Yanks Watching Telly

With everything that reality television means to our culture, it is easy to watch Big Fat Gypsy Weddings as something of a Jersey Shore freak show. Much like Jersey Shore, the lifestyle is one that I can’t even being to imagine or respect. The women dress questionably, the men treat them as second class citizens, and some of the culture presented to us in the first episode–namely grabbing–was cringe-worthy.

But I haven’t watched other episodes, so it seems unfair to judge what Channel 4’s collective aim for this show is. There were moments when I wanted the show to go culturally deeper than it attempted. Girls get married so young, and what are the chances that these will go on to be lasting and happy? Mothers watch their daughters act out the same rituals they were a part of themselves, and what do they really think of it? Do they want more? What do they worry about as mothers? Occasionally the show will ask something like this of one of the travelers, but the responses were all shallow and uninformative as to the real workings of this community.

That said, I did find this clip from a later episode that seemed to be trying to dig into the real way of life of these people beyond just the parties:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtmFYz_KKsQ

I would like to see more of this kind of thought. When the little girl is laughed at at her own first communion, what does she or her family think? Have any of these girls ever been raped during a “grabbing” or, for that matter, when they were out on the streets in the kind of clothes they wear? The mother in that clip says that they don’t want the influences of the outside world infecting their children, yet the intro voiceover says that the traveller culture has collided with the 21st century, and that explains the dressing, the over-the-top weddings, etc.

The show is undeniably looking into a different culture, but just how hard is it looking? How hard do we want it to look? Are we content to sit back and watch the spray tans and the ridiculous dresses or do we really want to know who these people are?

I cannot seem to recall any television show that implements as many point-of-view shots as Channel 4’s Peep Show. Nevertheless, I found it quite easy to become adjusted to the show’s direct address style in the “Wedding” episode that we screened in class. Once acclimated to the unique filming technique, one could argue that the viewer is able to get even more wrapped up in the narrative of the story. We see what the characters see, and can even hear what they say in their minds. This profound connection is also evidenced in Catherine Johnson’s detailing of the “tapping” commercials created by Channel 4.

According to Johnson, “In the campaign, different stars associated with Channel 4 would approach the screen and appear to tap on it from within the television set. These short segments, which ran only a few seconds, were particularly powerful in their direct address to the viewer” (Johnson, 90). These advertising strategies involving direct contact with viewers allowed audiences to connect with the stars. The reaching out that these stars are making in the “tapping” advertisements can be seen on a larger scale in the filming styles of Peep Show.

Channel 4’s “tapping” campaign and Peep Show both manage to break the fourth wall and allow viewers to become a part of their performance. When Mark and Jeremy are talking to one another we feel as if we are a part of the conversation. We even feel their intense stress as they are hiding up in the church balcony in the attempt to avoid the wedding ceremony. This intimateness is similarly sought out when Channel 4 stars tap our television screens in the commercials in order to invoke a further connection. It is no surprise that these techniques are used by the provacative and edgy Channel 4. Although they are unconventional, they still succeed in getting the viewer’s attention and allow them to bond with the broadcaster.

As this LA Times article explains, BBC Worldwide has an American branch, and it’s focused on doing US remakes of British shows, like Top Gear. This line in particular stood out: “The company also is mulling a Doctor Who feature film that could catapult the BBC’s long-running TV science fiction franchise to even greater heights.” The article also mentions how commercial ventures like this have become more important as the license fee declines.

The screening which struck me most this week was certainly Black Mirror, a program which gets its name from the opaque screens of televisions, computers, and phones saturating all our lives. I’ll try not to make this post a contemplation on whether “National Anthem” would work in America, as I know I am always tempted to do in this class (most of our blogs feature at least some commentary in this vein), but rather I’ll use the lens of Black Mirror’s significance to Channel 4 and its branding.

The goal in Channel 4’s creation was not just for an ITV clone but for content provider with an entirely new identity serving minority audiences. The remit in Channel 4’s mandate is to “to introduce new talent, to reaffirm creative alliances, or bring together fresh ones, and to develop ideas for which the existing services have not so far found a place.” Not exactly the BBC’s “inform, educate, entertain.” Channel 4 isn’t made to cater to the strict public service mandate of the supposed license-monger BBC, and it thus gets the opportunity to engage with and challenge viewers in a different way.

