Save this article to read it later.
Find this story in your accountsSaved for Latersection.
But it took Peak TV to turn this argument into what feels like an annual phenomenon.
Here, four of Vultures staff writers two film critics and two TV critics attempt to figure it out.
A TV show is told in episodic form over at least one season, maybe more.
How one views them is completely irrelevant.
ButTwin Peaksseason three: thats a TV show by any definition, I am sorry!
AndSmall Axe: it is a collection of films that are thematically connected!
(I am both hyperbolizing and oversimplifying here, yet I stand by these statements.)
I find that thinking outmoded.
KathrynVanArendonk, TV critic: Woo, love to catch the hot potato!
Were talking about two different things.
I do think theres a way those two things have overlapped.
They are two basically separate ideas, and I completely feel Jens rancor at the prestige side of it.
From a TV perspective, it isinfuriatingto hear these guys (its mostly guys, in my experience!)
The form question, though, is fascinating!
And its where I thinkSmall Axeis really tricky and interesting to dig into.
What do we gain by thinking of it as a collection rather than five separate films?
What would weloseby nudging it more toward the TV side of the equation?
Dont have a close-ended narrative.
Have an open-ended narrative thats [like] a chapter in a book.
Seeding for sequels isnt actually that groundbreaking, but also isnt he just talking about a television show?
Bilge Ebiri, film critic: It sounds like even the Russo brothers are snobs about this whole thing.
The dude cant even say its an episode of a series.
He has to say its a chapter in a book.
Because books, you see, are for smart people.
For some, they probably think that TV has a different place in their lives than movies.
And they might be responding to that, for better and for worse.
I do think that how something was conceived matters.
Not because he wanted to murder his audience.
But we can also look at the great TV dramas of the 1950s and 60s.
I mean,12 Angry Menwas originally a drama produced for TV before it became a movie.
Or go further back to serials, which existed even before TV.
Even though TV, at least as a mass medium,didnt even exist back when they were made.
So maybe there is a different conversation to be had here, beyond issues of format and technology.
Maybe TV and movies fulfill different needs that people have had long before the formats even existed.
And they arent always the same need.
JC: Thats a very good point about serials.
If television is, by nature, episodic, then it should feel episodic.
But the bloating of individual episodes has also contributed to this movie vs. TV confusion, in my view.
When you watch a 90-minute episode of TV, it often can feel like a movie.
Thats not always the case, but more often than not, it is.
The idea that different directors direct different episodes I always worry about consistency.
But neither of those were the case with this.
I regard it as a film.
I refuse to even admit to it as television.
Is it weird for me to say that Hugh Grant can suck my dick?
Probably thats not great.
Limited series, Hugh!
Id be happy to recommend some more for you to watch!
(Also Im so sorry I was rude to you; kindly be inPaddington 3.)
CC:The Twilight Zone!)
The camera holds on Alex wrapped in a straight jacket for a deliberately, painfully long time.
It lingers similarly on Kingsley, submerging himself in a bathtub.
Or maybe rather than valuable, the word Im looking for is helpful.
But also Im a TV person, so probably Im seeing the things Im already primed to care about?
Or anything, really if someone feels driven to classifySmall Axeas a sandwich, they have my blessing!
All this said, I also think ofLovers Rockas a movie because … it behaves like a movie?
I dont think that in a world without movie theaters a film likeThe Tree of Lifegets made.
Or, for that matter,Lovers Rock.
(Yes, even though it was made by and for Amazon.
I mean, thats self-evident.
But back toLovers RockandSmall Axein general.
(At the time, those were the only twoSmall Axefilms Id seen.)
And I think its okay to argue that McQueens work can exist in two realities.
But I agree its obviously TV.)
I really do think that how their creators position these things can have a huge impact.
Lynch himself calling season three a movie probably did more damage than people realize.
But then again, David Lynch has a right to be pissed about TV.
TV rejected him and cinema reclaimed him at a pretty low point.
Maybe hes just getting his revenge.
And these kinds of hybrids are hard to categorize.
But luckily, humans are not spreadsheets and our brains can handle that kind of complexity.
Theres a lot of wonderful stuff to be found in the idea of mixing TV and movies.
JC: I would argue that TV may be inherently more narrative-driven.
And those are the kinds of films that the majority of American theatergoers see.
Some TV shows are not as visually ambitious as others, especially in the web connection TV model.
What Sam Esmail did onMr.
The same thing is true of many episodes ofThe Handmaids Tale.
It nearly abandons narrative entirely.
I realize Lynch andTwin Peaksare anomalies in certain ways.
and that makes something like the O.J.
documentary want to reach for Oscar when its more accurate to call it a work of television.
The truth is that in the wide scheme of things it doesnt matter, as Alison noted.
A TV show invites us to find those connections from episode to episode.
A collection of movies invites the audience to make the connections themselves.
Both experiences are valuable, but they serve a different artistic purpose.
Now we all shake hands and take a commemorative photo as we sign the TV Versus Movies Definitive Treaty!
In the interest of wrapping up, some top-lines.
I can and I will, but that doesnt make it law.)
Movies arent episodic except for when they sometimes are.
TV is often more narrative but sometimes astoundingly gloriously visual to Jens list Id addBetter Things!
None of this makes me want to throw out the definitions, though.
And this is not to say that we should all agree what those definitions and interpretations are!
Next time I will have a go at refrain from saying such awful things to Hugh Grant.
