No one is ready for close-ups on television.

• Author: Saltzman, Joe
• Position: Words & Images - Brief Article

WHEN TELEVISION FIRST BEGAN, everything was live or on film. Live television was fairly primitive, with cameras that did not define the visuals very well. But film, shot mostly by battle-scarred newsreel cameramen, could offer stunning images. It became clear to writers, producers, and technicians that the close-up was very effective for the small screen, so close-ups and extreme close-ups became commonplace.

Happily, film was a very forgiving medium. Even without good lighting, the emulsion seemed to gloss over wrinkles and skin defects, emphasizing the revealing look of an eye, the joy of a smile, or the sadness of a tear. It made the close-up and even the extreme close-up--from the forehead to just below the mouth--powerful tools for early television, especially the TV documentary and news segment.

Then videotape began replacing film. Videotape as well as today's live TV offer the illusion of reality. It seems sharper and truer to life. But it's a deception. Its reality is a sham, a wicked impersonation of real life. Unless a face is perfectly lit, videotape or live TV can be harsh and unbearably cruel and distracting--wrinkles become deep facial caverns, a minor blemish becomes an angry eruption, and a hardly noticeable mole becomes mountainous. The result is that an extreme close-up is so filled with off-putting physical defects that it is almost impossible to concentrate on what the person is saying. The wrinkle, the blemish, the mole all claim our attention, overwhelming the riveting eyes, the delightful smile, and the falling tear. What used to be powerful and moving on film has become a dermatologist's final examination on videotape.

You would think that writers, producers, and technicians would notice this and revise their videotaping and live TV shots accordingly. But old habits die hard. The extreme close-up is alive and well, especially in the coverage of sporting events. Along with soaring music that gives treacle a bad name, sports producers and directors insist on an overly large close-up that fills our now-gigantic home screens with foreheads, noses, mouths, chins, and cheeks that are dermatological disasters. No one, not even our most perfect celebrities, looks all that good in an extreme live or tape close-up, even with the benefit of make-up. Put them into the harsh sunlight, and their skin would look as corrupt as the rest of us, especially the faces of athletes shown in glorious color.

Can anyone rationalize the need...