In
case you haven't noticed, a revolution is being televised.
Weekly
dramas and made-for-TV movies, which once had the visual pizazz of yearbook
photos, now aerobicize the eye with bustling choreography, meticulously
furnished sets, unconventional camera angles and moody lighting.
Watch
the long, seamless tracking shots of "ER" -- doctors and nurses moving
with daredevil precision through twisting corridors roiling with activity.
Watch
those alien-chasing FBI agents Scully and Mulder slice the dark with flashlight
beams on the stylishly ominous "X-Files."
Watch
Hercules and Xena patrol a mythic landscape populated by demons, giants
and scores of extras in medieval regalia.
And
then remind yourself that 20 years ago, TV could get by quite profitably
with series such as "Dallas," whose visually interesting elements began
and ended with the opening chopper shot of Southfork.
TV
shows are becoming more movie-like all the time. They're even starting
to look as good as the commercials that surround them. We've entered an
era in which "The West Wing" is richer visually than "The American President,"
the 1995 theatrical film that inspired it, and a made-for-TNT movie, Sunday's
"Witchblade," approximates the graphic panache of "The Matrix."
Competitive
pressures, affordable technology and viewer sophistication are driving
TV's growing ambition.
"Audiences
are accustomed to the [first-class] production values because of all the
big movies that they see," said "Witchblade" director Ralph Hemecker, whose
credits include "The X-Files" and "Millennium."
"Also,
as technology evolves at a quicker rate, things that were only feasible
on the big screen with a big budget several years ago are now eminently
more do-able on a fraction of that budget," Hemecker said.
"Witchblade"
cost just under $5 million, about what the makers of "The Matrix" spent
on Keanu Reeves.
"Through
each generation, people's taste [and their] visual literacy improve tremendously,"
said cinematographer Geoff Schaaf. "Kids today have been exposed to so
much more film and visual images than my generation. You see it in the
[editing] styles today. The cutting pace is so much faster than it was,
say, in the '70s and the '60s. Older people will often watch this fast-cut
stuff and get very disoriented, very confused, even angry. But kids consider
it necessary to keep their interest.
"What
you're really talking about is density of information -- how much information
you can pack into the show -- whether you're talking about each individual
frame, really making it rich and having lots of points of visual interest,
or the cutting style, the amount of movement in the frame," Schaaf said.
Mirroring
that development is the ability of viewers to digest more detail. "They
not only like it -- they demand it," he said.
How
we got here
Let's
back up a little. We didn't go from "Adam 12" to "Ally McBeal" overnight.
There
were hints of what TV could do cinematically as early as 1971, when a young
hotshot who had been directing episodes of "Columbo" and "McCloud" applied
a little Hitchcockian montage to a potentially forgettable made-for-TV
cheapie about a motorist stalked by a big, bad truck. But little Stevie
Spielberg's acclaimed "Duel" remained a rare exception to the TV rule for
a decade.
"Content
was never important to the networks," said Steven Poster, vice president
of the American Society of Cinematographers. "Sales were important. Now
they're realizing that sales are driven by content."
But
the change was gradual. Although it looks relatively stage-bound today,
"Hill Street Blues" startled viewers in 1981 with its jumpy, hand-held
camerawork. More influential still was the way its directors packed the
screen with movement, and not just in the foreground. Camera shots had
depth. Even extras in the distance seemed to be moving with purpose.
"'Hill
Street' may be what started this current trend of layering -- achieving
depth in the frame not through [photographic] depth of field but through
layers of motion, lighting, colors," said Schaaf. "It was revolutionary
in its time."
During
the run of "Hill Street," TV producers began to hire independent film veterans
to work on their shows. Ron Garcia, whose credits include the incomparable
"Twin Peaks" pilot in 1990, was recruited for TV in the mid-'80s to spruce
up Stephen Cannell's flagging cop series, "Hunter." Garcia moved back and
forth between film and TV thereafter, bringing his eye to series as diverse
as Cannell's "Stingray" and Michael Mann's mobster serial "Crime Story."
