001) 73–4 Brookes, Rod 18 ‘Charlie Bit My Finger’ (YouTube clip) Cornelius, Hans 4 Brookside (1982–2003) 72, 152n94 119, 140 Corner, John 21, 69

I N D E x 175

Coronation Street (1960–) 72 Do Not Adjust Your Set (1967–9) 43, early television cont. Coronations, coverage of 17–18, 149n56 picture quality 11–12 129, 147n24 Doctor Who (1963–) 97, 114 reliance on sound 21–3 costume drama 44, 60 Doctor Who: The Adventure Games sound equipment 20 Cowen, Elizabeth 66–7 (2010) 114 EastEnders (TV, 1985–) 106, 132–3, credit sequences 90–1 documentaries 68–79 152n95 Cribs (2000) 79, 153n105 (alleged) fabrication of material EastEnders: E20 (Internet soap, Crisell, Andrew 12, 30 153n102 2010–) 132–3 Crisis: Behind a Presidential ‘docusoaps’ 77–8, 80–1 Eaton, Mick 20 Commitment (1963) 149n53 early 21 Edel, Uli 91 The Cruise (1998) 77 ‘fly–on–the–wall’ 51–2, 69–70, Edison, Thomas 157n180 CSI: Crime Scene Investigation 124–5 editing, linear vs. non–linear 75, (2000–) 62, 97–8, 109–10, influence on drama 70–4, 78–9 152n99 154n135 online 135–6 Edwards, Anthony 73 CSI: Miami (2002–) 98, 109–10 ratings 69–70 Edwards, Blake 39 CSI: New York (2004–) 98 technological developments Eisenstein, Sergei 40, 87 Cubitt, Sean 129 36–7, 51–2, 69–70, 71–7, 93–4, The Elephant Man (1980) 90 cultural theory 4, 5–6, 8 99–100 Elizabeth II, Queen 17–18, 129, ‘culture industry’ 4, 5–6, 145n4 ‘walk and talk’ technique 72–3 147n24 Curb Your Enthusiasm (2000–) 78 Donatelli, Cindy 102 Ellis, John 3, 7, 22, 23, 32, 51, 57, A Current Affair (1986–2005) 66 Don’t Look Back (1967) 149n53 64, 98, 133, 145–6n10, 151n82 Curtin, Michael 7–8 Doohan, James 42 Elstelä, Kristiina 114 Döring, Nicola 128 Embarrassing Bodies: Live from the Dade, Stephen 149n62 Doublier, Francis 1 Clinic (2011–) 113, 148n41 Daisley, Bob 153n107 Dr Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog Emokid21 (YouTube subscriber/serial) Dallas (1978–81) 90, 159n209 (Internet, 2008) 135 130–1, 158–9nn194–8 Daniels, Marc 28 Dragnet (1951–9) 37–9, 38 Enemy of the State (1998) 98 Danish TV 113–14 drama Entertainment Tonight (1981–) 60, Dante, Joe 89 ‘documentary look’ 71–4 66 Davies, Gareth 40 early transmission techniques ER (1994–2009) 6, 72, 73, 152n96 Davis, Desmond 18, 19–20 15–17, 18–20 Eraserhead (1971) 90 Dawson, Max 123 focus on writers 25 ET: The ExtraTerrestrial (1982) 100 Days of Hope (1975) 71 Internet 135 excellence (televisual) 6–7, 13 Deadwood (2004–6) 94, 95 modernist 62–3 Exposed (2006–7) 59 Dean, Michael W. 157n171 realist 34–5, 37–9, 40–1, 148n49 Extras (2005–7) 78 death (of actors) 19 Drew, Robert 36 ‘The Death of Emokid21Ohio’ Driving School (1997–2003) 77 Face to Face (1959–62) 23, 63, 136 (YouTube clip) 130 DuBarry Was a Lady (1943) 27 Facebook 106 Deaville, James 21 Duel (1971) 89 Fahs, Chad 157n171 Del Ruth, Tom 73, 152n96 Dunleavy, Trisha 91 Faithfull, Marianne 47 Depeche Mode 84 Duval, Benoît 159n200 Falco, Edie 102 DeSando, Anthony 102 DVDs, impact on viewing The Family (UK, 1974) 69–70, Desperately Seeking Susan (1985) habits/quality 93–4 152n89 99 Dyrenforth, James 11 Family Guy (1999–) 62 Diary of a Young Man (1966) 40 Farley, Rebecca 62 Diaz, Carlos 68 Eagleton, Terry 4–5 Father Knows Best (1954–60) 80 Dickens, Charles 60 early television 9, 11–26 Fawlty Towers (1975–9) 79 digital technology 52, 57–8, 73–4 camera techniques 13–15, 17 Fetveit, Arild 125 benefits 85 drama 15–17, 18–20 Feuer, Jane 32 Dineen, Molly 77 essential characteristics 17, Finnish TV 114 Dire Straits 58 120–1 First Tuesday (1969–73) 89 Disney, Walt 22 factual 20–1 Firth, Simon 128 Dixon, Adele 11 ‘observer’ role 16–19 Fiske, John 1, 5, 32