As Phil Wickham asserts in our text book, Understanding Television Texts, “Despite their diversity, the programmes were being broadcast by a channel marking itself out as new, vigorous and provocative and that affected the way the texts were understood” (UT 35). Perhaps if I were a British viewer actively watching this on Channel 4, I would perceive this episode to be more radical than it was—at least that’s what Wickham might contend due to the influence of the channel’s brand identity. As was parodied in the Brasseye promo we watched in class today, the tertiary network often sensationalizes its own radicalism. One might assert that the premise of “National Anthem” isn’t really all that complex and that the outcome isn’t overly challenging (but rather a cheap stunt put on for shock value).

In my opinion, the anthology episode we viewed was reminiscent of The Twilight Zone, well-executed and thought provoking. Societal critique is still being made, and that’s plenty more challenging than Mrs. Brown’s Boys. “Fuck Offcom” is even muttered by members of the media in the episode. With the kidnapping of a regent, internationally broadcast bestiality, and plenty of cursing, “National Anthem” does seem to fall in line with Channel 4’s image.

Oh, and for the record: This show would never make it onto the American basic cable airwaves.

There has already been much said on Our War as being a very powerful and mainly unbiased film, and for very good reason. The documentary is unquestionably very powerful, as it openly depicts the dangers and horrors of war without providing much gruesome and gory imagery. Rather, Our War focuses on the human elements of war in a manner that is not intended to shock and awe the viewer, but to rather expose the pain and suffering of those who are involved. And by “those who are involved,” the film is clearly implying that everyone is involved by the war, because everyone is touched or affected in some way. The title itself is evidence enough of this message.

Although the documentary was a British production and featured British soldiers and families, I too, as an American whose country is involved in the very same conflict, felt just as connected to the film as if it was an American production. So, as did most people who saw the film, I began to question what it was, if anything that was different about Our War and an American documentary on the same war. I do agree that Our War does not have a very strong political undertone. Instead, its focus is on the tragedy and hardship that war brings, and how we as people cope with the horrible happenings that accompany such devastation. So where is the American equivalent?

Some people have stated that you cannot find an American equivalent because there will not exist a U.S. documentary on Iraq or Afghanistan that will not carry some political spin. I have to admit, I have not previously embarked on a thorough investigation to see all of the American documentaries on the war in the Middle East. Sure, there are the TV specials that exist, but that’s exactly what they are—specials; they already have a preconceived message and thus really are inherently different from unbiased, pure documentary (I emphasize pure because once editing is involved there truly can be no such thing as pure documentary, but in regards to this discussion pure documentary can be classified as mainly unbiased). Therefore, it appears that there is no American substitute for Our War.

I think the problem is two-fold: first that the United States has significantly stricter censorship and broadcast regulation than does the UK, and secondly that the U.S. has a more polarized political landscape on TV than does the UK. The latter can be attributed to the fact that Our War was produced by the BBC, which is a station aimed at serving the entirety of the British population, while there is no such equivalent in the United States (although the U.S. has PBS, its minute ratings render it incomparable to the BBC). Additionally, the former makes it almost impossible to create a similar documentary because it is highly likely that the increased censorship would dilute the content, and thus the emotional power, of the film. With both of these differences factoring into programming decisions, it becomes much harder to create a successful and neutral documentary on such a polarizing political issue

Thus, it is most likely that in order to find an unbiased American documentary of the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, one would have to locate it outside of the realm of TV. However, the problem here is that it is unlikely that the film will attract as high viewership and therefore achieve as strong of an impact if only available as an independent film. Hence, I question whether Our War could truly ever be ours, in an American sense. Although we clearly possess both the financial capability in producing such a profound and breathtaking film or mini-series as well as the broadcasting capabilities to reach millions of viewers, I doubt that in this day and age we will be seeing one anytime soon. Although I maintain some of my reservations about the public nature of the BBC, and of British broadcasting in general, Our War is a clear example of why the BBC has endured through the years and why British broadcasting can at times produce unique, quality broadcast television that is nonexistent in the United States.

