Yanks Watching Telly

The Bafta award nominations for TV are out, and you’ll be familiar with some of the nominees. Among the shows getting love are This is England ’88, Misfits, The Crimson Petal and the White, Our War, Mrs. Brown’s Boys, Rev, Stewart Lee’s Comedy Vehicle, and yes….Psychoville (for New Media). And honored actors include Joseph Gilgun (Woody in TIE), Martin Freeman, Miranda Hart, Maggie Smith, Olivia Colman and Hugh Bonneville (both for Twenty Twelve), and Tom Hollander (Rev). Modern Family got an international nomination, and it turns out Shameless is put in the Continuing Drama category, meaning it’s up against EastEnders & Coronation St.

I see they’ve also changed up the categories. From the Telegraph: “Before this year, the drama categories were Best Single Drama (which remains), Best Series (a drama with stand-alone episodes but a continuing main character) and Best Serial (a drama with an overarching story). Now the categories echo the Golden Globes with the “series” and “serial” differentiation ditched for “mini series” (dramas of 2 to 5 episodes) and “series” (dramas of 6 to 19 episodes).”

While I recognize that the This is England… series may not be everyone’s favorite show, especially if you hate the 80s, I think the whole idea is great.

First, the structure is so unique. How many other shows are there that have gone from a movie to a TV series at all? Then, take the fact that the movie and each series of the show follows the same group during different years. By the end of the 3rd series, the works will have followed the same characters over seven years of their lives. Shaun will go from the child he was in the film to a young adult – these works are following characters during the most important years of their lives. You get attached to them. They’re like old friends you check in with every couple of years, watching them grow and change and deal with struggle as society shifts around them.

It’s so amazing the way the translation from film to television ended up. The characters from the movie seem to have changed organically, nothing about them seems forced. They seem to have evolved like real people. It almost feels as if there was no gap in time at all. For the most part, they seem to be right where you’d expect them to be after three years. (Side note: If you haven’t seen the movie, you need to. It is amazing. It was one of those things that Maija told me I wouldn’t regret not doing work to go watch, and she was right. I hate to call it “feel good,” but it was really well done.)

I think it’s so great that each work skips a couple of years because you don’t get bogged down. I think taking glimpses of the characters’ lives instead of intently following them enables the audience to see the bigger picture, to see England for what the show presents it as. And that’s one of the bigger ideas of the show, isn’t it? I think it fits in perfectly with the social realism that British dramas are praised for, taking more of a look at society as a whole and the way it changes over the course of a decade and the way it changes people.

After a cursory search of the Internet, it seems like the British people really appreciate what the show does. According to Wikipedia, it pulled almost 40% more of an audience than Channel 4 normally did in its timeslot. The things we’ve seen from Channel 4 and the brand of the channel tends to be unique (like Black Mirror) or sensational (like Gypsy Weddings) intended for a 16-34 audience.

I think that This is England… targets its audience well (it’s about young people and we love identifying with characters because we’re all narcissists), but it is also more socially relevant than some of Channel 4’s other shows. It’s the perfect show for this period of time when youth in England are angry and rebellious like they were in the show (are the youth ever really content, though?). TIE… is perfect because it aligns so well with the feelings of Channel 4’s audience while at the same time presenting a “slice of life,” big picture portrayal of normal people living their lives, dealing with real struggles, and figuring themselves out.

This brings to the inevitable question of whether something like this would work in the US. Obviously we’re less likely to like something that isn’t about our country, but what if there was a show about rebellious youth during Vietnam? There are a decent number of parallels between today’s youth and the youth of the Vietnam era. Civil Rights could also play in a great deal I’m sure, which would also serve to communicate the racial tones that are present in the movie and I’m sure to a certain extent the show as well. Like I said, people always seem to think the youth are angry, but TIE… has the Falklands War as a backdrop, so an American translation would need something comparable. What about the format? Could American audiences deal with not knowing what happens in the years between seasons? We could barely deal with the months-long gaps in Battlestar Galactica. Of course by “we” I mean the extremely dedicated, but small BSG fan contingent, so that might skew my opinion. Would the “slice of life,” big picture perspective be preserved if it had to be stretched across an American television season? Or are these kinds of realistic dramas something reserved for an analysis of British history because that’s what British television dramas do best?

