Whatever Happened to the Movie-of-the-Week? [The Shocking True Story of How Made-For-TV Movies Disappeared from the Broadcast Networks]

In 1991, Gary Edgerton published an essay in which he called for a reconsideration of the made-for-television (MFT) movie and its importance to network television (2003, 209-230). By the early 1990s, made-for-television movies were widely perceived to be a disreputable form, full of clichés, overly dramatic moments, and overwrought performances. Edgerton’s essay provided a corrective to such conceptions. He illustrated how, during the classic network era, the genre was not only among the most prestigious of televisual forms but also a “fundamental programming staple of network television” (211). To understand MFTs, Edgerton argued, one had to understand the economic and industrial conditions in which they were made (221). More than fifteen years have passed since Edgerton wrote his essay. Today, MFTs have all but disappeared from network television. Whereas in the mid1970s more than 100 such films aired annually on the broadcast networks, by 2006 the number had fallen below a dozen (Reynolds 2005, 14). This is not to suggest that MFTs have disappeared from television. In fact, they remain a prominent form on several cable networks. Throughout the mid-2000s, more than a hundred total original films aired annually across such varied program services as Lifetime, HBO, the Sci-Fi Channel, and Hallmark (Moss 2005, 8). Although MFTs continue to have a presence on television, they are usually targeted to and viewed by much more narrowly defined audience niches than they were during the classic network era in the 1970s. Indeed, MFTs’ industrial and economic roles-as well as the ways they are valued culturally-have shifted dramatically in recent years. This chapter explores how the made-fortelevision movie has changed from the mid-1970s to the present day. The first section returns to Edgerton’s work, re-examining claims he makes about the industrial and textual characteristics of the MFT. The second reframes his assertions in light of the significant developments that have taken place both in television as well as in the larger media landscape. This section also traces the

gradual ways in which the movies themselves underwent notable shifts during the 1990s and early 2000s. The third section explores key factors contributing to the nearly complete disappearance of MFTs from broadcast schedules during the mid-2000s. The following study of the transformation of the MFT provides a focused means by which to assess how television’s cultural and institutional roles have shifted from the classic network era into the present digital age.1 This study also suggests the extent to which MFTs as a genre have become associated with specific taste cultures. In particular, the vast majority of MFTs now produced are targeted to (and thus associated with) viewers who, by virtue of their gender (female), location (rural/suburban), and age (over 50), broadcast networks devalue. The popular press and industry often see those who watch MFTs as being less desirable as viewer-consumers. Toward the end of the classic network era, critics and the press began to view MFTs as low-culture products. This was partly a function of the genre growing tired due to excessive recycling of storylines and overdependence on the form throughout the program schedule. In the contemporary post-network era, MFTs have not only fallen out of favor with the press but with the broadcast networks as well. As broadcasters have become more focused on pursuing upscale “quality” audiences and younger viewers with edgier fictional series and reality programming, MFTs-and their assumed audience-have been marginalized. MFT viewers, in turn, have been relegated to a limited number of niche channels such as Hallmark and Lifetime. In order for an MFT to avoid being perceived as undesirable, it needs to be explicitly framed as an “event” or positioned as a “motion picture” rather than a “made-for-television movie.” The very label of “made-for-TV movie” has come to evoke powerful negative connotations. Notwithstanding Edgerton’s call for greater respect, MFTs remain absent not only from the broadcast networks but from recent scholarship on television (but see Gomery 1984; Levine 2007). To some extent, the limited discussion of MFTs in scholarly literature is not surprising. MFTs are far more difficult than series television programs to track in reference books, trade publications, and newspapers. They are rarely covered or reviewed unless they are high-profile event programs such as Broken Trail (AMC, 2006) or they come under scrutiny for their historical accuracy, as was the case with ABC’s The Path to 9/11 (2006). Typically, only those movies that have won numerous awards or attracted media attention are released on video. These factors all pose problems for scholars wanting to understand their presence-or lack thereof-on television.2 Yet as I will indicate, by thinking more about why and where MFTs have and have not shown up on contempor-

ary television, we can come to a fuller understanding of the medium’s shifting economic, institutional, and cultural roles. Prior to this, it is important to highlight the key components of Edgerton’s essay.