Our war is undeniably unique – I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything quite like it, at least not on the American TV that I watch. It felt honest and unbiased in a way that I find is rarely the case with most depictions of the war.

It seems odd to me that Our War was broadcast on a channel aimed at young people – typically, it is an older demographic of viewers who want to watch programs about the war, and usually those programs are either part of a more news-centric show or are on a documentary channel like History or the Discoverey Channel. You might find something like Our War – which seems much less about the war itself and much more about the people fighting it – on a pay cable channel like HBO, but this type of programming is both rare and not targeted to that young demographic on this side of the Atlantic.

The very fact of its broadcast on BBC3 calls into question the motives behind the program and the motives behind BBC3 itself. Is Our War meant to be some sort of propaganda aimed at either cheering on or attacking the war aimed at impressionable young people? Is it a tool for enlistment or a tool to show young people the horrors of war to ensure that future wars are few and far between?

To say that any of the above are true would be to give both Our War and BBC a heavily ideological slant that I’m not sure is there. Frankly, I think a viewer could read that episode as pro-war, anti-war and anything inbetween based on a personal ideology.

I don’t read Our War as a tool of propaganda, so that would indicate to me that either young people really are interested in seeing this kind of intimate and personal depiction of th soldiers fighting in Afghanistan or that perhaps they are not, and that the BBC therefore felt that presenting this story really is a form of public service. In that case, it is public service without a clear slant and is in many ways universal, which is likely the best kind of public service there is.

I’d be interested to see the number of viewers that tuned in for Our War and their ages. If it did well, it says something about what young people really want to be watching or about how aware of worldwide issues young people want to be, and if it didn’t, it might be just the type of public service programming that the BBC would lose if it ever went to an advertising model.

Going into this screening, I was nervous. I stay away from the supernatural fad as much as possible. I never read the Twilight books and only saw the movie that was required for my Basics class. I don’t watch Vampire Diaries, Teen Wolf, or any of the similar shows. Just the words ‘vampire’ or ‘werewolf’ in reference to a television show makes me chuckle. So when Being Human was described to me, I couldn’t help but make a snap judgment of what it was going to be like. My mind went straight to forbidden love triangles and sparkling characters running through mystical fields of flowers. And as much as I wanted to not like Being Human on principle, I found myself actually entertained, and a little touched.

The characters in Being Human made my experience with this show drastically different than with any other I have seen or heard about. Their relationships seemed real and not centered around overly dramatic circumstances. No, their situations are not close to normal, but the show does a great job of toning down the fact that they are ‘monsters.’ Even George’s transformation in the house, which I was sure I would be rolling my eyes at, was not overdone. Although it obviously cannot happen in real life, I was not annoyed that it was part of the show (unlike when Edward Cullen began to sparkle). And with Annie, her pain was real and I felt so bad for her. When her fiance couldn’t see her (but still seemed to sense her presence), my heart actually hurt. Her character had been set up in such a believable way that the fact that she is a ghost completely did not affect my viewing experience or my connection to her story. Overall, the drama was not overdone. The characters and relationships felt authentic. I wanted to root for them to be successful and happy because they were relatable – even in their monstrous state.

I think the part that set this show apart from its American counterparts is that I didn’t feel like the fact that they were a group consisting of a vampire, werewolf, and ghost was shoved in my face. The audience was reminded when it was appropriate, but their second-by-second being did not revolve around their supernatural states. The premise centered around them trying to be normal people. I think the main problem I have with the US supernatural culture is that the characters and stories do not have that same “human” quality.

I am by no means a converted supernatural fan, BUT I will say that Being Human pleasantly surprised me. As sure as I was that I would not enjoy it, I found myself caring about the characters and their relationships and wondering where their stories were going to go. And as much as it pains me, I think I may have to add this one to the Netflix queue. Hopefully you all can keep a secret…

As I sit down to write my blog post, I am torn between discussing Our War and Being Human. However, Being Human wins due to the fact that the show, in my opinion, transcends the trendy topic of supernatural beings and actually delves into the prospect of what it means to be human. The show essentially stays true to its title.