The BBC is not renewing “Upstairs, Downstairs” for a third season…

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/upstairs-downstairs-canceled-downton-abbey-315003

This is a bit off-topic, but I was reading this article about one of my absolute favorite shows on television (I know there are other “Community” fans in our class) and at the very end of the review of the most recent episode, this critic mentions something that surprised and intrigued me – that perhaps “Community” is the type of show that actually belongs on British TV because of its “ambitiousness” and slightly strange creativity.  The fact that he equates the uniqueness of “Community” with Britishness is really interesting.

http://www.vulture.com/2012/04/seitz-community-is-tvs-most-ambitious-show.html

Stumbled upon this trailer for the second series of Luther. As if we didn’t think of him as the “troubled detective” enough, this pretty much confirms that. It shows reverse/slow-motion shots of Luther tearing apart his office with no actual footage of the series itself.

I should caveat my title by saying, though, that I don’t think I could watch more than a few episodes of it. Maybe the one-season, short run nature of it is actually perfect. Because all that singing would get old, real fast.

But I enjoyed it for what it was. As I said in class, I think that the quirkiness of the show and its characters made the idea of them bursting into song palatable. From the beginning, Blackpool set itself up as something surreal, in a way, and so the narrative universe it created seemed to mesh well with an Elvis-wannabe singing “Viva Las Vegas.”

In the first episode, though, I found myself being carried along more by the novelty of the show’s premise and less by the narrative. I wonder, then, how many episodes I could stomach before it turned into something much more like Viva Laughlin. Blackpool was fun, but I’m not sure I actually feel so because of the show’s plot of characters.

However, I should add that I do want to know who killed the blonde guy, and I think I’ll end up giving the rest of the series a try – six episodes isn’t that big of a commitment.

I’m fairly certain Blackpool would never work in America (did it really even work in England?), even amongst a spate of other musical series that we have today. Blackpool is fun, but it isn’t joyous, and the musical numbers make even less sense than when people start singing outside of the Marilyn musical on Smash. What I don’t get, though, is why the folks at CBS thought the changes they were making for Viva Laughlin would make it better for an American audience.

Yeah, Blackpool might not work in America, but Viva Laughlin takes all the fun out of the show and leaves, what? A show where even Hugh Jackman looks awkward singing. Blackpool is fun because it knows what it is and doesn’t take itself too seriously, but still tries to do something interesting with its storytelling tools. Viva Laughlin, for the few minutes we watched, was just painful. And the lead actor wasn’t even compelling. At least David Morrissey wins you over a little, as does David Tennant.

Blackpool is weird, but it is quirky and unique and, I thought, enjoyable. And its bizarre premise seemed like it served a certain storytelling purpose – the songs were fitting and actually contributed something to the narrative. But that doesn’t seem like a format that should be just adapted on a whim. The singing should serve a purpose, and it seems like in Viva Laughlin, it was just trying to make something out of a cool concept, not the other way around.

I was really looking forward to Luther, having heard of Idris Elba’s great performance and the show’s grim, twisted storylines. After the screening, which was admittedly highly stylized and cinematic in nature, I was left a bit underwhelmed, though entertained. The show certainly presents itself as very high quality, with high production value, interestingly angled shots, mysterious, artsy opening credits, and plenty of media buzz. However, it’s actual content did not stand out from typical American fare these days. This could be because of the increasing popularity of anti-hero dramas, particularly in cable network line-ups.

Though I don’t think the storytelling was particularly innovative or that the performances were all the highest quality (Ruth Wilson’s murderous Alice Morgan often came of as hammy to me), the show held my attention and was pleasant enough to watch. I was also happy to escape being beat over the head with the premise, particularly in a pilot episode of sorts. It was nice to watch a show that didn’t force a ‘twist’ on me, though many of us in class pointed out that this made Luther come off as cliched.

Though I certainly agree that many aspects of the show have been seen before, I think Idris Elba’s ability to instill a fresh character into a cliched role must be taken into account along with the show’s well-paced, entertaining (if not demanding) plotlines. Though I think Idris Elba will always walk a fine line between clutching The Wire‘s coattails and trying to escape its shadow, I think he has created a fine character in John Luther. It should be noted, however, that although Luther has been nominated for an Emmy and won a Golden Globe (for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Mini-Series for Elba), the series has not even been nominated for the prestigious BAFTA. This might give credence to the idea that Americans are clamoring to like something because of its darkness and Britishness (and maybe making up for ignoring Elba in the past), while they overlook the actual quality of the overall program.

