I hate to piggy-back on Erin’s discussion of the bottle episode-ness of Him and Her, but it was also the first thing that came to mind as we watched the show, and fits in with the budget constraints for British television as a whole.
Because it is on BBC, Him and Her obviously is in a budget crunch like the entire corporation is. This would lead the thought to be that the higher-ups at the BBC enjoy the show because the relative bargain it receives by producing it.
Also, like Erin, I had a flash-back to an American television episode having their own bottle episode. Instead of Friends, I thought of Community and their episode “Cooperative Calligraphy.” Community (despite godawful ratings) is extremely well-written, creative, and gains some critical acclaim. Dan Harmon is extremely self-aware in the production of the show, and in fact in the episode, there are several quips about the fact that it is a bottle episode (the entire show takes place in the community college’s study room).
The thing that sticks out to me is that American sitcoms have to do a bottle episode almost once a season. Because they have 24 episodes to fill, even with the bigger budget, they often have to do so to save some money that the producers and writers can then use in another episode where they can be more creative and make more chances. However, Him and Her has only aired 13 episodes, or roughly half of one SEASON of Community.
While the BBC obviously loves the money it can save on Him and Her, I don’t think a show like this would work in America. Most Americans probably don’t notice the bottle episode (they aren’t all as obvious as Friends and Community) so they can get away with it in a long season. However, I don’t think an American audience would watch a show that takes place in only one location, consciously, over an entire season.
Also, if you have the time, you should absolutely watch this episode if you have the time/want a good laugh. http://www.hulu.com/watch/191067/community-cooperative-calligraphy
I had debated between mentioning Friends or Community, but ultimately the plot of Friends worked best. I must agree that the Community “bottle” episode is pure genius…as with most things on that show. Interesting point to make that American shows only use one in 24 versus all 12…for the BBC it is not a creative choice, but an integral part of the premise.
I think the BBC is doing itself a favor, financially, by producing some of these low-budget, single-set sitcoms. Although Him & Her doesn’t scream “big-budget” or “action-packed,” it still accomplishes its goal. Most of the plot elements are based on extremely low-cost ideas, but these ideas are what contribute to the normality of the program. Life, after all, isn’t always an expensive, luxurious thrill ride. The BBC must rely on low-budget programs like Him & Her in order to afford their more expensive program investments.
While it might not soar in the ratings, I think Him and Her might have a few semi-successful seasons on an American network. It is clear the show is on a budget, one writer and one set, so this is already appealing to networks, even American ones. I also think, the show would establish a niche audience who may fight for it to last a few seasons, rather than be chopped after one season, similar to Community. There is a large number of viewers out there who are pulled to the shows about simple living because it can be easy to relate to the characters and their circumstances. So, while I think the show would most likely not reach the 100 episode mark, I do think it could see some success on American television.
I think it is easy to criticize “Him & Her” for being a cheaply-made show (or a show on a budget, depending on how you want to define it.) Could the show have been green-lit because of its cheap gimmick? Quite possibly. But that does not mean it is a bad show, or even a show unworthy of the BBC brand being associated with it. Our class reaction to the show was extremely positive–even I was laughing out loud, something reserved for the most hilarious of entertainment. While the show may skimp on sets and shooting costs, it makes up for in casting, writing, and directing–essentially, rather than sinking money into visual costs, it seems to go into the shows creative talent. To me, there is nothing wrong with that. The BBC defines itself with the mission to “inform, educate, and entertain” on its website. I think fulfilling this goal in a sitcom is a lot easier with a top-level showrunner and writer and hilarious actors, rather than sets which contribute little to the comedic value of the show. In fact, having such constraints arguably ADDS to the comic hijinks. Sometimes, less is more.
I just want to clarify, I actually really did enjoy Him and Her. I thought it was hilarious, especially the little old lady and her obscenity-laced tirade. I was just trying to make a distinction between the American bottle-episode and this entire series making a show out of that premise.