I have seen Twilight, True Blood, Teen Wolf, etc. While I hold some of these shows to higher standards than others, all of these American vampire-esque dramas prove to be highly sensationalized. The plot lines are often unrealistic or overly dramatized to go along with the whole “supernatural” theme. In my opinion, Being Human actually relies on more mundane yet refreshing plot elements to maintain the realism of the story line. There are three friends, living in a house, working and attempting to navigate their way through society. This particular plot line could depict any number of shows on television, it just so happens that these three friends are anything but human. Examining the day-to-day struggles of these individuals–attempting to date, denying their true identity, carrying the burden of lost love–allows viewers to actually relate to the characters.

Being Human also allowed me to feel a range of emotion that not many other sci-fi, supernatural shows are able to do. I went from being intrigued to scared to sad to amused through the course of the episode. Being Human does not limit itself to a particular genre of television or niche audience. While it may promote itself as a “young adult drama,” it certainly maintains a balance to engage a wide audience. For example, Annie’s story line where she dangerously summons her fiance in order to see him again was very touching and sentimental. No, I’m not a ghost… But I could relate to her feelings of devastation and grief. This is where Being Human strikes at the core of defining who people really are. The show attempts to find depth in the idea of societal norms. How does one fit in when they are isolated, outcast or invisible?

A final aspect that I enjoyed about the show is the simple fact that all three main characters are actually friends. Modern media loves to pin different supernatural beings against one another in a “survival of the fittest” kind of environment. The fact that a vampire, a werewolf and ghost can actually find comfort in each another creates a unique dynamic. This once again contributes to the realism of the show, in that societal outcasts are never actually alone. So far, this is the first show we have watched that I hope to continue watching.

Although I know that most blog posts have been focused on one specific show, I just like Our War and Being Human too much to not talk about both of them. Since my thoughts are wildly different in both tone and subject for the two shows, (as is to be expected by the two radically different programs) I will separate them into two distinct sections of the blog post. First, I will give my thoughts on Our War and its unbelievable ability to paint an unbiased portrait of war. Second, I will speak towards the refreshing take on a pilot that Being Human was able to pull off.

Like many others in the class, I was completely floored by the extremely emotional and vivid documentary. However, the part of the show that stood out the most to me was its ability to portray a current war without bias towards whether it supported or was against the it. I think back to all the documentaries on 60 Minutes and similar shows during the war that constantly bombarded us with patriotic hoorah and were clearly meant to support and give a reason to the war. Our War does none of this and instead represents both sides of the argument in an extremely impressive balancing act. For example, there was a point in the program when one of the soldiers comments about the positive effects they have made on a market town that obviously would be pro-war. On the other hand, there are also many anti-war moments like the mother being lied to about her son’s death. This balance between two polar extremes is exactly the place and position that BBC needs to occupy and perfectly demonstrates why BBC needs to continue to exist as the top broadcaster in Britain.

On another note, the show Being Human also impressed me a lot especially in regards to how to create an intriguing, unconventional pilot episode. I went into the show expecting something along the lines of Twilight or Teen Wolf, (ok I won’t diss Vampire Diaries this time) but came out very pleasantly surprised. On one level, I liked the show or its intriguing characters that were not just complete rip-offs of past industry favorites like Edward Cullen. But even more amazing was how the show departed from a stereotypical pilot. Instead of dumbing down the show and introducing us to the characters one by one as they meet each other, the pilot instead plops us right into their everyday lives together and expects us as viewers to keep up. This strategy is much more engaging as the viewer must actively participate instead of just being spoonfed information. For example, in most of these sci-fi supernatural shows, the viewer is introduced to X character in the first show and completely defines this X character multiple times throughout one episode by beating the viewer over the head with exactly which Y powers they have and what Z mythology constitutes their existence (i.e. look here is a vampire he can’t go out in the sunlight but he can run at supernatural speeds etc. etc.). However, in Being Human we only get a small glimpse into these character’s natures and powers and this makes us want to continue to come back for more. I personally loved this strategy and this is the reason I continue to watch more episodes of it on Netflix.

Could Rev survive on American television? It’s a completely valid question because the series features a Reverend unlike any might see in the states. In the unique episode we viewed, the Reverend digresses into somewhat of a gross character, becoming a man who smokes, drinks, and seems to lack a faith in God.  In class, we discussed the possible lack of success the show would find if aired in America, but I would beg to differ. While it may be a stretch and advertisers might not love it, I think American television is the place where niche audiences are served in every realm.

