Yanks Watching Telly

As a tie-in with a new reality show about diverse members of a British town trying to  get along (a show which has gotten at least one dreadful review), Channel 4 asked British people to tweet single words that define what it means to be British, and the words are then displayed on a Union Jack. Right now (it’s updated every 30 seconds), “citizenship” is the most popular choice, but it looks like “chips” is close behind.

As a superhero fan, naturally, I was excited for us to watch Misfits. I love thinking in terms of superpowers and the endless possibilities that amount from obtaining them. Admittedly, I am one of the few people you will ever meet that watched all ten seasons of Smallville, prayed for the improvement of Heroes, and even dabbled in Alphas this past summer. Like Logan mentioned in his post, Faye Woods equated Smallville and Buffy the Vampire Slayer (another superhero-y program I enjoy) to Misfits, emphasizing the supernatural abilities and the premise to take down evil.

Oddly enough, as discussed in class, Misfits really dismisses whatever responsibility or internal struggle such powers usually bring…no moody talks at daybreak about the weight of the world on one’s super-powered shoulder or the pressure to fulfill some grand destiny. The fact that the characters’ lives really haven’t changed much affects me more than the idea they won’t be fighting a “big bad” or “ultimate villain”. Nothing is questioned, just accepted and a part of them. If fact, the “evil” they do fight attacks as a pack of nice, generous, and thoughtful human begins. Donning a bit of a pastel fetish, but stereotypically “good” people nonetheless. They swarm like a zombie attack, engulfing the natural order as if “good” were actually bad.

This works as a fun form of personal expression, just as when Nathan preaches from the top of the community center for everyone to be themselves, not what society wants of them. On the flip side, normally the characters with abilities mature and learn to live as society does want them to, as a savior, do-gooder, and dependable force of justice. These added quirks serve simply as another aspect of them, not a complete derailment of change to life as they know it. Perhaps superpowers don’t automatically lead one to a life of fame or glory; perhaps superpowers can just as easily come from you being you in a truer sense.

(Cheesy, yes, but that’s how “super” discussions must always end)

Faye Woods on The Only Way is Essex (and a failed Channel 4 reality show):
“The failure of Seven Days in the face of the success of The Only Way is Essex has made me think about what we Brits really want from our docusoaps.  We don’t really want to interact with them, we want to sit on twitter and in our living rooms, laughing and judging.  The Only Way is Essex lets us sit back and constructs its drama, whilst offering a nudge and a wink at its own reality, as fake as its nails.”

This blog post is a response to Grace’s post about The Only Way is Essex, with specific attention to her analysis on the disclaimer that opens the show. Essentially, text appears on the screen describing what can be expected in each episode and how the show is absolutely scripted and staged to a large extent. Grace’s point is that this strategy serves to identify the show for what it really is, and therefore, “cuts the crap” out that many American reality TV shows still cling to—namely, that the programs are still documenting unscripted and mainly unfiltered “reality.”

I couldn’t agree more with this conclusion. I think it is a very smart marketing initiative by the producers because the show will still attract reality trash enthusiasts, but will also go further by attracting more viewers outside this primary target audience. The reason for this is that these people can justify their own viewership based on the fact that the show is admitting what it is and is making fun of itself before the first frame airs of each episode. Hence, it is okay to subscribe to a trash show, as long as it is aware of its own nature and is already mocking itself.

However, rather than viewing the opening description of the program as making fun of itself, I would like to suggest the idea that it is in actuality making fun of its own genre. I believe that this subtle distinction is significant in that it provides a reading of this disclaimer as commenting on the stereotypes which the show is itself embodying. By correctly stating its identity at the beginning of each episode, The Only Way is Essex is subsequently removing itself from the genre of “poser” reality TV. Audiences are no longer in any doubt as to whether what they are watching is real or is contrived. In effect, the program can now be viewed as a comedy program that is providing a satiric perspective on the reality TV genre, rather than being a member of that genre. As a result, it is moving closer to the genre of mockumentary, as it is employing the filming techniques associated with documentary filmmaking while also providing a comedic script.