Addendum: I watched the second episode of Luther this weekend, and I think one of the great appeals of the show comes from its short-run structure. This episode is much more like the typical American procedural than the first episode, in that a crime is committed, and John Luther rushes against the clock (the 52 minute run-time, that is) to catch the killer. The perpetrator is revealed from the start, and the payoff of the episode is learning (along with Luther) the motivation behind the crime. Though most episodes of Law & Order keep the true identity of the criminal a secret until the last 15 minutes or so, the open-and-shut nature of Luther’s case is a common factor (there will be a new crime next episode, and, according to iMDB, this killer will not appear on the series again). However, the fact that there are only 6 episodes in this series of Luther (and 4 in the second series) leaves the viewer to really invest in the other elements of the show–Luther’s relationships with his wife, Alice Morgan, and the police squad. With short runs and no need to stretch content out over lengthy 22-episode arcs, every episode matters, whereas Law & Order episodes only really effect each other during sweeps and finales. The stakes of Luther seem real, as actors do not sign seven-season contracts, and no one’s fate is certain. The danger seems real, and the various relationship changes have a direct effect on subsequent episodes. Luther thus provides intentional, serialized arcs along with the immediate gratification of an episodic. While some prefer one or the other, this show makes a watchable (though not necessarily brilliant) marriage of the procedural and episodic.

After hearing the concept of Blackpool, I was actually optimistic about it. I did theatre in high school and usually enjoy musicals so I thought Blackpool would be interesting. Yes, singing along with the original music is strange but for some reason I had high hopes. Obviously they were WAY too high.

Blackpool did not develop the way I had imagined it would. And I am not nearly curious enough to watch any more episodes to figure out where it was going to go. The music seemed like it was meant to be the hook – what kept the audience involved, interested, and on their toes – but it was not used enough to fulfill the quota. It just fell flat and was very out of place. If the gimmick of the singing was taken out I think it actually could have been a good show. There would have to be some plot changes to work around the “lack of song” but it could have worked better (in my opinion) had it been presented anther way.

I can almost hear the producers, directors, writers, etc. talking and developing this show together. It’s a drama with the added twist of music! Keep it light-hearted enough that audiences won’t be depressed watching it, but intricate enough that they keep guessing at what’s coming next! What actually happened was complete confusion on the actual vision. They didn’t take it to the max the way they should have. When you go for a gimmick like the singing, you have to be 110% committed to it, and Blackpool just wasn’t. Shows here in US with singing – namely Glee and Smash – may be cheesy, but it works. These shows are not ashamed that they are about singing and dancing. I got a vibe of embarrassment while watching Blackpool. Like the characters (and the actors) were not fully into the whole concept…which also led to me not connecting with the show. Overall I just don’t understand Blackpool at all. It’s one of those ideas that may be good in theory, but not so good in practice.

P.S. I am not surprised in the slightest that it did not work in America…especially after watching that short clip of Viva Laughlin in class. What…? How…? Um….? No words.

In class, I mentioned that I didn’t really take to Luther because I didn’t feel that Idris Elba’s character was anything more than a cookie cutter “tortured soul” type of character. That’s not a knock against Mr. Elba’s acting; I thought he was fantastic. I think I just realized that I’m so sick of television shows equating a dark brooding antihero protagonist as automatically being “quality.” Someone in another one of my classes mentioned an article stating that what many call this new “golden age” of television that began with The Sopranos actually ended with the premiere of The Walking Dead. After reading the article, the author is not specifically disparaging The Walking Dead, but one of his reasons for the end of this age is shows like The Killing or Hell on Wheels which seem to try to emulate characteristics of shows like Breaking Bad or The Sopranos but simply aren’t very good. (Personally, I don’t think I agree with the author about the current age of television being over quite yet, but that’s another point for another day. The article is an interesting read though: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7722573/andy-greenwald-don-draper-mad-men-twilight-golden-age-television)

Unfortunately, from what I saw of this episode, Luther seemed to be one of these copy-cat quality shows. John Luther felt like an amalgamation of multiple cable drama antiheroes, from the tortured genius who cares more about being right than catching the perp to a wife who no longer loves him (perfect fodder for emotional breakdowns, so the audience gets to see how unstable and oh so dark he can be). And because the show really was all about one character, once I decided I didn’t like him, there wasn’t much else for me to latch on to.