One claim is that the character of the Reverend is too off-putting, but I counter this argument with the character of Frank on It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia. If you are unfamiliar, Frank may currently be one of the grossest characters on cable television. If he was only short and stout, I would find nothing too alarming about him, but it is the fact that his physical shape is played up to a character where one can seem to smell his natural body odor from the television. Yet, I love him and a small audience across the country love him as well.  He makes us cringe and he lacks any and all morals, yet because he is so bizarre we cannot help but watch to see what he does next. I found the exact same feeling arise in me when I watched the Reverends character progress on screen. Initially, he is a man of God- a seemingly likeable character, but then he transitions to a man where, like Frank, by the end of the episode one may be able to smell his apparent lack of hygiene just from watching the episode. But I believe it is wild and different characters like Frank and the Reverend that hook niche (and weird) audiences into shows like Rev which is one reason I believe the show would garner a fan base.

Another valid point brought up in class was the idea that British television, and Rev in particular, could really make a viewer feel uncomfortable. I agree with this statement, but at the same time I also think this is why the show would find an audience in America. Again, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia makes a viewer feel uncomfortable at times because of the crude content, but shows such as The League, Shameless, and Eastbound and Down also have a tendency to make a viewer watch something outrageous they would not otherwise tune into. Once again, these shows have all found success amongst smaller audiences in America, which is why I believe Rev could join the league of shows like these.

Rev will not air on broadcast anytime soon, but I think that some cable network, or perhaps a pay-cable station, would accept the challenge Rev offers and find a particular fan club. It is a risky show with risky characters, but I think that is why some Americans like shows like that- it is out of the ordinary. Anyone can turn on The Big Bang Theory (which I love, this is not a slant), but it takes someone ready for a bizarre change to embrace Rev and the craziness of some British television.

As I mentioned in class today, I was floored by Our War on Monday. This was for several reasons, including subject matter, aesthetics, and personal interests. First and foremost, war always has been and always will be a touchy subject for anybody involved. It is an awful thing that leads to children without fathers, sisters without brothers, and leaves wives as widows. The fact that such a controversial topic, especially while the war is ongoing, is something I don’t think you see too much of on American television. While, yes, History Channel and Military Channel have hours upon hours of war footage, very little of it is up-close and personal. It’s usually wars from decades ago or is similar to how CNN originally covered the first Gulf War–from a distance, often with night-vision cameras–or even worse, it’s docu-drama war. Obviously this wasn’t the case with Our War. The biggest shock with subject matter, to me, however, was the disagreement between the Ministry of Defense and Lieutenant Bjorn Rose. As soon as I learned of the conflicting chain of events, the first thing that came to my mind was the story of Pat Tillman a couple of years ago. (Cliff’s Notes version: NFL player retires, joins the Rangers after 9/11, is killed in action in Afghanistan, months later find out that it was friendly fire that killed him). This was one of the major black eyes that hit the United States military and kind of solidified the public completely turning on the war effort. That’s why it is amazing that the BBC would show something so controversial that could have adverse effects on the national moral and opinion, WHILE THE WAR IS ONGOING.

Obviously, part of the reason war is such a touchy subject matter is because of the images that come with it. The fact that a majority of this documentary was real, handheld footage from the front lines allows viewers to connect with the soldiers in ways that are usually impossible. Docu-drama allows a certain level of connection, but the intimacy one gets from the unedited, raw footage from the soldiers actually fighting this war is unlike anything I, and most of us I’m sure, have seen on television. The unadulterated emotion from these men, whose lives are on the line, is phenomenal and some of the most gripping television I have ever seen. The frequency of “fuck” in the dialogue puts you in the situation and makes you realize the gravity of the situation that one of them has been hit, and hit critically. The shots of the platoon struggling to evacuate Private Gray on their hammocks just eats away at your core. You want them so badly to get him to the medical evacuation in time to save his life. These are connections with characters that aren’t made in typical television programs or in other war docu-dramas.