So it appears we have a similar version of The Office on our hands, right? Absolutely not. And I wouldn’t dare insinuate that The Only Way is Essex is more like quality mockumentaries than it is reality trash like Jersey Shore or The Hills. Clearly the filming styles, acting, production values and overall subject matter are more closely aligned with the latter than the former. However, the point I am trying to make is that both genres are not very far away from each other, considering the basic film styles (zooms, handheld, etc.) are very similar and both, regardless of what reality TV tries to claim, are highly scripted. Thus, I wonder if it may be possible in the future to see more reality programs take this stance and even possibly drift further down the spectrum towards mockumentary to the point that a true hybrid is made and this gap in the family tree of these two distant cousins is filled.

Found this interesting article that has a great argument against the Misfits remake that I completely agree with. Enjoy!

http://www.themarysue.com/misfits-us-remake/

I am embarrassed to admit that I thoroughly enjoyed watching The Only Way is Essex (enough so that I continued to watch the second episode on Hulu immediately after). Something about the fact that it is a reality and staged mashup is what got me so invested. When I was abroad my cousins and I all became fans of Made in Chelsea, which is virtually an E4 clone to this ITV2 program. Both of these shows are heavily stylized, produced, and staged.  Yet the fact that these characters are not actors is what makes these shows trash TV gold. The slight difference in their production styles is how The Only Way is Essex comes clean about its departure from reality.

The show’s opening disclaimer reads, “This programme contains fast cars, big watches, and broken hearts. The tans you see might be fake but the people are all real although some of what they do has been set up purely for your entertainment.” This warning label is attached to the beginning of every episode, but with a different opening sentence that describes what will happen later. It is as if the makers of The Only Way is Essex are calling themselves out before anyone else has a chance to. Viewers of shows like the The Hills constantly lamented how staged everything appeared to be. However, it was not until the final episode when Kristen and Brody pulled back the curtain to reveal just how set up everything was. Other shows such as Keeping up with the Kardashians or Jersey Shore still claim to be true reality television, which we all know to be far from the truth. I like that ITV and The Only Way is Essex cut the crap and give it to us straight from the start. This seems like a very British thing to do, which in turn kept me coming back for more.

ITV2 is an appropriate platform for this type of show that also features other outputs such as Gossip Girl, Vampire Diaries, and Celebrity Juice. It is a fresh channel that mirrors E4 in its aim to attract young, hip audiences. The Only Way is Essex contributes to this goal with its slightly different spin on the overdone reality show format. I will most definitely be writing my final paper on this form of British television that has yet to be fully realized in the US. We are all aware that reality television is far from real, so why not take this approach and come clean about the carefully, composed content?

                 From following British television shows like Sherlock, Doctor Who, and Misfits, I have realized that many U.K. dramas have much less focus on season-long narrative arcs than their American counterparts. Instead, these dramas have (pretty much) standalone episodes where each episode has a singular mystery (Sherlock), alien (Doctor Who), or lightning-charged baddie (Misfits) to deal with. This concept turns each episode into an “adventure of the week” of sorts with little narrative continuity knowledge required of the viewer to enjoy the episode. I will prove this point through analysis of the three dramas previously mentioned. Bear with this post, it is a little long, but it all comes together in the end.

                First off, I will use Doctor Who as it is by far the easiest of the bunch to make the case for lack of overall narrative arcs. The fact that Professor Becker was able to choose two completely random episodes from two very different seasons illustrates perfectly the self-contained nature of these dramatic shows. Obviously we needed to get a little background on who the Doctor is and how he works, but outside of this very basic knowledge we as viewers were able to hit the ground running. Now, not to short-change the series, there are some narrative elements/mysteries that are carried across episodes (i.e. “The Master”, “Bad Wolf”, cracks in the universe etc…). However, these narrative arcs usually play backseat and when they appear in episodes act more as treats for devout fans than as necessary knowledge in order to enjoy the series.

