When I am with friends and the topic of tv comes up my eyes glaze over and I tune out until the conversation is finished. While reading at a bar recently I was asked if I had seen a specific tv show (strangers always seem to feel that a woman alone at a bar with a book is an invitation) and the look I got when I replied that I don’t really watch a lot of tv was one of shock and disgust.
I rebuke the idea that TV is inherently dumbing. What is inherently deep about a kitschy dark romance novel with a shirtless man on it? Probably not as much depth as Crime and Punishment, and yet they are both books. Similarly, in Television you have both Love Island and Chernobyl. In comic books, you have Archie and Watchmen. The medium isn't a prerequisite to the depth. What is important is our commitment and perceived depth.
Engaging with art is an active process, the author does as much work creating as you do interpreting. If you view television as shallow, you will not gain anything from watching television. Similarly, there's an elitist notion around the idea of books as prestige media; some books, like It Ends With Us, are more simple than others and that's fine.
I think it's way more important that we change our philosophy to engaging with art rather than denigrating certain classes altogether.
I will acknowledge that certain formats are more likely to attract "surface-level" art. It's easier to turn your mind off with a movie than a book because it's passive and stimulating, so you have to be more discerning when deciding on movies and TV than you do with books. There's also a cultural aspect, because books are "prestigious", intellectuals write them with greater commitment to depth, and because movies are "popular", producers make them to be crowd-pleasing and simple.
Ultimately, I don't want to disparage certain media altogether, but I will accept that there are certain realities related to them, and it's best that we accept both realities.
I thought the TV series re/make of "Ripley" was fascinating. We watched the movie version afterward to compare, which upped the intrigue experience. Thanks for your list, I'm going to start with Le Chimera. Great piece, as well as some of the off-links and comments.
I did a module on adaptations last year at university, and one thing we studied extensively was the nature of different mediums using 'tracks'. Essentially, if we were discussing an adaptation from a novel into a film we would look at the novel as being 'single-track' (said track being written prose), and film as being a 'multi-track' medium (written and spoken words, theatrical performance, music, sound effects, moving images). Of course, these are very generalised categories that should be tailored to each case (not all films have sound, some novels make use of physical images, etc), but I think it's helpful- at least for me- in understanding maybe a little bit of why I will usually go to a film or TV show more easily than a book.
Put simply: it's less mental labour. The nature of a lot of film and TV is to use every one of these 'tracks' available to get an idea across. However in many books, they have only one track to work with. This does not mean that film and TV present everything simply and easily, and I refute the idea that it is dumbing, or that dumbing is even a bad thing (I don't want or need to be challenged all the time). What it does acknowledge though, is that more of our senses can be directly engaged with to spread the mental labour, rather than concentrating it all on one track.
This is at least how I understand it for myself, and of course does not have to apply to everyone and everything.
All your book/film recs make me feel like I’ve plunged my head into a bucket of ice water—in the best way. I’ll add Miguel Gomes’s films since they have a similar vibe to Alice Rohrwacher and Zia Anger.
Yes yes yes to this list. I just watched the doc, A Season with Isabella Rossellini, last night and it brought me so much joy. And includes some behind the scenes footage of La Chimera. Now I must watch that one!
Before Covid, I rarely watched television. Unfortunately, I developed the habit, as you say, as a way of disassociating. Since then, I have scaled back my watch-time, but I find myself watching more than I really want to now that I have new reasons to disassociate given this point in our history. I saw Conclave and I do not recommend it because, like most films today, they can't resist beating you over the head with a specific ideological viewpoint. Those who know me might be surprised by my stance since I am no fan of the church, but this problem affects both sides of ideological divide.
With all due respect to Erik, his letter points to another problem. That problem is the way we watch movies and read books. Why does he consider Conclave to be "something to blaze through, enjoy, and then forget about"? It is a serious film with a serious message (even if it's presented overtly in a didactic way).
This reminds me of a deep and moving film that everyone should watch: The Banshees of Inisherin. I plan to write a post on it. The layers of meaning are many and its philosophical import is profound. The great philosopher Agnes Callard made the film the topic of a public seminar. When I tried to discuss this film with others, most were unable to articulate what it meant on any level. All I heard was "poor Jenny." One need not be versed in philosophy or literature to understand the surface, and that most do not is a serious problem.
When I am with friends and the topic of tv comes up my eyes glaze over and I tune out until the conversation is finished. While reading at a bar recently I was asked if I had seen a specific tv show (strangers always seem to feel that a woman alone at a bar with a book is an invitation) and the look I got when I replied that I don’t really watch a lot of tv was one of shock and disgust.
