Between the medium of film and video

I still don’t comprehend Cavell’s argument on improvisation. He argues that people miss television for what it used to be during its inception: live. But I doubt it ever was truly live, whether it was a TV show or a news broadcast, there must have existed some form of script. Broadcasting is expensive and live television, not to be confused with reality TV, was rare. Then he goes to associate serialization with improvisation to claim, essentially, that within a genre of TV programs, improvisation was lost to the public expectation of a plotline. But who is to say that serialization didn’t exist before improvisation? Furthermore, how might Cavell classify reality TV, as a serialization of improvisation or as neither?

Then, towards the conclusion of his article, Cavell underlines the difference between television and film. He argues that by viewing a film at a cinema, in principle, the spectator is subjected to the film, whereas viewing that same film on a television set provides the viewer with a greater sense of control. Along those lines, is television becoming merely a tool for experiencing art or, inversely, is it a work of art for providing such experiences? Also, with regards to the concept of moviola, is the television limited to reproducing original pieces? How would the “comprehensibility” of news broadcastings, commercials, game shows, etc. be affected were they to be viewed in theaters much like films are?