In addition to the footage from the soldiers, the camera work during the interviews of these soldiers and the family of Private Gray jar the audience in a different way. Through the use of extreme closeups, we are able to see the pain that Chris Gray’s mother feels when she thinks of him, the pride his father feels that knowing his son died for a cause, the guilt Lieutenant Rose feels that one of his men was brought home in a box rather than in a seat.

While any of us could talk of the subject matter or aesthetics (and many of us did today), the next aspect is more personal and something not many people here at Notre Dame know about me. I don’t want to give off the wrong idea, I have not had a family member die in combat, so forgive the set up for this.

I come from a military family. My grandfather, two of my uncles, my biological father, and my dad all have served/serve in the military. My grandfather served in Vietnam; my uncles have combined for 8 tours in Iraq. But the worst for me was when it was announced my dad would miss the majority of my senior year in high school to serve our country in Iraq. From October until July, my dad was just like some of the soldiers you saw in Our War…and I lived in constant fear that he would be sent home in a box draped by the American flag. Having my dad miss my senior year of football and graduation was bad enough, but the fear that any day could be his last was almost unbearable. I’ve never seen footage of what he did in Iraq, so it’s very easy to place him into the handheld action of Our War. Needless to say, this made the viewing of the documentary very difficult, but very moving for me at the same time.

I know the last paragraph doesn’t necessarily speak to the quality of Our War, but it was something I felt I needed to add. Overall though, I think Our War should be mandatory viewing for any idiots who don’t support our troops serving at home or abroad.

A couple of weeks ago, there was a lot of discussion about how Dr. Who might translate onto American television. Some of us wondered if something that worked so well with a British audience would work in the US, especially since it’s so quintessentially British and typically somewhat educational. Being Human, which most people could easily compare to the concept of other supernatural dramas on in the US, provides a chance to see how a non-quintessencially British, non-educational show translates to US television.

Hopefully some people have stumbled across an episode of BH: US on Syfy. A lot of the first season drew from the first series of BH:UK, with the majority of the first half of the American series almost exactly remaking episodes from the original. One of those episodes, “Ghost Town” in the UK and “Some Thing to Watch Over Me” in the US, serves as a great example of the adaptation of a British show for the US small screen.

I am a huge fan of BH:UK and I enjoy BH:US as well, but in this case the American translation just didn’t work. I believe the term I’d use to best describe the adaptation of this episode as “the reason we can’t have nice, British things.” The main drive of the plot of both episodes is Annie (Sally in the US version) making friends with a male ghost from the 1980s named Gilbert (Tony in the US version). Gilbert/Tony helps Annie/Sally figure out why her spirit is unsettled and it’s just a really sweet, tragic episode.

My major problem with the adaptation of the series as a whole is that some of the episodes followed the original so closely, it was either smothering or people who had seen the original felt like turning the TV off because they had seen almost the same thing not too long before. I think that the concept itself is a fairly translatable one, but the issues arise when there’s a lack of original ideas specific to the new context that the show is put into – in this case, the shift from a BBC channel for young adults to an even more niched channel like Syfy.

The thing that ruins the new episode for me is the characterization of Tony. In the UK version, Gilbert is a great mix of cool/quirky, cigarette and records in hand. In the US version, Tony has a mullet. Enough said. Additionally, he’s not as tragic and complex as Gilbert. He’s just kind of a dude. I didn’t feel for him the same way I did the cool, brooding Gilbert. The two characters weren’t just different, they embody complete opposite sides of the 1980s aesthetic while trying to play the exact same role.

Cool:

Tragic:

Why did so many people love the US version of The Office? Because, while it was based on the UK original and shared some character archetypes, it breathed a new kind of life into the original series. It didn’t copy, plot for plot and character for character, the things that made sense to a different kind of audience the way the beginning of BH:US did.

Luckily the show found its footing and (because it was on a longer series schedule) had to get creative and cut its cord to the original, but I was wondering if anyone had any ideas of their own about adaptations. We do it to all sorts of television programming all of the time. When does it work? When does it utterly fail? What translates and what doesn’t?