176 S M A L L S C R E E N A E S T H E T I C S

Flaherty, Mike 98 George VI, King 17 A Hard Day’s Night (1964) 55 Flinders, Ramesh 132 German TV, use in wartime propa- Harries, Dan 108 The Flintstones (1960–6) 22 ganda 12–13 Harrington, Stephanie 70 Floyd, Keith 150n76 Gervais, Ricky 78–9, 79 Harris, Josh 127, 158n190 Flux Pavilion 141 Gibbs SR toothpaste, advertising 31 Harris, Neil Patrick 135 Flying Monsters 3D (2010) 100 Gilbert, Craig 69 Harrison, Richard 149n62 Foley, James 91 Gillan, Jennifer 80 Harry Hill’s TV Burp 52 Fonda, Jane 47 Girl on a Motorcycle (1968) 47 Hartley, John 5, 67, 117 Ford, Henry 4, 145n5 Gitlin, Todd 70 Harvey, Jimmy 149n62 Ford, John 23 ‘glance theory’ 22, 64 Have Gun – Will Travel (1957–63) 23 Forrest Gump (1994) 97 breakdown 96, 108, 110 HBO (Home Box Office) 10, 64, The Forsyte Saga (1967) 44, 149n59 The Godfather (1972) 102–4, 94–6, 154n119 Forsyth, Bruce 148n47 155n141 impact on other channels 96 Fort Apache, the Bronx (1981) 70, The Golem (1915) 27 The Head (1994–6, 2011–) 58 152n90 ‘Golfers in Action’ (1937) 15 Hear It Now (radio, 1950–1) 18 Foster, Hal 5 Good Morning America (1975–) Heat (1995) 89 ‘fourth wall’, breaking of 20, 147n31 157n169 Help! (1965) 55 Frankfurt School (of philosophy) 4, Goodchild, Amy 130 Hershovitz, Marshall 135 5–6, 7, 145n4 Goodfried, Greg 132 Hewitt, Don 18 Fraunhofer Institute for Goodman, Mark 150n69 ‘Hey Clip’ (YouTube clip) 126 Telecommunications 110 Gordon, Daniel 158n187 Highfield, Ashley 105 Frawley, William 26, 28 Gough-Yates, Anna 41 Hill, Harry 52 Frazier, Joe 94, 154n119 Grade, Lew 33, 148n48 Hill, James 47 Freeman, John 23 The Graham Norton Show (2007–) Hill Street Blues (1981–7) 64, 71, Freund, Karl 27–8 63–4 72, 90, 152nn91–2 Friedberg, Anne 84–5 ‘graze’, as audience response 123–4, documentary style 70–1 Frost, Mark 90–1 124 Hills, Matt 105 Frost/Nixon (2008) 24 Green, Hughie 112 Hilmes, Michele 85, 107, 160n221 The Fugitive (1963–7) 39 Green, Joshua 117, 126, 132 Hitchcock, Alfred 153n116 Fun TV with Katochan and Kenchan Greenberg, David 147–8n37 HMS Brilliant (1995) 77 (1986–92) 74 Grierson, John, First Principles of Holland, Patricia 100 Documentary 21 Holmes, Michael 66–7 Galifianakis, Zach 133 Grundy, Bill 142, 160n223 Holweck, Fernand 1 Galsworthy, John 44 Gulf War 65 Hooker, Richard 149n57 Galton, Ray 147n36 Gunning, Tom 122 Horkheimer, Max 5–6 Game of Thrones (2011–) 94 Gurney, David 131 Horton, Donald 24–5 game shows 33–4 Hot Summer Night (1959) 35 influence of cinema 100 Hafner, Katie 143 House (UK docusoap, 1995) 77 Gandolfini, James 101, 103 Hammer, A. J. 68 How It Feels to Be Run Over (1900) Garcia, Jorge 106 Hammond, Charles 68–9 122 Garden, Ian 12–13 Hampshire, Susan 44 HSN (Home Shopping Network) 113 Garnett, Tony 40, 50, 73, 87, Hancock, Tony 23, 24, 147n36 Huckleberry Hound (1958–62) 22 148n46 Hancock’s HalfHour (1956–60) 23, Hugo (1990–) 113–14 Gates, Bill 130 24, 147n36 Hume, Alan 149n62 ‘gaze’, as audience response hand-held cameras, development/ Humphrey, Hubert 36 confined to cinema 22, 64 use of 36–7, 69–70, 71–3, 95, Hunter, Alan 150n69 extended to TV 88, 96, 108 152n92 Hurd, R. Wesley 61 contrasted with ‘graze’ 123–4 availability to general public 74–5 Huron, David 55, 87, 147n33 Gehr, Richard 54 costs 73, 152n101 Hutchinson, Oliver 145n2 Gelbart, Larry 149n57, 149n58 in Web TV 136–7 Gentile, Gary 134 Hanks, Tom 94 I Love Lucy (1951–7) 9, 26–9, 27, The George Burns and Gracie Allen Hanna, William 22, 62 45, 148n42 Show (1950–8) 20, 61, 147n32 Hannon, Paul 152n101 cinematography 27–9

