Television is better than the movies ... Yes it is true (give it up for "Eastbound and Down"!) ... by gimleteye

It's summer and the movies are here. I just read through the New York Times film reviews on Friday and couldn't find a single movie I wanted to see. Over the past several years, this is increasingly the case: big summer movies are small attractions.

I'm a fan of Judd Apatow. It is not that I don't appreciate humor that plumbs body parts and efflorescence for treasure. I like excrement jokes as much as the next guy. But boy men who finally confront adulthood: I got it the first time. Not even Woody Allen's new movie, or at least its NY Times review, with Larry David inspires me.

And Larry David might be the point of this essay because I really do love the HBO show, "Curb Your Enthusiasm" created by and starring Mr. David. (The rabbi, the wish, and the dry cleaning lady) Here is the point:

Somehow, television figured out that the time-- as the case of episodes-- can draw in audiences through complexity of plot and characters, and do so more consistently that film. The network routine was to send stick figures through 13 episodes a season to reliable deliver product for advertisers. You went to the movie theater to find dramas that were more complex and "unsuitable" for network TV.

Cable television scrambled that equation. The for-pay channels figured out that network TV had ceded plot and character development. That's what audiences want.

I used to wait for movies that offered stories and characters with depth and drive; focused by having to keep audiences riveted for at least 90 minutes. All that changed with Hollywood economics tied to blockbuster budgets, surefire sequels and the need to tailor films so that they would cross-pollinate with large and diverse international markets. The result: mostly horrible.

Larry David, one of the originators of Seinfeld, uses the long format series to brilliant effect in "Curb Your Enthusiasm". The show is unafraid to take its time, over many hours, to plumb the intricacies of a Woody Allen-ish character and his life in Hollywood as a comedy writer for television. One of the more interesting features of the series: film stars who make guest appearances on the show in character and opposite from audience expectation of familiar fictional roles. I rarely watched "Friends" but couldn't wait for David Schwimmer in "Curb".

In terms of reversing expectations, the main feature of the new television is simply that fine writers for cable TV use the episode structure for more than sticking advertisers and their products to viewers. Unfortunately, network television has succumbed nearly completely to the cost factor. I can't watch reality TV shows. I'm lost to "Lost". But I will admit to succumbing to the insufferable Keifer Sutherland and over-wrought "24". It tries and succeeds in the long-format. (Damn you, Rupert Murdoch!)

"Sopranos", another HBO show, kept us riveted for years. So did "The Wire". I'm a fan of "In Treatment". I pray for the best show that never made it through a full season on HBO, "Eastbound and Down", to return ASAP. (You can see its glorious six episodes by clicking into the website, surfthechannel.com) Even lighter fare, like "Entourage" and the "Tudors", takes advantage of what the extensions of time can offerlow brow plots and characters who don't stretch far but do so luxuriously. I miss "Deadwood" and even "John from Cincinnati" from the strange and brilliant David Milch.

So, the value is on the cable television side of the divide with film. In recent seasons, HBO has competition. There is the emergence of rivals Showtime ("Dexter", fantastic, "Weeds", so-so last season) and the AMC Channel ("Mad Men", outstanding, and my new favorite, "Breaking Bad", a marvel).

The point is: this summer if you want to be entertained you will do better and cheaper than going to the movie theater: rent the DVD.