                Second, Sherlock, is another series that I have watched all the episodes and can confidently say that each can (once again, pretty much) be watched as a standalone entity. Although there is a narrative arc of this rivalry between Moriarty and Sherlock that spans the first two seasons, most of the episodes only reference it briefly and instead focus on the central mystery that is completely started and wrapped up throughout the course of the program. In fact, even the season two finale that deals the most with the rivalry between the two enemies could easily be viewed by a newcomer with little background knowledge on what has happened before.

                Lastly, Misfits, is a little trickier than the other two. Since the show does deal with individuals that have superpowers, it is necessary to know exactly what each individual can do. However, outside of that, there is little that is absolutely necessary for viewers to know in order to enjoy the episode. For example, Professor Becker gave a quick rundown and we were able jump all the way ahead to end of the first season and I would argue we could have gone in with even less knowledge (we just may have missed out on some subtle relationships between characters that are not crucial). Unlike similar American superhero shows like Heroes that has very closely connected episodes that cannot be viewed out of order, Misfits episodes almost always focus on one baddie (who is usually a good person) that they must take down. 

             Now, the reason for writing so much on this is that this whole concept of standalone episodic series with little narrative arcs was what really turned me off as a viewer when first starting to watch these series. I love my American shows like Lost where every episode is crucial in unraveling one more layer of the mystery. Even shows like Buffy and Smallville (two series that Woods argues are most similar to Misfits) have large narrative arcs where there is one big bad or threat that exists throughout the entire season. Thus, when these British series failed to include this cohesion between episodes, I was initially disappointed. However, good things come with time, and after spending more time with these British series I realize their advantages and why I actually might like them better. You see, when you have standalone episodes with little narrative continuity, each episode is able to be distinctively creative and try out new story lines and ideas. Unlike American shows, these series are not bogged down and limited by the need to advancing the narrative and as such are able to provide unique and creative stories that wildly vary from episode to episode (as could be seen in “Blink” episode we watched of Doctor Who). This “variety bag” of sorts allows each of the series to always seem fresh and new with its audience instead of maintaining the same tone and methods from episode to episode as many American shows do. And, no British series I have seen so far does this better than Misfits.

              Due to certain plot devices like Curtis’s ability to rewind time, the series is able to take each individual episode to truly innovative heights. For example, one of my favorite episodes allows us to see what would happen if all the ASBO offenders made their powers public and we get a fully fleshed out episode that makes us as the viewer think that the writers are going to go ahead with this whole fame and fortune thing as a completely new and different course for the series. But in the end, all of the characters minus Curtis get killed and he is able to conveniently rewind time and bring us back to the beginning of the episode, erasing the significance of everything that came before. Although many may see this decision to erase the events that transpired as a cop-out, instead I like to view it in a fun and innovative way to interact with the characters in a way that can’t happen in regular American series. These essentially “what-if” scenarios/storylines are very similar to American sitcoms where all the craziness in the world can happen and yet by the end of the episode we are able to go back to square one (albeit with a few changes of course). And I think that is a very nice way to describe some of these drama series I have been mentioning…full-length British “dramacoms” (sorry I don’t get much more creative than that). Like sitcoms, these “dramacoms” allow us to have creative, self-contained episodes while also providing some carryover content for the hardcore. It’s like having  your cake and eating it too.

There is something undeniably British about Misfits. As Faye Woods says in our reading, “…whilst inspired by US Teen TV, British Youth Television also seeks to define itself against it.” One of these “inspirational” US teenaged TV shows she mentions is the long-running, finally-about-to-die-thank-God CW show, One Tree Hill. The two shows are, of course, unthinkably different. But where can you see the inspiration and where can you see the definition in opposition?