I N D E x 177

I Love Lucy cont. Jessop, Peter 149n62 Langella, Frank 24 film medium 26–7 The Jetsons (1962–3) 22 Langley, John 75 physical comedy 28–9 Johnson, Benjamin Castelow 130, Lastufka, Alan 157n171 Illinois, University of 116 158–9nn195–8 Leacock, Richard 36 I’m a Celebrity Get Me out of Here Johnson, Catherine 41–2 Leave It to Beaver (1957–63) 80 (2002–) 62, 155n149 Johnson, Don 86, 88 Lena, O My Lena (1960) 35, 35 Imperioli, Michael 102 Johnson, Laurie 47 Leslie-Smith, Kenneth 11 In the Psychiatrist’s Chair (radio, Johnson, Martyn 158n187 ‘letterbox’ screening 103, 155n140 1982–) 136 The Jonathan Ross Show (2011–) Levine, Elena 51, 103 Inside Edition (1988–) 66 63–4 Levine, Michael 68 interactive television 9, 10, 111–15 Jones, Chuck 22 Levy, Frederick 157n171 ‘deep’ vs. ‘shallow’ 113–14 Jones, Robert 49 Lewis, Damian 95 early examples 111 Joosten, Kathryn 73 Lewis, Ken 26 methods of communication 113 Judge Dredd (1995) 100 Lewis, Ted 149n62 new developments/future possibil- Juno and the Paycock (1938) 19 Lilly, Evangeline 108 ities 114–15 Jurassic Park (1993) 100 Liquid Television (1989–94) 58–9 Internet, relationship with TV 3, 10, Lissek, Leon 48 85–6, 104–15 Kant, Immanuel 4 Loach, Ken 40–1, 50, 87, 148n46 availability of programmes on 93, Kaplan, Abraham 1 Lonelygirl15 (YouTube subscriber/ 107–8 Kaplan, E. Ann 54–5, 141 serial) 131–2, 133–4, 136, 143, creation of new aesthetic 108–11 Karim, Jawed 122 158n196, 160n224 fansites 105–6 KateModern (YouTube subscriber/ Lord, Colin 149n62 hybridity of medium 121–2 serial) 132, 134, 159n209 Lost (2004–10) 96, 108, 154n132, online premieres 106–7 Kavanagh, Patrick 48 155n149 posting of videos to 117–18 Kavka, Misha 76, 107 online following 105–6 see also Web TV Keaton, Diane 91 Louis, Joe 13 Invisible Children, Inc. (NGO) 137, Kelem, Michael 100 L’Pree, Charisse 54 140–1 Kelly’s Heroes (1970) 43 Lumière, Auguste 122 iPlayer 84, 107, 153n111 Kennedy, John F. 24, 36–7, 148n38 Lumière, Louis 122, 159n200 Isaacs, Jeremy 147n35 Kennedy Martin, Ian 43 Luther, Amy 105 The Italian Job (1969) 43 Kennedy Martin, Troy 39–40, 41, 43, Lynch, David 90–1, 154n118 Izod, John 21 87 Lyne, Adrian 89 Kilborn, Richard 21, 69, 75 Lyon, Matthew 143 Jackass TV (2000–2) 59 King, Allan 69 Jackel, Dave 140 King, Larry 68 Maclean, Tracy Biga 104 Jackson, J. J. 150n69 ‘kitchen-sink’ drama 34–5 Macnee, Patrick 45, 46, 149n60 Jackson, Michael Knopfler, Mark 58 Man Alive (1965–8) 69 illness/death, reporting of 66–8 Kontras, Adam 156n160 The Man from UNCLE (1964–8) 41 Thriller/’Billie Jean’ 56, 150n72 Kony, Joseph 137–8, 139–40 The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976) Jacobs, Jason 6–7, 13, 17, 19, 120 Kony 2012 (2012) 10, 137–41 62, 63 James, Clive 44 commercial/propagandist tech- The Man with a Flower in His Mouth James, Sid 23, 24 niques 138, 140–1 (1922) 11–12 Jameson, Fredric 61–2 soundtrack 139, 141 Manhunter (1986) 89 Janpuri (1970) 89 The Kraft Television Theatre Mann, Anthony 23 Janssen, David 39 (1947–50) 19 Mann, Delbert 15 Jason, David 149n56 Kring, Tom 106 Mann, Michael 87–8, 89 Jaye, Victoria 114 Kubrick, Stanley 72, 152n93 Manovich, Lev 97 Jenkins, Henry 105, 107 Kudrow, Lisa 136 Mantelli, Joe 15, 16 Jenkins, Steve 64 Marconi, Guglielmo 11 ‘JenniCam’ 127–8, 158n188 LA Law (1986–94) 99 Marion and Geoff (2000–3) 78 The Jericho Mile (1979) 89 LaFollette, Timothy 135–6 A Married Couple (1969) 69 Jermyn, Deborah 109 Landay, Lori 29 Marshall, James 92 Jersey Shore (2009) 83 Lange, Patricia G. 139 Martin, Royston 160n221