It
may surprise graphically savvy viewers that the pros consider "Crime Story"
(1986-88) a more significant show than Mann's earlier, bigger hit, "Miami
Vice," which aped the style of music videos. Garcia says that Mann wanted
a show characterized by a movie-like darkness -- think "The Godfather"
-- that made the guardians of broadcast standards at NBC blanch. They feared
that it would end up dim and muddy on the receiving end. Mann said it was
his way or the highway. NBC quietly adjusted its technical standards, and
"Crime Story" paved the way for darkly ambient, color saturated shows that
include "The X-Files," "Felicity," "The Practice" and "The Sopranos."
Now
that TV's creators have the tools, the only barriers to excellence are
pride and will, suggested "West Wing" executive producer Thomas Schlamme.
"If you're committed to the quality, if you do not succumb to being mediocre,
if your attitude is that this episode means as much to me emotionally as
if somebody just gave me a feature [film], mountains can be climbed," he
said.
"I
know we can make this look as good as we want to make it look."
What
price graphics
What's
truly impressive about TV's graphic renaissance is that it is being accomplished
on a relative shoestring. Technology is a key. Today's breakthrough movie
technique shows up in tomorrow's Gillette razor commercial and the day
after that on "Babylon 5."
Computer-generated
imagery is one aspect of this revolution. "Witchblade" director Hemecker
said his production team "ended up with some of the same effects as 'The
Matrix'" but through different means -- and "on a fraction of their craft-services
budget."
There
also has been improvement in more basic movie-making. "As Kodak delivers
better film -- more sensitive, with different types of color rendition
-- and the equipment that we use -- for instance, the lenses and equipment
from Panavision get better and easier to use -- and more and more students
come out of better schools, the general quality is increasing," Poster
said.
Moreover,
the quality of TV transmitters and sets has improved, allowing "a greater
range of detail, a greater range of brightness to dark," said Schaaf.
But
if new inventions affect TV's capacity to approximate the theatrical look,
so does old-fashioned discipline and ingenuity.
"You
have to be very precise going in," Hemecker said. "It's a process of visualization,
with storyboards, visual references and finding out the most economical
way to get what you want -- and also not to dilute your resources trying
to do too many effects. Just do a few and do them very well, as opposed
to doing a bunch of mediocre ones."
"Tricks
of the trade" also help deliver more bang for the buck, he said: "Sometimes
extremely tight shots can be more productive than giant shots -- less expensive
but equally interesting. You know, a tight shot of sweat dripping down
somebody's face can tell a big story."
Schaaf
said a simple switch to night shooting invigorated the USA Network's "Swamp
Thing," which was closer to no-budget than low-budget. "I would put a lot
of back-lighting on things, which would define shapes but wouldn't give
you too many cues in terms of texture and detail. That meant the [monster]
suit could look incredibly wonderful and ominous, and you couldn't see
the zippers and the Velcro."
The
next generation
With
digital broadcasting and high-definition TV hovering like a "Roswell" UFO,
it's safe to say that we ain't seen nothing yet. "In the relatively near
future, anything you can envision can be rendered in a way that feels realistic,"
said Hemecker.
There
may be a bit of backsliding before we sail off into video utopia, however.
"Not
that digital and high-definition production are bad, but it's a different
quality; it's a different medium," said Poster. "You're not using the 'mystery'
of film. You're using the directness of videotape to express yourself.
It's limiting in certain aspects of the visual quality."
In
the shakedown stage, digital production may deliver a picture that looks
"like a local auto dealer's commercial," he said.
All
the more reason to savor TV's here and now.
Witchblade
Review:
3
Out of a possible four stars
This
entertaining comic-book adaptation -- about a policewoman (Yancy Bulter)
who discovers she's the heir to a miraculously powerful armored glove --
is closer in style and special effects to theatrical films such as "The
Matrix" than to TV's "Wonder Woman" despite its TV-movie budget.