Cool article from The Los Angeles Times:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-ca-critics-notebook-downton-20120205,0,5978755.story?track=icymi

 The BBC’s license fee makes their programming a public service for the people, and as a result “the Beeb” is always attempting to validate its quality and importance to those who are obligated to pay for their services. This is backwards when compared to most other networks that are able to put forth shows in the attempt to attract viewers, and are given a vast amount of freedom in choosing what programs to showcase. Unfortunately for “the Beeb”, it is in a constant need to prove itself and choose programming that fits appropriate criteria. Catherine Johnson’s excerpt detailed the substantial amount of effort put into branding alone so that the BBC can make themselves appear recognizable and worth watching. These branding tactics are an excellent example of how absorbed the BBC is of its image amidst the pressures that it faces in the attempt to confirm their value to license fee payers.

I found both Outnumbered and Sherlock to be impressive shows, and adequate examples of the quality programming that the BBC strives for. Outnumbered employs light humor and family scenarios that provide entertainment sprinkled with life lessons. Sherlock was a more high quality output in its look, feel, and movie-esque appearance. While both shows are vastly different, they are good television programs that seem to fit the values that the BBC wants to be associated with. So while the BBC might feel more pressure to distribute shows that will keep every viewer satisfied, this has brought about a well-rounded lineup that has managed to impress for many years. Outnumbered and Sherlock illustrate how creativity is not stifled at the BBC, but rather incredibly focused in order to keep the license fee payers at bay.

After hearing about the mandatory license fee I assumed that it would negatively affect BBC outputs in the sense that they would scrap entertaining shows for those that would enrich viewers in a more educational way. However, after watching Outnumbered and Sherlock I can say that the BBC has been able to produce amusing shows that manage to fall perfectly in line with three specific values listed on its website…

Looks like no one is writing about Outnumbered this week, and knowing what the alternative is, that certainly makes sense. We watched the first episode of the BBC’s Sherlock early Monday evening, and I finished the last episode of second series Wednesday afternoon. That’s a hefty nine hours of Sherlock in two days, but the highly lauded series was hard to turn away from for long. The show is fast-paced, featuring witty banter and crude one-liners among its intriguing plot twists and action scenes. It’s gripping and just plain fun to watch. So how does an entertaining show with such high ratings fit into the public service mandate of the BBC? Are the goals of education and entertainment mutually exclusive?

Sherlock appeals to the viewer solely seeking entertainment while also attracting perhaps more sophisticated fans of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s classic character. The program works in creative ways to rework plotlines, props, and characters from the original Sherlock Holmes novel series, and spotting these connections brings a level of intellectual entertainment to the table. The first episode portrays a murder mystery which is complex, and the process of solving the case takes intellectual vigor from the characters, and, thus, the audience who must keep up with them. The show also makes great use of London, with much of the action taking place on the distinctive streets and landmarks of the city. These facets of the show, combined with the culturally significant source material, make it one which provides a public service to the people of England. The fact that it is immensely popular only furthers that service, as the common viewing experience contributes to the cultural enrichment of modern society. If people aren’t watching a show which might be more straightforwardly educational, the show makes no public service. To have an effect, programming must actually be viewed in the first place. Sherlock does an impressive job of making itself appealing to a wide fan base.

The success of Sherlock and Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes films has led CBS to develop its own Sherlock Holmes-based television show, Elementary. In my opinion, this commercialized venture in the American broadcast structure will pale in comparison to the BBC’s take on Holmes. With series three coming out in the summer of 2013 at the earliest, the creators of Sherlock have the luxury to craft their best work, and fans are left wanting more rather than facing saturation over an abundance of episodes. Quality control over three film-like episodes is much higher than a 22-episode season (with ad sales and breaks as an additional requirement). The short series of this show allow for casting of a highly talented actors who might have been too in-demand to commit to 9 months of filming an American-length season. With the stars having the freedom to pursue other projects, they are likely to continue to come back and make time for Sherlock many years into the future. In fact, creator Steven Moffat envisions Sherlock with a presence for decades:

“I fondly imagine it’d be nice to stop it for a while and come back and see what they’re like in their 40s or 50s. Because normally these two characters are portrayed in their 50s. So we’re actually at the beginning. It might be interesting in a couple of decades when they come back and [we] see what they’re like.”

With a show of such popularity, critical acclaim, and ability to “inform, educate, and entertain,” I reckon there will be an audience for such a revisiting.