178 S M A L L S C R E E N A E S T H E T I C S

Marty (film, 1955) 16–17 Moran, Daniel Keys 156n164 Nichols, Nichelle 42 Marty (TV, 1953) 15–17, 16, 100, More, Kenneth 44 Nicholson, Jack 72 143, 147n20 Morrissey, Paul 149n52 Night Gallery (1970–3) 89 MASH (film, 1970) 43, 149n57 Mortimer, Bob 132–3 A Night Out (1960) 34 M*A*S*H (TV, 1972–83) 43–4, 72, Most Haunted (2002–10) 76 Nineteen Eighty-Four (TV, 1954) 87 149nn57–8 Mouse in Manhattan (1945) 22 Nixon, Richard 24, 148n38 mass-production, popular culture MTV 9, 52, 53–60, 61–2, 75, 87, No Trains to Lime Street (1959) 34 defined in terms of 4, 5–6 150nn66–76 Nochimson, Martha P. 103 Maysles, Albert 36 style of presentation 54–7, 79–80, Northern Exposure (1990–5) 91 McAuliffe, Christa 152n86 141 Norton, Graham 63–4 McEnery, Peter 35 use of digital technology 57–8 Now (1957) 17 McGrath, Joe 39 Multi-Coloured Swap Shop ‘The Numa Numa Song’ (YouTube McLuhan, Marshall 7, 145n9 (1976–82) 111 clip) 116, 119–20, 125, McPherson, Tara 109, 121 Murrow, Edward R. 18, 36 157n169, 157n181 ‘Me at the Zoo’ (YouTube clip) 122, music Nunn, Heather 76–7 157n176 in advertising 21, 55 Nurse (1995) 77 media convergence 3, 114–15 in The Avengers 47, 48 defined 84–5 channels devoted to 53–60, 113 O’Connor, John 149n62 see also cinema; Internet; radio; cinematic use of 86–7, 91, 100 O’Connor, John J. 70 theatre in early TV 21–2 O’Day, Marc 47 ‘medium theory’ 7 memorability 21, 147n33 The Office (UK, 2001–3) 78–9, 79, Merchant, Stephen 78 in news coverage 66, 68 153n103 Metallinos, Nikos 7, 55, 150n69 in The Osbournes 80–2 Often Awesome (Internet, 2009–12) Metropolis (1927) 27 in police series 43, 86–7 135–6 Metz, Christian 22 in quiz shows 100 OK Go (band) 126 Meyrowitz, Joshua 7 in Web TV 139, 141, 157n178 Oliver, Jamie 60 Miami Vice (film, 2006) 89 Mutoscope 