Abstract
In recent discussions around concepts like prestige television, peak TV, and a new Golden Age of Television, both viewers and industry insiders often use the word “cinematic” to describe the content they perceive as standing out from the rest of the television landscape based on its quality, artistry, and narrative depth. Comerford’s book takes up the concept of “cinematic television” to work toward a clearer understanding of the term while exploring other issues raised by and related to the concept. Rather than providing definitive answers or closure, Comerford seems primarily interested in raising questions and opening dialogue that will advance scholarly discussions of cinematic television as a media form worthy of sustained analysis.
In building the book’s arguments, Comerford acknowledges that a precise definition of “cinematic television” is difficult to pin down, as it means different things to different viewers, critics, and industry insiders. Despite this, Comerford argues that the widespread references to cinematic television in popular media and audience discussions encourage further study of the phenomenon (p. 11), in part because the concept is defined less by any fixed internal signifiers and more by the discursive framing of the concept generated by its producers and consumers (p. 161). Comerford also argues that the recognition of cinematic television as its own unique form, one that ‘embodies a stylistic hybridization of film and television,’ does not diminish the study of television in favor of film, but instead offers ‘exciting avenues for research and artistic appreciation in the future’ (p. 16).
The discussions and evidence used to support Comerford’s arguments are presented in a logical and helpful way. After an introduction to the book’s central concepts and a justification for further exploration, Comerford moves to a review of existing literature, focusing on debates about quality and the cinematic as concepts used to define and analyse television. Drawing on the work of scholars like Mittell (2015), Mills (2013) and Jaramillo (2013), Comerford explores the concerns many scholars have raised about describing television as cinematic before arguing that cinematic television might and should be seen as another category of television programming along with four camera sitcoms, chat shows, and others.
Following the literature review, the discussion moves to an exploration of the aesthetic hallmarks that are typically associated with cinematic television. To frame this discussion, Comerford offers three lenses through which to consider the aesthetics of cinematic television, all of which shape the way we discuss such content. Drawing on the work of Lotz (2014), Wheatley (2016), and Newman and Levine (2012), Comerford argues that cinematic television ‘stands out’ from the rest of the television landscape; ‘invokes visual pleasure’ through an emphasis on visual storytelling and details; and ‘is freighted with discursive baggage’ surrounding issues of ‘gender, race, class, and cultural taste’ (p. 57). These lenses shape the ensuing discussion of the aesthetics of cinematic television, during which Comerford also explores some of the differences between ‘the spectacular, the slow-burn drama, and the dramedy cinematic styles’ (p. 66). Building on the discussion of aesthetics, the remaining chapters consider questions related to the production and reception of cinematic television, as well as the recent proliferation of media franchises that have generated television programs with roots in theatrical films. A series of case studies round out the book and provide opportunities to pull together the topics and arguments presented in the earlier chapters.
Cinematic Digital Television continues a scholarly discussion that is important and relevant for those studying film and/or television. As Comerford notes in the introduction, the idea of cinematic television is not new, but is ‘one that is in dire need of a roadmap, historically and prospectively’ (p. 16). By pulling together highlights from previous discussions of television’s cinematic qualities and then raising valuable questions to push the conversation forward, Comerford provides just such a roadmap. In addition to the chapter dedicated entirely to case studies, the book includes many helpful examples (ranging from the epic fantasy Game of Thrones (2011-2019) to the time loop comedy Russian Doll (2019-present)) to demonstrate the concepts explored in each of the chapters. In all cases, Comerford provides enough description of the programs being explored to make the case studies valuable even to those who have not seen the shows discussed.
As previously noted, this book functions largely to raise questions and forward conversations, rather than to provide definitive conclusions. In the discussion of audience reception of cinematic television, Comerford acknowledges that this study does not include any sustained engagement with actual viewers to better understand their behaviours, and suggests that this could be the subject of another book. The same could be said for industry patterns. This book’s comments about production focus largely on authorship, but there is much more to explore regarding the industrial and promotional practices involved with cinematic television. This might also be best suited for another project. This book, however, succeeds as a synthesis of existing scholarship and a catalyst for additional work, and I can see it being a valuable resource for advanced students and scholars working in any area of media studies.