Yanks Watching Telly

While watching this week’s episode of Him and Her, I couldn’t help but constantly be reminded of a Friends episode entitled “The One Where No One’s Ready”. That episode took place in real time, solely in Monica and Rachel’s apartment, and Ross struggled to get everyone ready and out the door. This “bottle episode”, like others on American TV series, exist due to plans to save money and production time. They require clever writing, events contained to a singular area with problems conceivable yet entertaining within that area. Him and Her seems to be a “bottle series”.

We know that UK television production works differently than US television, with a more constrained budget and less writers. A smaller enterprise, these series only last as long as the creator deems necessary, striving to never get predictable or drawn-out. Him and Her epitomizes that, taking familiar circumstances and making them endearing through the vision of a single writer. By having every episode in the same space, it requires out-of-the-box thinking to broadcast something new and enticing (It’s a fun sort of irony knowing that two characters stuck in an apartment get all their inspiration and purpose from a man equally trapped in his own workspace…all the responsibility of the world on his sequestered shoulders.) The level of reflexivity within in the show adds a certain spark as well, including lingering shots on negative space, confirming what we already know: the characters will always return back to this playing space. What changes is how they choose to use it.

As Ronnie mentioned, Skins seems to fit right in with the Channel 4 objective, one I would sum up as “edgy”, to borrow Ronnie’s term.  And edgy it is, but only for one particular reason, in my opinion.

I hated the first episode.  I hardly got through it.  It seemed absurd, shallow, and the only real “shock value” for me came from the fact that these are younger teens, not of-age adults looking for a good time.  But even so, I wasn’t impressed. The whole car-in-the-river bit felt forced, and the subplot romances didn’t interest me in the slightest.

And then I watched “Cassie”.  What a fantastic television episode.  It immediately drew me in, fascinating in its exploration of the single character.  It was hilarious at points and absolutely tragic at others.  The episode actually made me care about the character of Cassie instead of being annoyed by her as I was in the first episode, as I rolled my eyes at the stupid antics of troubled teenagers.  The background information we get on her family, while possibly just an excuse to add more nudity, was intriguing and gave Cassie’s character a distinct reason to be a bit “off”, and certainly explains her previously inexplicable, incredibly casual views about sex.

Perhaps certain deep problems faced by the characters in Skins are rather skimmed over (this was one of my main issues with the first episode) but the second episode gives us at least a better idea of where these kids are coming from and why they act the way they do. The attitudes of both Cassie’s parents and the people at the counseling center give insight into her issues and also reflect how strong a person she really is, despite how annoying she seemed in the first episode.

Hannah Murray was brilliant in her portrayal; she had to be at the same time totally spacey but show the depth of Cassie’s inner turmoil.   I looked up Murray’s imdb profile, and she hasn’t really done much since Skins, her only really notable role for me being a guest appearance on Game of Thrones.  But although I am a huge Thrones fan, I honestly don’t remember her appearance.  I didn’t notice her like I did in Skins, and I think that’s a shame. She’s certainly a talented actress, and I’d keep watching the show just to see more of Cassie.

While watching these two episodes, I kept going back and forth on what I thought of the show. I felt connected to the characters because they were so relatable and intriguing and I wanted to root for those we got a deeper look at (especially Cassie), but the common “extra-curriculars” were taken just a little too far for me. As many other posts and comments have noted, Skins sensationalized the party culture to an extreme that hindered the believability of the entire show. Not to say that I didn’t enjoy it, but some moments just left me thinking, really??

The development of characters – although not so in depth for those other than Tony and Cassie – drew me in enough to feel some sort of connection to them. I felt badly for Sid when he was stuck with the drugs he couldn’t pay for, and I was worried for Cassie when we discovered she had an eating disorder. These kids are dealing with real problems, and even if they may be expanded more than the typical teenager sees for the sake of television, their reactions seemed genuine and real. I may not know someone in each of these situations personally, but I could see these things happening in real life. It really drew me into the show as a whole. As the episodes go on, I’m sure each character’s back story is revealed with more detail, but the little taste we got of the few characters with larger story lines made me hopeful for the deeper connections the audience would make with each person.