124, 157n180 Once and Again (1999–2002) 135 Miami Vice (TV, 1984–9) 62, 86–8, My Favourite Husband (radio, The Only Way Is Essex (2010) 62, 83 88, 91, 153n112 1948–51) 26 Ontkean, Michael 91 editing/visual style 87–8 My So-called Life (1994–5) 135 Operation Good Guys (1997–2000) use of music 86–7, 153n114 MySpace 131–2 78 ‘Michael’ (security guard) 82 Oppenheimer, Jess 148n40 Mickey Mouse 12 The Naked and Famous 141 Opportunity Knocks (1946–90) 111, Mid-Morning Matters (Internet, The Naked Chef (1991–2001) 60 112, 155n151 2010–) 132–3 The Naked Civil Servant (1975) 142 Orwell, George, Nineteen Eighty-Four Miles, Adrian 117 Nance, Jack 91 11, 87, 146n13 Miller, Michael 121 Nelson, Robin 71, 94 Osbourne, Aimee 153n104 Miller, Toby 47, 94 Netburn, Deborah 158n195 Osbourne, Jack 79, 80, 81–2 Mills, Brett 26, 78 Newcomb, Horace 3, 5, 7, 23, 98, Osbourne, Kelly 79, 80, 82 The Mis-Adventures of an Awkward 142 Osbourne, Ozzy 79–80, 80, 81–2, Black Girl (Internet, 2011–) 136 Newell, Patrick 48 153n107 Mission: Impossible III (2003) 100 Newman, Michael Z. 103 Osbourne, Sharon 79, 80, 81, 82–3 Mission Impossible (1966–73) 26 Newman, Sydney 34, 45, 149n54 The Osbournes (2002–5) 10, 59, Mitchum, Robert 102 News at Ten (1967–) 21 79–83, 153nn104–8 ‘mockumentaries’ 78 news coverage 24–5, 64–8 generic hybridity 80–1, 83 modernism, impact on TV 39–40, changes in presentation 32–3, 33, Osgerby, Bill 41 62–4 60–1 Ott, Fred 122 Modesty Blaise (1966) 47 impact of colour 41 Otter, Kelly 83 Monaghan, Dominic 96 selection/qualities of newscasters Owen, Alun 34 The Monkees (1966–8) 55 25 Owen Marshall: Counsellor at Law Monty Python’s Flying Circus Newsweek (1948–) 69–70 (1971–4) 89 (1969–74) 78–9 Ngoei, Enette 140 Oxman, Brian 67–8 moon landing, coverage of 160n222 Nicholls, Bill 37 Oz (1997–2003) 94

