Sunday, February 20, 2011
HD Football and the Demi-god Shot
Producers of televised sports began a few years ago using an elaborate web of zipwires and remote-controlled cameras to cover professional football games. These technological changes, designed to mimic the visual codes of videogames and to make the visual dimension of live football coverage that much more spectacular, have also changed the spectatorial pleasures associated with watching football. Specifically, they lead to a peculiar televisual dialectic of embodiment/disembodiment that challenges notions of television as an oral or tactile medium, and of HDTV as inherently painterly. Instead, HDTV is a medium of embodiment, but a form of embodiment that imagines demigod-like control over televisualized bodies, at the same time that the more conventional codes of television continually undermine that illusion of control. In many ways, this dialectic of control/powerlessness mirrors the emotional state of sports fan who alternate between the belief that rooting from home can alter on-screen developments, and feelings that televised events are out of their control.
This screen-grab is, unfortunately, a poor example of the kind of shot I’m talking about: 
I’m thinking of a camera angle that’s a little bit higher and a placement that’s a little closer to the back of the quarterback’s head. You see this a lot, particularly it seems to me on Fox, when the quarterback is approaching the scrimmage line right before a play. The shot allows you to survey the offense, defense, and the entire field, seemingly from the quarterback’s perspective. However, it’s interesting to notice that this is not a subjective shot: television actually tried that years ago with the helmet cam in the XFL league. The XFL was on to something—they realized that many viewers wanted a more immersive experience watching televised football—but they got the kind of shot and the logics of viewer identification a little wrong. While the helmet cam gave a much more accurate idea of what the quarterback sees, the zipwire shot offers us an idealized version, including the ability to see over tall linemen and nearly the entire breadth of the field.
Of course, the zipwire shot derives from videogaming, and in many ways gives viewers the same sense of omniscience and control that they have in videogames, where the demigod-like nature of this shot (we feel ourselves larger than all of the players, peering in over the rim of the stadium) reinforces the control the player has over the characters on screen. However, television viewers do not have that power; we do not have controls with which to influence the course of the game when watching TV. Instead, the perception of demigod-like power is illusory and fleeting in televised football, because the reality of our position as mere spectators to events eventually becomes inescapable. In neither case can we fully escape the reality of our own positions in relation to the text. Notice that when playing football as a videogame, the “demigod” shot is far more persistent and common than in televised football, where technological (and economic) limitations of shooting live sports makes much more frequent use of conventional, side-line cameras that place us much more in the position of live stadium spectators.
The other main difference between the videogame and the broadcast versions of football lies in the degree of realism, which is where the importance of HD comes into my argument. As realistic as videogame aesthetics and images have become, they are still obvious simulations. it is impossible to ever lose oneself in the illusion that one is controlling real players and games. In other words, then, while television viewers can never maintain the illusion of control, videogame players can never maintain the illusion of realism.
Ultimately, then, the HD aesthetics of televised football create brief bursts of demigod-like spectatorship, creating subject positions of remote-control with more conventional positions as regular stadium spectators. As I mentioned, I think that this shot mirrors (and helps produce) the emotional involvement of the at-home football fan, by giving us the illusion of being in control of game developments at times, but pulling us out of that illusion at other times. I believe that thinking our at-home rooting can telepathically or telekinetically influence events on screen is a rampant (if rarely admitted) aspect of watching football on TV. In a lot of ways, this isn’t that crazy of an idea: after all, stadium fans certainly do have the ability to influence games; their cheering not only seems to rattle some players, but also spurs others to perform their best. When watching a live TV broadcast, then, it’s not surprising that we can imagine ourselves into the role of live spectator, where our rooting actually can have an impact. The zipwire shot encourages that degree of identification; it often gets used, it seems to me, for particularly crucial plays or at the beginning of games to try to invest the viewer ‘s sympathies. The shot acts as a cue, as it were, to suture us into a viewing position that we consistently move in and out of, at the same time intensifying our seeming control over events by placing into a demigod-like subject position.
TNT, to this day, still experiments with varieties of angles on their basketball games including a zipline, over-the-court type angle. Soccer has a zipline too, but it's much more sparingly used (pretty much only in Italy because they play really slowly). I'm not mad about this, but it makes me wonder why we accept alternate angles in something like football but not in any of the other sports like baseball, hockey, basketball, soccer, tennis, etc.?
I really think it has to do with videogame presentation. Outside of Hockey, which isn't a profitable enough sport to warrant innovation in presentation, all those sports use the same camera perspective for both TV and their videogame counterparts. Football didn't, and the dominant video game camera angle has increasingly been integrated into the television broadcast.
Also, I posted this on ICON:
I agree for the most part but deviate somewhat in regards to where control/helplessness is located in football broadcasts.
I know what camera shot you're referring to and you're right that Fox uses it way more than other networks. I think one thing to keep in mind, though is that while the shot has an idealized "demigod" feel to it, it is actually counterproductive in gaining a deeper understanding of the game. While you can somewhat see things from the quarterback's perspective, you actually can't read the defense or offense nearly as well from this angle compared to the traditional side angle. The condensed sense of depth prevents the viewer from figuring out how far off the receivers the CBs are playing as well as how deep the safety is. The wide receivers are also usually outside the frame. Without that information, the viewer can't figure out the defensive scheme in place. So really, while this camera angle has a demi-god quality to it, I think, if anything, it is that of a demi-god spectator. It immerses us in the game to the point where we have control over the experience of the game, but not over the mechanics of the game. Understanding is replaced with visceral emotion.
In contrast, the traditional side angle is not immersive and does not "put us into the game." However, I think it offers up more than just spectatorship; it also offers up the potential for criticism and study. In the past few years, especially with the change of aspect ratios in HDTV, football broadcasts have extended the view of the side angle to allow viewers to see every player on the field. Discerning fans can see exactly what defensive and offensive sets are being run which will increase their understanding of how the teams are playing the "game within the game" as well increase their ability to place the ensuing play into a strategic and tactical context. Further, first down and line of scrimmage markers are overlayed onto the field, giving the home viewer a better understanding of the play as it is happening than anyone watching at the stadium or involved in the game.
Thus, I would modify your thesis somewhat and say that both angles offer up differing modes of control and spectatorship. The demigod angle presents control over the bodies yet surrenders an understanding of the larger game. The side angle inverts that relationship, offering up control over the mechanics of the game but placing the viewer into an abstract relationship with the bodies at play
The question I have then is: why encourage the emotional dimension of control? Is it an effort to bring in a different audience? Say, a lay audience used to videogame versions but not necessarily a fan of the game itself? Or are there are more plausible explanations?
<< Home