Of course, a lot of my dissatisfaction with the show comes down to personal taste as well. I never liked House because I found House to be an insufferable jerk, and didn’t really have much sympathy for him. Shows like Breaking Bad are tough for me to power through, despite their level of quality. And most telling, my absolute favorite show on television is Parks and Rec, which is just so positive and downright nice. I am naturally predisposed to characters who enjoy being good people and doing the right thing, which unfortunately often doesn’t make good television. Maybe Luther is truly a quality show, maybe not. I thought this show and Sherlock were similar in a lot of ways, but I loved Sherlock and thought it was a perfect example of quality. One of the most important rules in cinema is to “show, don’t tell” and Sherlock showed its quality. Luther, on the other hand, seemed to be screaming at me that it was quality without anything to back it up.

I found it interesting in our discussion on Monday how the British classify drama into so many distinct categories. But even more so, I found it interesting how most of those categories did not seem to translate to US audiences, yet escapism, and more specifically The Avengers, did find popularity. So I decided to do some digging on both escapism and The Avengers to simply try to find out why the genre works so well in the US.

While there seemingly is not a definitive reason why escapism works well on US television, I think the answer may lie in the advertising based structure of American television. The ads lead to programming that seeks to bring in higher ratings, which often means more entertainment programs, which in turn has resulted in a large number of escapist shows. On the other hand, in the UK – as we well know – the format encourages more educational and informational programming without the revenues from ad dollars. Thus, escapist programs are less common perhaps? This 2010 article from The Telegraph that I found seems to touch on this briefly, calling out funding as a reason that British shows tend to lean away from more “risky” and high budget escapist programs. The article focused on NBC’s The Event, but I think it raises some interesting points about disparities between British and American programs.

I also looked at The Avengers to see how it did in the US and what the general thoughts on it were. I found it interesting to see that the show was described as “very violent” for American television. (The opinion comes from an interview with the series stunt coordinator, Ray Austin, via Wikipedia. So of course, it has to be taken with a grain of salt being from Wikipedia, but there is a footnote on the claim.) Specifically, Austin said that The Avengers was initially put on the late night block at 11:30pm because of the perceived violence. It then gradually moved up to 10pm and then eventually to 7:30pm. Nevertheless, I thought it interesting that a British show during the 1960s was considered too violent for American television, while today the British seem to think American shows display too much violence. The Wikipedia article also talks about how particular episodes were censored and the early Avengers series weren’t aired until the 1990s. It is funny how perceptions of some television series have changed over the years between the US and UK.

I’m not sure how correct I am in saying this, but from what I found it looked like escapism programs increased in the US during the 1970s with shows like All in the Family and Happy Days. That also coincided with The Avengers moving up into primetime. But the bottom line I took from this merely an interesting look at how escapism has seemed to be popular in the US and grown while it seems to remain relatively rare in UK programming.

This post by Time TV critic James Poniewozik is about anti-hero characters on American TV, but it makes me reflect on some of the things we’ve been talking about in regard to British comedies and dramas and about how perhaps American TV is doing things now that   UK TV has more traditionally trafficked in.

ITV’s Wild at Heart has been cancelled by ITV, even though it still does quite well in the ratings, and the cast is claiming it’s because ITV is broke from Titanic. A sizable grain of salt is required considering the source, but it’s at least more evidence that Titanic is basically the anti-Downton Abbey in terms of turning sour for ITV, whether in revenue or PR.

So I just got out of breakfast with Lord Patten of Barnes, chairman of the BBC Trust. Aside from heading up the BBC, Lord Patten currently serves as the chancellor of Oxford University and was the last governor of Hong Kong. A couple of interesting points from breakfast:

–Lord Patten’s favorite shows on the BBC are “2012” and “Mrs. Brown’s Boys” for comedy and “The Hour” for drama. Yes, “Mrs. Brown’s Boys” — and he says it is because of the show’s bawdy humor, specifically the use of the f-word.

–Lord Patten said the BBC has HUGE plans for the Olympics broadcast this summer in terms of digital platforms — he thinks the Olympics and the upcoming Diamond Jubilee will do for these new forms of digital media what the Coronation did for television more than 50 years ago.

–He also mentioned some digital service that may be launched in the future that will allow customers to watch programming in all of the BBC’s back catalogue, not just recently-broadcast programming.

–In the search for the new director-general of the BBC, Lord Patten said internationalization is key because the BBC is a worldwide property in terms of viewership. However, he said this was just one aspect they will be looking for in job candidates — editorial experience and understanding of the British media are equally as crucial.