I N D E x 179

O-Zone 116, 119 Q Planes (1939) 47 Ross, Jonathan 63–4 Ozzy Osbourne Uncut (1998) 79 Quant, Mary 47 Ross, Sharon Marie 108–9 Quantel Paintbox 47, 58, 150n73 Rosteck, Thomas 36 Palmer, R. Barton 37 Quarterlife (Internet, 2008) 135 The Royle Family (1998–2009) 78 Parental Control (2005–) 59 The Quatermass Experiment (TV, Russell, Gavin 138–9 Parker, Alan 89 1953) 87 Russell, Jason 137–40 Parkinson (1971–2004) 63 Quatermass II (TV, 1955) 153n113 The Partridge Family (1970–4) 80 Queer as Folk (1999–2000) 98–9 Said, Edward 139 Pearson, Ian 150n74 Question Time (1979–) 106 Saltonstrall, Leverett, Senator 36 Pennebaker, D. A. 36 The Quick Draw McGraw Show satellite TV see cable/satellite TV Pennies from Heaven (1978) 142 (1959–62) 22 Saturday Night Out (1956) 17 People Like Us (1999) 78 Quinn, Martha 150n69 Saving Private Ryan (1998) 94–5 ‘PersonCams’ 126–7 QVC 113 Sayles, John 89 examples of sites 127–8 Scannell, Paddy 12, 25, 30 Peter Gunn (1958–61) 39, radio, relationship of television with scheduling 31–2 153n116 15, 21–3, 24 Schmidt, Eric 84 Peters, Katherine 120 Radio Times 14 Schonfeld, Maurice ‘Reese’ 64, Petrie, Daniel 70 Rae, Issa 136 151n84 The Philco and Goodyear Playhouse Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) 100 science fiction 96–7 (1948–55) 147n29 Raymond, Alan 70 Scorsese, Martin 89 philosophy (and aesthetics) 4–6 Raza, Ghyslain 119, 156n167 Scott, Ridley 89 Pieto, Rick 83 The Real World (1992–) 59, 75 See It Now (1951–8) 18, 36–7, Pimp My Ride (2004–7) 59 ‘reality TV’ 25–6, 52, 59, 74–6 121 Pinter, Harold 34 artificiality 125 Seidelmann, Susan 99 Pirandello, Luigi, The Man with a influence on other genres 78–9 Seier, Andrea 120 Flower in His Mouth 11–12 interactivity 113–14 Seinfeld (1989–98) 26 Pittman, Robert W. 53–4, 150n67 online prefigurings 127 Seitz, Matt Zoller 95 The Pixies 126 origins 74–5 Sex and the City (TV, 1998–2004) Planet Earth (film, 2008) 99–100 and postmodernism 62 94, 99 The Police Tapes (1976) 70 RealPlayer 116 Sex and the City: The Movie (film, ‘Pop TV’ 46 ReBoot (1994–6) 154n134 2008) 99 pornography, relationship with Reeves, Vic 132–3 The Sex Pistols 142 webcam 128–9, 158n192 Reith, John (Lord) 147n28 Shameless (2004–) 99 Porter, Eric 44 Remembrance Service, transmission Shindler, Nicola 98–9 Porter, Nyree Dawn 44 of 13 The Shining (1980) 71–2 postmodernism 5–6, 61–2, Remote Control (1987–90) 59 shopping channels 113 151nn78–82 remote controls 148n45 Showbiz Tonight (2005–) 68 Potter, Dennis 40 The Ren and Stimpy Show (1991–6) showrunner, role of 155n136 Potter’s Wheel (interlude film) 31 62 signature tunes Pottle, Harry 49 Resnais, Alain 40, 87 importance in early TV 21 presidential debates/primaries, TV Reynolds, Gene 149n58 Simon, David 96 coverage 24, 36–7, 149n53 Rhoads, Randy 153n107 Simpson, Alan 147n36 Primary (1960) 36–7, 149n53 Richardson, Ralph 47 The Simpsons (1989–) 62, 80, The Prisoner (1967–8) 41–2 The Ricky Gervais Show (2010–) 153n108 producer/director, increased role of 147n34 The Singing Detective (1986) 63 98–9, 155n136 Rigg, Diana 45, 47 situation comedy 26–9 propaganda, use of TV for 12–13 Ringley, Jennifer Kate 127–8, animated 62 The Psychiatrist (1970–1) 89 158n188 early examples/techniques 20, Psycho (1960) 49 Rocky (1976) 71–2 26, 45, 51 public service broadcasting 13, Roddam, Franc 152n89 mock-documentary 78–9 147n28, 148n43 Roots (1977) 142 self-referencing 78–9 Purser, Philip 35 Rose, Jessica 132 theatrical origins 26–7, 43; moves Pushing Daisies (2007–9) 97 Ross, Eliot 139 away from 43–4, 99