I rebuke the idea that TV is inherently dumbing. What is inherently deep about a kitschy dark romance novel with a shirtless man on it? Probably not as much depth as Crime and Punishment, and yet they are both books. Similarly, in Television you have both Love Island and Chernobyl. In comic books, you have Archie and Watchmen. The medium isn't a prerequisite to the depth. What is important is our commitment and perceived depth.
Engaging with art is an active process, the author does as much work creating as you do interpreting. If you view television as shallow, you will not gain anything from watching television. Similarly, there's an elitist notion around the idea of books as prestige media; some books, like It Ends With Us, are more simple than others and that's fine.
I think it's way more important that we change our philosophy to engaging with art rather than denigrating certain classes altogether.
I will acknowledge that certain formats are more likely to attract "surface-level" art. It's easier to turn your mind off with a movie than a book because it's passive and stimulating, so you have to be more discerning when deciding on movies and TV than you do with books. There's also a cultural aspect, because books are "prestigious", intellectuals write them with greater commitment to depth, and because movies are "popular", producers make them to be crowd-pleasing and simple.
Ultimately, I don't want to disparage certain media altogether, but I will accept that there are certain realities related to them, and it's best that we accept both realities.
Thank you for recognizing how unworthy The Bear is of our time and attention.
I thought the TV series re/make of "Ripley" was fascinating. We watched the movie version afterward to compare, which upped the intrigue experience. Thanks for your list, I'm going to start with Le Chimera. Great piece, as well as some of the off-links and comments.
I did a module on adaptations last year at university, and one thing we studied extensively was the nature of different mediums using 'tracks'. Essentially, if we were discussing an adaptation from a novel into a film we would look at the novel as being 'single-track' (said track being written prose), and film as being a 'multi-track' medium (written and spoken words, theatrical performance, music, sound effects, moving images). Of course, these are very generalised categories that should be tailored to each case (not all films have sound, some novels make use of physical images, etc), but I think it's helpful- at least for me- in understanding maybe a little bit of why I will usually go to a film or TV show more easily than a book.
Put simply: it's less mental labour. The nature of a lot of film and TV is to use every one of these 'tracks' available to get an idea across. However in many books, they have only one track to work with. This does not mean that film and TV present everything simply and easily, and I refute the idea that it is dumbing, or that dumbing is even a bad thing (I don't want or need to be challenged all the time). What it does acknowledge though, is that more of our senses can be directly engaged with to spread the mental labour, rather than concentrating it all on one track.
This is at least how I understand it for myself, and of course does not have to apply to everyone and everything.
All your book/film recs make me feel like I’ve plunged my head into a bucket of ice water—in the best way. I’ll add Miguel Gomes’s films since they have a similar vibe to Alice Rohrwacher and Zia Anger.
Yes yes yes to this list. I just watched the doc, A Season with Isabella Rossellini, last night and it brought me so much joy. And includes some behind the scenes footage of La Chimera. Now I must watch that one!
Such wonderful selections!
Before Covid, I rarely watched television. Unfortunately, I developed the habit, as you say, as a way of disassociating. Since then, I have scaled back my watch-time, but I find myself watching more than I really want to now that I have new reasons to disassociate given this point in our history. I saw Conclave and I do not recommend it because, like most films today, they can't resist beating you over the head with a specific ideological viewpoint. Those who know me might be surprised by my stance since I am no fan of the church, but this problem affects both sides of ideological divide.
With all due respect to Erik, his letter points to another problem. That problem is the way we watch movies and read books. Why does he consider Conclave to be "something to blaze through, enjoy, and then forget about"? It is a serious film with a serious message (even if it's presented overtly in a didactic way).
This reminds me of a deep and moving film that everyone should watch: The Banshees of Inisherin. I plan to write a post on it. The layers of meaning are many and its philosophical import is profound. The great philosopher Agnes Callard made the film the topic of a public seminar. When I tried to discuss this film with others, most were unable to articulate what it meant on any level. All I heard was "poor Jenny." One need not be versed in philosophy or literature to understand the surface, and that most do not is a serious problem.
Thanks for the list. So many I didn’t know
The more I get into writing, the less I want to watch anything
“This was the only good television that existed last year, if a mini series counts as TV… I really have no idea.”
I wrote about exactly this a few weeks ago! I usually try to avoid self-promoting like this, but seems relevant:
https://www.roughcuts.blog/p/against-cinematic-television
Great article. Agree wholeheartedly
Thank you!