The partying culture portrayed on Skins seemed more way more dramatic than it needed to be. I understand overemphasizing something for the sake of entertainment. So many US shows do that too. But the same message would still be portrayed to the audience even with a more subdued and, in my opinion, realistic party scene for these kids. Maybe things like this actually happen to young students on a regular basis. Maybe my super strict, all-girls, private, Catholic high school sheltered me from what some high school students actually do, but either way, I thought it was just a bit too much for my personal preference.

Overall, I enjoyed the two episodes we saw, but did they keep me interested enough to watch the rest on my own? I haven’t watched any other episodes, and honestly, I don’t think I’m going to keep tuning in. It was good…but not great.

The Director General of the BBC is stepping down after the Olympics.

The first word that usually comes to mind when discussing “Skins,” E4’s wildly popular teenage drama, is controversy. I knew that before even seeing the show because of MTV’s failed attempt at adapting the series for American television. While the British version attempts to accomplish the goal of tackling real teenage issues, it does so haphazardly and in my mind, attempts to bite off more than it can chew. Sensationalism isn’t the problem with the original version like it is with the MTV’s—rather, the show spreads itself thin.

First and foremost, I think it is important that the British version has its heart in the right place. I felt the British version was simply trying to tackle too much rather than being too controversial. The emphasis here is the show’s effort and failure in accomplishing its goals as a program, rather than the content itself. To me, what the show depicts—homosexuality, drug use, sex, eating disorders, underage drinking, family problems, and religion—certainly deserves a place on television. In fact, I think it is commendable “Skins” is trying to do something with all of these very relevant topics. Rather than shy away from very real issues that would apply to its young viewers, “Skins” tackles them head on—and for me, that is where the show fails.

In the very first episode, “Skins” already is biting off more than it can chew in my mind. It tackles all of these issues mentioned above without really devoting time to fully addressing one. Rather than going in-depth, it introduces them all like a pu-pu platter of teenage angst and expects the viewer to be shocked, intrigued, and drawn in to the show. Instead, I felt like I was watching television ADD and didn’t really forge a connection with any of the characters or identify with their issues. I realize “Tony” was the first episode of the first series, and we get a little more in-depth with Cassie’s eating disorder in the next episode, but “Skins” is nevertheless relentless in its pursuit of covering all of these problems. By trying to address so many aspects of the teenage lifestyle, I feel like no one aspect of the teenage experience is fully explored and I was left wanting for more.

That being said, and having seen some episodes of the American series, I feel it is important to address some of the UK version’s shortcomings in comparison to MTV’s version. The US version seems to be more shallow and controversial for controversy’s sake, rather than trying to tackle challenging issues—for instance, by replacing Maxxie with an attractive girl who does not really address the same aspect of teenage life as in the UK version, MTV leans to sensationalism rather trying to depict the struggle of a teenager trying to understand their sexuality. While “Skins” in the UK is a good show that tries to do a little too much at times, it has a heart—something that was lost in the American translation.

After all the hullabaloo with Skins on MTV in the United States, I was expecting the original British version to really shock me, considering that regulation of racy content in the UK is much more lax (though oddly much more detailed) than in the US. I had completed the entirety of Misfits since we watched it in class, and I thus knew how far programs could really go on shows aimed at youth (it is on E4, after all) and with young actors. Though the actual issues of the episodes of Skins we watched were more challenging and thought-provoking than those in the typical Misfits episode, I was surprised to find the show fairly tame otherwise. This could be mere desensitization, but especially since sponsors of the American version pulled their ads from the show, I thought I was in for some discomfort (and that’s admitting that as a 21-year-old college student). I reckon it gets more overt in its taboos in later episodes, but what I saw for this class didn’t leave me checking over my shoulder to see if my roommates thought I was watching porn or a how-to on drug soliciting. I wondered why the American version got so much flack when the British version seemed more sweet-natured than anything else.