We can start with the intros. Let’s take a look at both–

One Tree Hill:

Misfits:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlqOuzkgIy0

We are dealing with two teen dramas when you peel these shows down to their bones. Sure, Misfits is edgy and cool and One Tree Hill is soapy and girlish, but Woods gets it right when she quotes Howard Overman, “Being a teenager is such a challenging time that is instantly throws up conflict. Every emotion is heightened, everything is life-and-death important. That’s drama.” Both shows are essentially about these challenges of teenage life–identity, self-esteem, sex, drugs, making mistakes (as Misfits‘ Nathan would say), etc.

Let me also say that both shows are cinematically polished and use very modern music that appeal to teens even in their intros. They are both screaming, we are you! We get you! They want to delve into those seemingly life-and-death issues that teens struggle with to make them identify with the show.

There is obvious pushing away on Misfits part from its American counterparts, however. For starters, there is the obvious fact that these kids are not quite as breathtakingly beautiful as the could-be models of One Tree Hill. Even the quiet, nerdy girl of One Tree Hill is exceptionally good looking. This is a show where 22-year-olds are playing juniors in high school. They are good and right, and when they aren’t, they are either punished or put on the fast track of being changed into a good person.

Woods references the visual desaturation that Misfits employs, and I, too, noticed in watching how the show experiments with focus. It is definitely edgier than the non-risk-taking One Tree Hill. Misfits is wholly uninterested with goodness and beauty, although those things are something found as a byproduct along the way. In fact, Nathan’s speech is like an anthem against goodness and beauty. The actors are either actually young enough to play the ages of their characters or more consciously chosen to look younger. Nathan, the cool asshole, still has that gawky awkwardness of teenaged years. Kelly, his love interest, has neither the body nor the face of a knockout. In that sense, Misfits is entirely more identifiable as the anti-heros.

As a kid of the 90s, the class on British idents yesterday took me back to Nickelodeon immediately. Essentially idents–full of characters, songs, and the Nick logo–these Nick promos are strong branders for the kids’ channel. What are called bumpers here in America were played alllll day (trust me, I know). Disney Channel also had its fair share of branding in ident-like shorts throughout its programming (ie: its shows’ stars drawing giant Mickey Mouse heads in the air with wands).

I can’t really think of non-childrens’ network which has something so similar to the British idents. Is that because loyalty among the few childrens’ outlets is more easily won for just one channel? Is it just a better bet that kids can be won over with this type of branding and adults can’t? Any other ideas?

Here are a few old Nick bumpers for the nostalgic out there (there are also hundreds on YouTube–I agree, totally impossible to stop once you’ve started)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=WRpox_aXPlk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpb9F2m1aVI

HBO is adapting the British show The Thick of It, which we’re watching later this semester. TTOI is a hilarious show and from the looks of the trailer, in the hands of HBO, it’s potentially possible to do it some justice.

http://youtu.be/soJggb_jDL8

Lucky thirteen.

Yes I have liked certain shows we have viewed this semester, even to the point I would chase them down and watch them (legally or not [here’s looking at you Doctor Who and Sherlock]).  However, I had yet to find an example of British humo(u)r that I actually enjoyed. This was very disappointing to me because comedies are by far and away my most viewed and most enjoyed television shows as well as movies. Until today–mark it down as a momentous occasion–February 27, when I watched the thirteenth show we have viewed this semester, The Inbetweeners.

I understand that I am in the minority of the class (most of the class is female), and possibly even in the minority of the males, but I found the raunchy humor hilarious. It was the first sitcom we’ve seen that I think would succeed on American television, assuming it found the proper outlet like Spike or possibly even a pay-cable station, which aligns perfectly with its British home, E4.

After doing some research on the show, I found that not only has it been one of the best successes for the channel, but also on the awards circuit. The Inbetweeners has won a few British Academy Television Awards. That being said, I’m not sure if those awards are more on par with the Emmys or the People’s Choice Awards. More importantly for E4 though, the show has been a ratings success, and due to the nature of the channel, has been a huge success with the most coveted demographic of 18-34s.

