In her essay, “Time and Space,” Teresa Bridgeman draws a number of conclusions about the roles of – you guessed it – time and space in literary narratives. In adapting her observations to film and television, Bridgeman’s overarching conclusion (that “our interpretation of narratives… is influenced by temporal and spatial information” 63-4) holds up, but I would amend several of her others in order to better apply them across media.

First, Bridgeman notes that “the process of reading is itself a temporally situated experience of the physical space of the text.” (63)  The core idea here is also true cinematic and television narratives, the process of watching a movie or program is a temporal experience. The difference though is that, unlike a book, a film or television narrative provides the same temporal experience for every person, every time. People read at different speeds, so a literary narrative can unfold over days or weeks depending on the person. But a ninety minute movie will always unfold in ninety minutes (assuming you don’t fast-forward, etc.) This temporal experience is perhaps even more extraordinary with television, because programs always fit in to a thirty or sixty minute slot. So not only is a television narrative going to unfold at the same rate for you as everyone else, but it will also provide the same temporal experience as every other competing prime-time narrative.

Second, Bridgeman states that “time and space are components of the basic conceptual framework for the construction of the narrative world.” (63) Again, this also assertion is true for film and television narratives. The crucial distinction, though, is that readers construct these components in their own imaginations, while viewers have everything constructed for them. Therefore, like the temporal experience, every viewer experiences the same spatial construct as well.

So here’s my question: is the viewer’s relationship with the narrative less personal, intimate, or unique as a result of these homogenizing conventions?  Are they simply an occupational hazard of the media?