It really seems to me after watching the British Skins that the American version was simply trying too hard to emulate what shock the original did have, sacrificing the integrity of the premise in the process. Thus, the overall effect of the show was lost, and it appeared to be “worse” than it actually was. The original did seem to strive to portray real kids (maybe ones who were a little more extreme than the average high school student, but not by too much). Though I haven’t seen the remake, I gather that it tried to use bad behavior as the main selling point. I remember a number of ads which took criticisms of the show from viewers and TV critics and put them front in center of a photo of cast members taking part in sex, drugs, and/or rock’n’roll. A la:

And just look at the casts.

British:

American:

The American cast photo looks overly stylized, with the characters appearing darker and dirtier, as well as more artificially posed than the British cast flung in a heap. It just seems like we’re trying too hard. Part of the appeal of the original program is how realistic it is with the situations it presents and its authentic portrayal teens. Though I didn’t grow up in the UK, I felt like I knew someone similar to each of the main characters. The American cast photo doesn’t exactly take me back to my high school days. It would have been interesting to see what the American version did with a long run and 22-episode seasons, but it seems best to leave the delicate quality Skins often has (particularly when Cassie is onscreen) to those who can pull it off meaningfully, even amidst binge drinking and the f-word.

So I went back and revisited the Skins episodes to refresh my memory and I was left with the same impressions. The series resembles more of an HBO or Showtime type of program in terms of some of the content that is shown – the nudity etc. Skins tries to be edgy and it succeeds. While there weren’t any explicit sex scenes like you may see on HBO, the sexual undertones that are implied throughout these first two episodes of the series seem over exaggerated, and for me personally were just ridiculous. I felt like I was watching a Black Mirror type of show with a seemingly sensational overemphasis of teenage behavior that the program tries to make out as commonplace. I suppose that’s what Channel 4 is looking for though and they would argue it’s educational and providing a public service.

I accept that these events and problems occur for many teenagers, but trying to make them out as nonchalant and everyday seems too much to me. I love how the program approaches tough issues, but wish it weren’t portrayed as being realistic. While the series never expresses that anything is real or that it is a reality show, it seemed to be implied that these are the rebellious natures of teenagers and how all of them act – including the private school students. Nevertheless, what I found amazing is how I actually seemed to enjoy the episodes – enough that I watched them a second time. I expected to be kind of reluctant to want to watch the show, but while watching it I found myself being conflicted between saying something was completely ridiculous and then wanting to know what happens next. I suppose that’s good, entertaining television then, right?

As a series I felt this fit right in line with Channel 4 programming and especially as a part of the E4 network. It has the appropriate feel of a show trying to target the coveted younger demographic. Another thing that I like is how in future seasons the characters change. It then doesn’t become a feeble attempt to continue a series like a Saved By The Bell or something else which relies on age-specific cast members. I’m surprised to say I like the episodes, but thought some things like the drug deal, sex, and parties were too sensational at times. But I guess it makes for engaging television.

Some bits of news: BBC’s The Voice and ITV’s Britain’s Got Talent are in a scheduling battle, premiering on the same night and likely overlapping a time slot (BBC source: “”It is disappointing they chose to launch Britain’s Got Talent on the same day as us. To not even meet us halfway on avoiding any sort of overlap is incredibly competitive.”). And a Guardian poll shows many don’t like their license fee money going to pay so much to will.i.am. And in other news, ITV’s Deal or No Deal is being investigated for giving away money in exchange for no real effort or skill, which would technically make it a gambling show. Surprisingly, Ofcom doesn’t have anything to say on gambling (exorcisms yes, gambling, no); this is territory for the Gambling Commission.

Update: ITV blinked first, and The Voice and BGT will now overlap by only 20 minutes.

I found this interesting article from The Philadelphia Inquirer about NBC potentially dropping the ball by not picking up Downton Abbey to run on the network. Unfortunately, it only really sort of grazes over everything, beginning a few interesting threads of thought without really delving into them, but it has some good quotes and info about NBCUniversal to add to our discussions of whether or not it would have worked. The article seems to blame the previous NBC administration for not picking it up and there is a brief mention that short-run series like Downton don’t really work on American TV, though it never really discusses how/why NBC might have been able to make it work.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-03-11/business/31145416_1_nbc-universal-downton-abbey-current-nbc-executives

Channel 4 is starting a new channel, called 4Seven (no, really. Cool logo, at least). It will play shows from the previous week that got a lot of buzz, but one journalist doesn’t think it will work, because people will go see those shows online rather than wait for a schedule 4seven airing.

