Heading into the viewing of The Promise, I have to say that I was pretty excited. Although watching an intense, politically charged show right after a light-hearted comedy is not the ideal circumstance, I was nevertheless interested to see a modern day, high quality, and original British production.
The first comment I would like to make about The Promise is that it truly is a very well made show that really doesn’t seem to be constricted by lower budget allowances like many other British shows are (i.e. Him and Her). I definitely found myself immersed in the story, and also began identifying with the characters as well—a strong testament to the captivating subject matter, writing, and acting that the program provides. Additionally, I think that the heightened sense of realism adds to this immersive quality of the show. In some ways, through the constant use of handheld, the show feels similar to a documentary, despite its fictional roots.
To me, this is the most interesting aspect of The Promise—it is a scripted show that is commenting on a very current and contentious political topic. Generally, at least in the U.S., we don’t see shows with those characteristics. Usually, we either get documentaries about the political issue, or we receive scripted dramas post-conflict (i.e. Apocalypse Now, released in 1979 well after the end of the Vietnam War). Even The Hurt Locker, which is an example of a fictional piece released during the time of conflict, is very different because its main subject matter is not the issues of U.S. military policy, but rather the psychological states of the soldiers. Obviously there are some exceptions to this broad claim I am making, and I am not saying that The Promise is revolutionary, but I do think that it is fairly unique.
The reason I have gone to such lengths to highlight this characteristic about the show is that it seems to me that this kind of structure is a large determiner of the lasting effect of the message and topics being discussed. Obviously, the BBC chose not to fund or air the program most likely because they were afraid of the public reception. Some would say this is because the subject matter is very controversial. However, I think this may be putting it too lightly. Controversial can mean many things, but at its core it represents something that incites debate and argument. I think one could argue that instead of encouraging such discussion, The Promise is actually providing its own argument—its own answer. In this sense controversial could be replaced with manipulative, because the show does seem to represent a form of reality through its style.
Thus, I wonder how the show will continue to present its argument. I think the first episode was fairly balanced, but as we all know the show ends up leaning towards the side of the Palestinians. Again, it is not revolutionary for a show like this to take a side. However, considering the mandate for Channel 4 to present challenging and thought-provoking content, I do question whether this is truly what they had in mind, as it is a program with a bias and a slant. I am not fully indicting the show or the network for releasing it, especially considering I haven’t seen the remainder of the series, but I have to say that this program reminds me much more of an American production as the more objective nature that British shows we have watched (i.e. Our War) seems to have been abandoned slightly here.
I’m glad a few of you decided to tackle The Promise. I was really torn this week about what I actually wanted to write about because I thought both programs were very entertaining and compelling-obviously for different reasons. The Promise, like you mention, is controversial because of the timing of the subject matter, as well as how it is presented. That was actually very refreshing to me and something that I would both like to see more on American television, and something that I think fits Channel 4 to a ‘t’.
We touched on this when we watched “Our War,” but American television producers seem to be afraid of stepping on anybody’s toes. There is too much of an emphasis to be politically correct in this country and I love that “The Promise” presents the issue and then actually picks a side and sticks to it. It’s almost like they are saying, “You’ll take what we give you and you’ll like it,” (which is very BBC-ish). I know I’m kind of ranting and rambling on right now, but the tackling of difficult subjects is something that I have really enjoyed throughout the semester of British television, certainly including “The Promise.”
Like Chris, I actually found it kind of refreshing to know that The Promise sort of has its own bias in the end. Even if it had aired on the BBC, I think the show would have been within its right to have this bias and still fit with the remit of the channel (and I do believe it fits in with Channel 4’s remit). Basically, The Promise represents an important aspect of the British TV industry; the television auteur. The Promise is the multi-year vision of Peter Kosminsky and I believe it would be unfair for either of the channels to censor his vision. Movie studios don’t censor M. Night Shyamalan’s movies when he’s making a political point. Now, I’m not saying I particularly enjoy his works, but obviously there is a place for them because people don’t expect documentary-like objectivity in their dramas. Channel 4 is about taking risks and the BBC is about serving the population, and I believe in a program like this there is room for bias, even if some don’t like it.