Both productions are welcoming to the eye. The cinematography for each program is exemplary. House MD as a television program explores new ways of shooting that ultimately strays from conventional medical TV productions. Taking the concept of a physically flawed, socially inept good guy detective, searching for the evil antagonist – they change the context to Medical Practitioners, having the doctors play the role of a detective and the mysterious illness as the evil antagonist. The photography attempts to replicate this oddity. The techniques become reminiscent of a prime-time Murder Mystery or Crime-Drama. One notices peculiar low and high angles, vertical shots (looking straight down), speedy scene transitions, quick zooms and the oddly placed extreme close-up. The script works – It's mysterious, puzzling, addictive and downright entertaining. It sticks to a formula, varying slightly every Episode, keeping the action on screen and moving – it's not to formulaic that it becomes restricting (like CSI for example,) allowing relationships, characters and events to advance and grow.
Greg Williams' The Glenmoore Job, is again a wonderful Australian Short film production, that's script, acting, editing, pacing and photography were brought together under wonderful direction, into creating one of independent Australian cinema's most enjoyable productions that I have ever seen. The short film varied quite differently from America's atypical Medical show "House", as one was an episodic production that stuck to a loose formula, and where The Glenmoore Job moved with swift, unpredictable, enticing action, witty dialogue and intelligent set pieces. The film was shot predominantly on tripod – the frame remaining dead still for 90% of the film, until the tripod was discarded for a break and enter scene nearing the conclusion. Lighting was mostly artificial as the setting for the film was predominantly night time. The editing was long – quite unlike the kind used throughout House MD, where shots were short – the action being more intense. The acting was all great. Each character was 3-dimensional, revealing sides to their personalities that never once made you cry out "Stereotype".
Despite their differences, both shows encompass a similar element – the element of engaging viewing and audience appeal. Such a quality is absolutely integral to a programs existence and circulation. With both productions, each show maintains to keep the audience guessing. Is this person going to live or die? And what's going to happen next? These are the questions we keep asking ourselves – hoping mightily that by the end of the show/ short film we are rewarded with a reasonable feeling of content and justification. By the end of each production, the justification for giving the show your time should rightly feel worth it – and if only producers across the globe took a few notes from the elements incorporated into these two, widely separate productions, there would be a lot more people watching television right now.
¶ 11:44 PM