The seventh series of Skins next year will be its last.

As Becker mentioned yesterday, minority religions and how they’re depicted on television has owned my life for the past year, so it really interested me when Pat said that it seemed like Ofcom’s rules for religion seemed to specifically target Scientology and the like. Naturally, I decided to investigate.

After reading the Religion section of the code, it was interesting to see that “Religious programmes that contain claims that a living person (or group) has special powers […] must not broadcast such claims when significant numbers of children may be expected to be watching.” This is meant to protect the young, impressionable minds from fad religions, since “recognised religions and belief systems” like Christianity and Buddhism are okay.

This got me thinking: what exactly constitutes a “recognised” (they spell things so interestingly) religion? Here in the US, The Church of Scientology is a tax-exempt religious institution, but what about the UK? Turns out, it is completely the opposite.

Scientology began in the 1950s, when science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard wrote Dianetics (basically the Scientology handbook), which started a craze for Hubbard’s new religion in both the US and the UK. While both countries’ governments were concerned about Scientology, the US eventually accepted it, but the British government was highly critical of it and its standard of ethics (which includes a condemnation of modern therapy or psychiatry) until the early 1970s. Scientology is still not considered an actual religion by the British government, which would leave it out of the “recognised” category.

Media outlets and journalists have been critical of the Church as well, with many authors writing exposés and critical literature about the Church. TV has been no different than print. ITV aired “Inside the Cult” and “The S Files” as episodes of its show Big Story in 1995 and 1996, respectively. In 1997, Channel 4 aired the similarly negative special called Secret Lives: L. Ron Hubbard, which our very own all-American Scientologist John Travolta tried to get pulled off the air. According to the producers, they were actually harrassed by the Church during the making of the episode (thesis plug: this whole thing is almost exactly like what happened when South Park went after Scientology). More recently, in 2007, “Scientology and Me” aired on the BBC show Panorama. John Sweeney, the journalist making the episode, recevied the same kind of stalking/harrassment that the Channel 4 producers did a decade earlier. In response to this episode, the Church released a video of Sweeney losing his temper and also started sending out more promotional material to counteract the negative press they were getting.

Just from the titles of those episodes alone, you can tell that the stories weren’t exactly going to put a positive spin on the Scientology story. Normally, anything but neutrality would be prohibited on British TV because, as Ofcom’s code says, “any abusive treatment of the religious views and beliefs of those belonging to a particular religion or religious denomination” is not Kosher. However, since Scientology isn’t considered a religion in the UK, it seems that it’s fair game for criticism and has been for decades.

While Christianity and Islam have certainly been around long enough to be in the clear as far as establishment requirements go, there are still a number of newer religions around the world, including the UK, that have a good number of adherents. Some people don’t consider Mormonism a sect of Christianity. Does that mean that it would be subject to this kind of relentless criticism as well? As we said in class, a lot of things based on the Ofcom code are contextual and vague for a reason, but when taking belief systems into consideration, where do/should lines get drawn?

Other fun facts about religion on British TV and the PSB remits:
According to Wikipedia, it turns out that religious broadcasting is part of the remit of the PSB terrestrial channels, although they’ve been cutting back on it as much as possible because – shockingly – religious broadcasting doesn’t pull in huge audiences. The BBC, however, still needs to 110 hours per year (as of 2010), compared to ITV’s one hour. Yeah, one. There are, however, channels devoted to religious programming, but those are limited to Christian (some from the US) and Islamic programs. They air mostly via satellite, so they are sure to have very, very small audiences.

Issues of class apparently even affect acting jobs in British TV, as the actor who plays the footman Thomas on Downton Abbey has complained that “posh” actors have an easier road on TV than working-class ones.

