According to Hofmann: The issues with the ‘on/in’ debate
There are many unanswerable questions that have plagued mankind for centuries and by “centuries,” I mean a few hundred years.
Such questions include: “WhatĢƵ the meaning of life?,” “If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, does it make a sound?,” “Who put the bomp in the bomp bah bomp bah bomp?” and “Who put the ram in the rama lama ding dong?”
But the question that keeps me up at night is, “Why do we say an actor is in a movie, but on a television show?”
I know there are other variations of this confusing concept with different mediums like a singer is featured in a song thatĢƵ played on the radio or someone can make a movie based on a book that has a great story in it, which I heard all about on a podcast.
Maybe the issue is the different media options — since there are roughly 492 ways to access entertainment nowadays.
However, I want to focus on film and television as both things are written, produced and acted while being recorded, then edited and played back.
There is a difference, of course, between movies and television shows and that makes the “on/in” debate (even though I’m not even sure if there is a debate) all the more frustrating.
You see, when you go to a movie, a projector shines the movie on the screen.
When you watch television, all the workings to make the images and sound appear are happening in the television.
Going by that logic, an actor is either in a television show or on a movie.
Now, I can see saying, if you have a DVD or VHS cassette of a movie, the actors are in the movie; however, once you take it home, all the workings are still in the DVD/VHS player and in the television.
Of course, you can now watch a movie on your phone, even though, again, all the magic happens in the phone.
Maybe the issue is the little knowledge the public has of how entertainment is presented to them, much like the willful ignorance of what goes into an average hotdog. I still tell myself itĢƵ just beef and love.
If you’re still not grasping the idea, think about it this way: if you say someone is in a house, you know that person is in the interior of the house. If you say someone is on the house in a rainstorm, you know they’re likely on the roof and wishing they were in the house because of being in a rainstorm; although, technically, they’re under a rain storm, but thatĢƵ a “in/under” debate for another time.
Maybe the issue is the word “in” and how “in” has been used “in” the lexicon “in” the past few years.
I know the “in/on” thing isn’t a solid rule because there have been times that people have said something like, “Dame Judi Dench will appear on the big screen,” which is a reference to a movie, but that whole sentence can also go like, “Dame Judi Dench will appear on the big screen in the film ‘Bikini Carwash Chaingang 2’.”
Okay, on or in, kids – make up your minds!
That being said, letĢƵ amp up the confusion because if you ever talked to someone who works in the entertainment industry, unless they’re an actor, they worked both on a movie and on a television show.
By the way, working in the entertainment industry – whether its movies, television, music, sports or news – makes perfect sense. The reason is because the common understanding is that someoneĢƵ work happens inside a place – whether itĢƵ in an office building, in a home, in the back of a van or in a bio-dome … unless you’re constructing the bio-dome, then you’re working on a bio-dome as you work in construction industry.
Maybe the subject is so confusing, itĢƵ best to accept it for what it is and not move on.
It seems the only things that are considered to be in a movie are the people, places and things that actually appear on the movie screen.
So, that being said, if you worked as a production crew member, you worked on the film “Cannibal Carwash Chaingang 4,” but if you also appeared as an extra during the movieĢƵ filming, then you can say your were both on and in the movie “Cannibal Carwash Chaingang 4.”
When itĢƵ all said and done, all I’m asking for is some kind of consistency to pick one or the other because it really gets on my nerves … or would it be in my nerves? Oh man, I think I just found something new to keep me up at night.
Maybe the issue is me.
According to Hofmann is written by staff reporter Mark Hofmann of Rostraver Township. His books, “Good Mourning! A Guide to Biting the Big One … and Dying, Too” and “Stupid Brain,” are available on Amazon.com.