–As for imported American shows, Lord Patten named three as of importance (I’m unclear as to whether he meant they were important to the BBC, or he just enjoyed them). They are, in no particular order, “The Wire,” “The West Wing,” and “Mad Men.”

–Finally, Lord Patten is not a “Downton Abbey” fan — he thinks it is too much of a soap opera. His wive, however, did say she enjoyed the first series. He also made a “Drownton Abbey” joke in reference to the Titanic series, which he noted was a major failure.

The Baftas have announced the nominees for the Audience Award, with the winner chosen by popular vote (this is the one that Only Way Is Essex won last year, stunning many, including Martin Freeman). Sherlock is the only nominee we’ve looked at. The others are Celebrity Juice (an ITV2 panel game show), Educating Essex (a C4 observational doc), Fresh Meat (a C4 sitcom), Frozen Planet (BBC doc) and The Great British Bake Off (BBC2 cooking competition).

In this week’s blog post, I am going to focus my attention on Ricky Gervais’s new show Derek, as I found the show and the controversy surrounding it far more interesting than either Luther or Blackpool. After Professor Becker described the new show and the hullabaloo that it has been creating, I was bracing myself for a horribly wrong, politically incorrect portrayal of some of the most vulnerable people in our society…the mentally and socially challenged. Like the cynical people that misguidedly ridicule these members of our society for their atypical features, I had absolutely incorrectly judged this show. Instead of the deplorable satire that I had expected, Derek was an honest, endearing, and, at times, touching show that is able to masterfully complement drama with humor. Immediately after watching the short clip in class today, I rushed to my dorm to watch the entire episode.

The reason I think many naysayers pointed foul at this show was because it features Ricky Gervais – a man that has made a career off of being politically incorrect – as a mentally handicapped man. However, not once during the entire episode does Gervais allow his character to be an exaggerated caricature of an autistic man. Yes, it is true that he is obviously acting in a peculiar way in order to portray the challenged Derek, but that is not to be confused with mockery. From Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man to Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump, actors have consistently portrayed the mentally/socially challenged in sincere performances and this one is no different; simply because Ricky Gervais has a past history as a crude comedian does not allow us the right to think that his representation is insincere or jeering. In fact, although he is not in the league of Tom Hanks or Dustin Hoffman, I do believe that Gervais plays the part well and is able to effectively portray a very simple and sincere man who is not quite aware of the humor and joy he brings to the people around him.

Another reason why I believe that many people have incorrectly criticized this show is because of its label as a comedy featuring a mentally handicapped character. The problem here resides in the fact that the show is incorrectly billed (that is in my humble opinion of course). Instead of marketing or describing the show as a mockumentary comedy about a challenged man working in a retirement home, one must look at Derek as a “drama” sprinkled with humor and joyful moments created by a special type of lead character. And this point brings about an important and controversial concept: is it appropriate to laugh during this show? Even if you know the show creators are not necessarily mocking Derek, is it still appropriate to giggle or laugh when he says things that are a little “different” to the norms of our society. The answer (once again in my humble opinion of course) is a resounding “YES” for to laugh during this show is not to laugh at the mentally handicapped, but to recognize the simple and joyful lens through which these people look at life that is so fresh and different from our culturally programmed responses to situations that are supposed to be “correct.” And I believe this is the main “draw” of the show. It is the little moments where Derek does or says something that (although may not be logically sound) is so honest, kind, and unassuming that truly connects with me as a viewer. For example, Derek’s kind and innocent outlook on life contrasts beautifully with the cynical, world-wearied view of his co-worker friend Douglass, whom I think we can all unfortunately see a little bit of ourselves in. (In fact, this relationship between the two reminds me of the dichotomy between Lennie and George in the novel “Of Mice and Men.”) This dramatic honesty is fully realized at the end of the episode when one of the ladies at the retirement home passes away and we get to see how Derek handles the situation…a segment of the episode that I will openly admit got me a little choked up.

After watching today’s short clip in class, I had to go ahead and watch the entirety of the first episode to get more of the character. Although the short clip gives a small idea of the nature of the show (the humorous yet honest act of dipping the worm on both ends is pretty indicative), I believe everyone must watch the entire episode, as it is great and will provide a true understanding of the tone and nature of this humorous yet surprisingly beautiful show. I usually hate Ricky Gervais and everything he stands for, but this time he disarmed me and actually has me rooting on his side.