The other day in class we were talking about potential remakes of both Misfits and The Inbetweeners, and I started thinking about where these shows could go if they wanted to appeal to the same demographic that E4 and ITV2 are aiming for. It turns out that MTV is going to be attempting an Inbetweeners remake sometime in the near future, despite their lack of success in adapting E4’s Skins for an American audience. As soon as that option was mentioned, there was an audible groan in the class, as if putting the show on MTV was basically assurance that the show would be terrible. But again, if not MTV, where else would a show like The Inbetweeners fit in?

For a show like Inbetweeners, featuring a primarily young, male cast, one might think the show belongs on a channel like Spike TV, Adult Swim, or Comedy Central. However, I think this would be very limiting for the show. It was quite successful for ITV2 because it attracted a young female audience in addition to that male demographic. If it were put on one of the aforementioned channels, people would be quick to peg it as a “boys show” similar to Spike’s Blue Mountain State, Comedy Central’s Workaholics, or Adult Swim’s Robot Chicken. The same problem would exist if it were put on young skewing channels like ABC Family or The CW, since those tend to skew towards young women. To be honest, in the current American TV landscape, MTV might just be the best choice. The channel skews female, but has had recent success with male skewing shows like Beavis and Butthead. Because of the behemoth that is Jersey Shore, the channel has managed to attract both genders to their various shows. In addition, MTV seems to be attempting to commission shows of higher quality these days. Their summer show Awkward showed up on numerous critics’ “Best of 2011” lists, so it shows that MTV is capable of producing shows that are both popular and critically acclaimed.

However, this brings up the real issue with the current American cable landscape. Channels have become so fragmented and niche-specific that it would be nearly impossible for a remake like Misfits or The Inbetweeners to reach a mass youth audience. They could reach a mass audience on the broadcast networks, but then the shows would probably have to be tweaked to appeal to an overall mass audience rather than a young mass audience. I know The CW is looking to overhaul its image with its new president of programming, so it would be interesting to see if the channel decides to go after both young women and men instead of just young women. If that were to become the case I feel it would be the perfect place to put remakes of shows on E4 and ITV2, since the channel would have the resources to really do the show justice.

As I watched “Misfits” on Monday, I began to think about our fascination with the antihero. There are several American shows that feature an anti-hero as their main protagonist. The first network that comes to mind when I think of an antihero is FX which has shows like “Rescue Me” and “The Shield” are just a couple of the FX shows that feature this kind of character. Now who finds the antihero appealing? Who watches these kind of shows? Shows on FX are targeted at the 18-34 demographic and is split almost 50-50 between males and females. This sounds like the same type of demographic that the British E4 network pursues, which might make sense why a show like “Misfits” works so well.

“Misfits” features a unique kind of antihero. The 5 antiheroes of “Misfits” are not out to save the world after they get their powers. In what we saw, for the most part, their lives are almost unaffected. This was something that struck me as specifically british about the show. I was expecting  the kids to have some kind of reform. It would make sense for these juvenile delinquents to gain special powers and to have some kind of discovery of conscious and amend their ways which ended them up with community service. This was the kind of story arch I was expecting once we watched the part of episode 1 where the premise of the show was revealed. I was surprised when we skipped the episode 6 and our antiheroes were still doing community service and were not a crime fighting team.

The show just struck me as inherently british. As we talked about in class, the characters were given fairly humble super powers. I was more impressed by what this show was not which is what made it so intriguing. There wasn’t some organization of superheroes trying to save the world and stop super villains with their new found powers. There wasn’t a mythology that the characters were destined to discover over the course of the show. There wasn’t even a moment where the friends had to choose between being good and being evil. Instead we were given something that just seemed to be more real. I appreciated the simplicity of “Misfits” and how it used the rebellious nature of the main characters to tell its message. The message that I got was: be yourself, not what others want you to be. I believe this was something that appealed to the audience on E4. If the shows on FX are any kind of indication, the 18-34 demographic finds complex characters appealing like those which are featured in “Misfits.” For this reason, “Misfits” is more than just a simple teen drama or a super hero story. It’s a story that featured five antiheroes trying to overcome their own personal struggles as well as handle their new found superpowers and that is a recipe for success.