Each of the six episodes of series one was rated in the top ten on E4. While they all had less than half a million viewers, it was enough of a success to earn a second series, which caused an explosion in popularity in the second and third series. Every episode of the second series was ranked first or second for the station and averaged over a million viewers. All six episodes of the third series ranked first for E4 and averaged 3.5 million viewers/show. For a digital station like E4 this is a huge success.

This show perfectly fits the E4 model and fits in perfectly with Johnson’s discussion of the need for branding in the “digital-multichannel” era. Several of the shows we have viewed this semester have fit the station on which they air, however, none, in my opinion, do as well as this show. The Inbetweeners is meant for a young audience, stars a young audience, and (from my large sample space I can clearly make this assumption) focuses on story lines that are applicable to youth audiences. Everybody knows how it feels to be in a new situation and not fit in right away–if not in high school, everybody went through the awkwardness of Frosh-O and Domerfest. Everybody can relate to a character in the show. Heck, I was in the same school AND BUILDING from K-12. I graduated with 24 kids, and 20 of us had been together since kindergarten or even preschool. That being said there were times I remember in high school when I felt isolated like Will, or embarrassed like Simon–Just to clarify for COMPLETELY different reasons.

Not only was The Inbetweeners one of my favorite shows we’ve seen this semester and also the one that made me laugh the most, I truly feel it is the most relatable of any of them. And that is why it is such a success for E4.

So at least one network is happy to pick up a Julian Fellowes-penned miniseries: http://www.tvguide.com/News/Downton-Abbey-Julian-Fellowes-Titanic-1043587.aspx

Something that we briefly mentioned in class, but didn’t discuss specifically in our conversation after the screening was the way that shows like Downton fit into the four-step plan that ITV is going for (and tied Downton to in that slide Becker showed us). I thought I’d go through each of the concepts and try to tie Downton to the direction that ITV is trying to go.

Step 1: Being creatively dynamic with the budget.
While period costume dramas are not the most cost-effective genre to produce, ITV is at least getting more bang for its buck by producing a longer series. Yes, more money might be going out, but since it’s a hit, more money will be coming in because people will need to see more ads in order to see more Downton. It was a risk to produce such a costly product, but it definitely paid off for them. Being “creative” doesn’t need to mean being frugal. It can also mean being selective about certain risks, as we can see in this case. Plus, it seems like Benidorm and TV Burp were relatively low-budget (compared to Downton), so the channel isn’t being reckless, just choosy.

Step 2: Good ratings = more advertising dollars
Here, it is easy to see where Downton fits in. The show is extremely popular in the UK, which will bring with it advertising dollars from the broadcast as well as online viewing. Again, it was a risk because pretty clothes and mansions don’t come cheap, but the risk from Step 1 paid off in Step 2.

Step 3: More money, more platforms
Isn’t is great how these steps are all interconnected? Good going, ITV. Anyway, as mentioned above, Downton is available online, which not only draws more eyeballs to ads when watching online, but also to other content (like interviews, articles, and extras) that will draw superfans in even more. The show has large Twitter and Facebook fanbases, and while those necessarily earn the channel money, it might earn them more devoted fans who might buy Downton merchandise or new fans who are friends of existing fans who check out the show (and see the ads) online.

Step 4: International Money
The success of Downton in the US shows that the risk from Step 1 continues to pay off in Step 4. Downton has been hugely popular here and, according to the BBC, over 100 countries have gotten rights to air it. 100! A love of pretty dresses and soapy goodness is a basic human trait, apparently. ITV definitely accomplished this Step with Downton.

Overall, it’s clear that Downton, while potentially risky because of the initial cost, definitely fits into the new five-year plan of ITV and was certainly worth the investment.