180 S M A L L S C R E E N A E S T H E T I C S

Six Feet Under (2001–5) 94, The Sweeney (1985–8) 43 Today (1968–77) 160n223 154n125 Sylvania Waters (1992) 82, 153n109 Tomb Raider (videogame) 108 The Six Million Dollar Man (1973–8) The Tonight Show with Jay Leno 90 Taft, Robert A., Senator 36 (1992–) 81, 157n169 Skins (2007–12) 106–7 Talking Heads (1987–98) 100 Top Cat (1961–2) 22 Skype 126–7 Tarrant, Chris 101 Top Gun (1986) 98 slash fiction 155n143 Tartikoff, Brandon 87 The Trouble with Our Ivy (1961) 35 Smith, Barry 128 Taylor, Gilbert 149n62 True Blood (2008–) 94, 154n125 The Sneeze (1914) 122 Taynton, William Edward 145n2 Truffaut, François 147n22 soap operas 25–6 ‘teasers’ 31–2 Turnbull, Sue 109 online 137 technology, developments in 36–7, Turner, Janice 129 settings 102 40, 51–2, 57–8, 85–6, 93–8 Twin Peaks (TV, 1990–1) 62, 90–3, The Sopranos (1999–2007) 6, 10, impact on viewing habits 93–4 92, 137, 154n118, 154nn120–6, 94, 101–4, 103, 155nn141–2 see also digital technology 159n209 cinematic style 102–4 television credit sequence 90–1 The Soup (2004–) 119 criticisms 4, 5–6 show-within-a-show (Invitiation to South Park (1997–) 62 early years see early television Love) 91, 154n122 Spencer, John 73 hybrid/evolving nature 1–3, 84–6, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (film, Spiegel, Sam 87 142–4 1992) 91 Spielberg, Steven 89, 94–5 interactive see interactive Twitter 106 split-screen imaging 109–10 television sports coverage ‘intimacy’ 16–17, 22–6, 100 ‘uncertainty principle’ 128 online following/responses 106 moves towards distinctive identity Unsichtbarer Gegner (1933) 87 popularity 13 44–5, 52–3 Up the Junction (1965) 40–1, 73 techniques 18, 23, 110 quality 6, 145nn7–8 Uricchio, William 121 The Spot (web diary) 131 relationships with other media see Ursu, Marion F. 114 Springwatch (2005–) 148n41 cinema; Internet; media US television Star, Darren 99 convergence; radio; theatre; children’s 111 Star Trek (1966–9) 26, 42, 42–3, 97 Web TV cinematic influences/style 86–98 Star Wars (1977) 140, 160n220 studies 3, 5–7 criticisms 31–2 ‘Star Wars Kid’ (YouTube clip) 119, technological developments see ethos/competition 13 140, 156–7nn166–8, 157n181 technology impact in UK 98–9 Starsky and Hutch (1975–9) 43, ‘Television’ (song) 11, 146n12 picture quality/editing 45–6 89 Television Goes to Sea (1954) 17 political coverage 24, 36–7 Steadicam 71–2, 152n93, 152n96 Temporal, Paul 54 scheduling 31–2 Steamboat Willie (1928) 22 theatre, relationship of television Steiger, Rod 15, 16 with 15, 17, 19 van Dijck, José 129 Stephens, Mitchell 20 see also situation comedy Vance, Vivian 26, 28 Stevens, Julie 149n60 Theroux, Louis 77 Vega$ (1978–81) 89 Stone, Oliver 91 thirtysomething (1987–91) 135 The Venture Bros (2003–10) Strachon, Keith 100 This Is Spinal Tap (1984) 78 157n167 Strangelove, Michael 119 This Life (1996–7) 73–4 Vered, Karen Orr 110 Streamy awards 159n210 This Week (1956–92) 69 Versace, Gianni 88 The Streets of New York (1939) 13 Thomas, Philip Michael 86, 88 Vic and Bob’s Afternoon Delights Sunday Night at the London Thompson, Robert J. 89, 91 (Internet, 2011–) 132–3 Palladium (1955–7) 33–4, 34, Thomson, H. A. R. 149n62 Video Diaries (1991–) 76–7, 148n47 Thorburn, David 2–3, 102 156n161 The Sunday Night Play (1960–3) Thorpe, Vanessa 93 videogames 114 34–5 Thorson, Linda 45, 46 Vietnam War, coverage 41, 43–4 Supernatural (2005–) 62 three-camera set-up 9, 27–8, 78 The Virginian (TV, 1962–71) 41 Survivor (2000–) 155n149 Thussu, Daya K. 150–1n77 Vision On (1964–76) 111 Sutherland, Kiefer 109, 115 Timoner, Ondi 158n190 Vitti, Monica 47 Sutton, Frank 16 To, Tony 95 The Voice (2010–) 106

