ABSTRACT
The predominant myth of cinema, fostered by cinema itself, is that its images and sounds present reality. The equivalent myth of TV is that its broadcasts are immediate and live. Each myth reveals something of how the medium concerned wants to be watched. It reveals the kind of spectator that the medium proposes that we should be, what state of mind we should have, what kinds of pleasure and satisfaction we should achieve. Each medium proposes an ideal spectator and a position for that spectator; and it is habitual in our society to occupy that position more or less when using the particular medium. Cinema proposes its image of reality to a spectator who wishes to resolve an enigma, who is concerned to gain the answer to particular questions, the resolution to specific problems. TV proposes its sense of immediacy to a spectator who is concerned to remain in touch with events, to keep abreast of current concerns and fashions, to extend his or her horizons of knowledge and acquaintance. When each medium represents itself, when TV shows us a TV studio, when a film shows us film-makers, they are more or less explicit about these expected attitudes on the part of their spectators. The assumptions are even more pronounced when one medium describes the other: when cinema shows the TV image and its uses, when TV calls upon the category ‘film’ to justify certain aspects of its programming.