I N D E x 181

Wagner, Jon Nelson 104 Weissman, Elke 109 Wolk, Douglas 125 The Waltons (1972–4) 82 Wells, Paul 22 Woman in a Dressing Gown (1956) Warhol, Andy 149n52 Wenzel, Christian Helmut 4 34 Watson, Paul 152n89, 153n109 West, Amy 76 Woo, John 133 Waugh, Evelyn 44 The West Wing (1999–2006) 6, 73, Woolf, Virginia 40 We Live in Public (2009) 158n190 74, 152n97 Workers Leaving the Lumière Factory The Weakest Link (2000–12) 100 Western films/series 23, 41, 95 (1895) 122 Weaver, Michael 97 Whedon, Joss 135 World War II 12–13 Web Therapy (Internet, 2008–) 136 Where I Live (1960) 35 Wylie, Michael 97 Web TV 3, 10, 116–41 Where the Buffalo Roam (1966) Wyndham Goldie, Grace 13 (lack of) narrative structure 122–3 40 aesthetics 134–7 WhirlGirl (Internet, 1997) The X Factor (2004–) 113 audience responses 123–4, 124, 159n199 The X-Files (film, 1998) 6 129–30, 130 Whitford, Bradley 73 The X-Files (TV, 1993–2002) 6, 91 ‘authenticity’ 125–6, 134–6 Whittaker, Michael 47 ‘documercials’ 140 Whittemore, Hank 65 Yogi Bear (1961) 22 hoaxes 130–2 Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? YouTube 10, 118–26, 130–4, 140 as medium in its own right 118 (1998–) 100, 101 change of slogan 117 reasons for popularity 124–5 Wiggin, Maurice 18 clips’ (lack of) narrative structure technological developments Wild Palms (1993) 91 122–3 117–18 Wilkerson, Michael 139–40 earliest clips 122, 157n176 see also webcams; YouTube Williams, John 100 hoaxes 130–2 Webb, Jack 37–9, 38 Williams, Raymond 3, 5, 31–2, 54, ‘viral’ successes 119–20, 121, webcams 9, 10, 118, 126–30 107 130–1, 156n165 categories 126–7 Willis, Ellen 155n138 You’ve Been Framed (1990–1) 74 creation 127 Willis, Ted (Lord) 34 development 117–18, 127 Wilson, Anton 102 Z Cars (1962–78) 39–40 overall aesthetic 128–30 Winky Dink and You (1953–7) 111, Zakarin, Scott 131 relationship with audience 155n150 Zemeckis, Robert 89 129–30, 130 The Wire (2002–8) 94, 96 Zettl, Herbert 5 voyeuristic elements 127–9 Wired (magazine) 116 Zwick, Edward 135 see also ‘PersonCams’ Wohl, Richard 24–5 Zworykin, Vladimir K. 1, 145n1

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS While considerable effort has been made to correctly identify the copyright holders, this has not been possible in all cases. We apologise for any apparent negligence and any omissions or corrections brought to our attention will be remedied in any future editions.

Marty, © Steven Productions; Hancock’s Half-Hour, BBC; I Love Lucy, Desilu Productions; Sunday Night at the London Palladium, Associated Television; Lena, O My Lena, ABC; Dragnet, Mark VII Ltd; Star Trek, Desilu Productions/Norway Corporation/Paramount Television; The Avengers, ABC Weekend Television/ABC; Harry Hill’s TV Burp, © Avalon TV; Is This the Worst Weather Ever?, ITV; Beavis and Butt-Head, J.J Sedelmaier Productions/Paramount Television/Tenth Annual Industries/Judgemental Films Inc./Film Roman Productions/Ternion Pictures; Hill Street Blues, MTM Enterprises/NBC Television; Big Brother, Endemol; The Office, BBC Worldwide; The Man Who Fell to Earth, © Houtsnede Maatschappij N.V.; ER, Constant C Productions/John Wells Productions/Amblin Entertainment/Warner Bros. Television/Amblin Television/Hands Down Entertainment; The West Wing, John Wells Productions with Warner Bros. Television; The Osbournes, Joks Productions LCC/MTV Music Development; Miami Vice, Michael Mann Productions/Universal TV; Twin Peaks, Frost/Lynch Productions/ABC; Who Wants to Be a Millionnaire?, Celador Productions for Carlton Television; The Sopranos, Brillstein-Grey Entertainment/Chase Films; 24, Imagine Television with 20th Century Fox TV; Opportunity Knocks, BBC.