(Fun fact: I just found out Downton is produced by NBC Universal. Um, what?!)

I had not thought about it before, but I realized in looking up information on Benidorm that every episode but one has been written by Derren Litten. Likewise, every episode of TV Burp is attributed to Harry Hill, while also nearly every episode of Downton Abbey is written by Julian Fellowes. Thus, I thought about how we have been talking in my Film Theory course about auteur theory and how it applies to both film and television (Professor Becker gave us a guest lecture on Tuesday regarding television auteur theories – some of you are also in that class with me as well.)

As we well know, this is not a standard practice in American television, to have a single writer always attributed to each episode of a series. Of course some writers earn prestige as being the auteur on American television shows, like Joss Whedon for Buffy or Matthew Weiner on Mad Men. But still, no matter how the American pie is sliced, typically there are numerous writers in a given season as well as the writers’ room that helps to formulate the episodes and narratives. So I guess my point in regards to this is: can we apply the auteur theory more effectively to British television than to American television? Or does the theory remain too closely associated with films and directors?

If we accept that film auteurs are directors and television auteurs are writers, then British TV seems to make a stronger case for following an auteur approach – at least in these three shows that we watched. Harry Hill is credited towards writing 84 out of 115 episodes of TV Burp – that’s 73% of the episodes. But he has also appeared on 92 episodes, which is 80%.  So I think it’s safe to say that he has a heavy influence on the show and could be credited as its auteur (his name is in the title). Additionally, as I previously mentioned, Benidorm has had every episode but one credited to Derren Litten, so that is 29 out of 30 episodes and the 30^th one hasn’t even aired yet, it’s scheduled for March 2. Therefore, technically you could say Litten has written every episode of Benidorm to date. Downton Abbey is similar in fashion, with every episode written primarily by Julian Fellowes (some have co-authors).

Conversely I took a look at Modern Family, The Soup and Mad Men just to see how they compared in their writing credits. Modern Family follows the typical American sitcom model, being written by many writers in one season. There were 13 different writers for 24 episodes in the first season. The Soup has 7 different writers credited for 35 to 38 episodes out of the 300 total. Mad Men on the other hand has the bulk of its episodes credited to Matthew Weiner on IMDB (all of them I believe), however, each episode has multiple writers and as we discussed on Tuesday, Weiner doesn’t necessarily write every episode, but insists on receiving credit.

So I guess my point to all of this is the following: Can we say that auteurs are more prevalent in British TV than in American TV, therefore making the programming almost more respectable in a sense or more artistic and impressive? Could this just be a result of fewer episodes in British TV? (I think this definitely plays a large part). And finally, a question simply for my lack of knowledge, do British shows have a writers room or are they primarily written by one person? I praised Sherlock as quality tv in my last post, and the show certainly is, but across 6 episodes there have been 3 different writers (but each wrote one episode per season). So does that show not have a legitimate auteur despite being real quality?

No matter the answer, I enjoy the level of consistency amongst the writers in British television and wish we could see that in American shows to see if it really does make the auteur theory more legitimate in television.

After the screening this week, I thought a lot about how these three very different shows would work in America. As we all know, Downton Abbey has become an international phenomenon – including here in the United States – but why? Besides the interesting storyline, relatable characters you want to root for, intriguing relationships just starting to grow, and drama oozing from every scene with just enough biting one-liners to keep you guessing, it’s really nothing special. But seriously, all joking aside, I really enjoyed Downton Abbey. The feeling like you are escaping to this past world and getting an insider look at both ends of the hierarchy really pulls you in. It was easily my favorite of all the shows from this week. It lived up to all the hype, and I definitely will watch the rest of the series.

Harry Hill’s TV Burp, as was mentioned in class, instantly made me think of The Soup here in the US. I was nervous whether I would find anything funny during this show because I hadn’t been too impressed with the other comedic shows we have seen (which will be continued with Benidorm later.) No, not every segment had me falling out of my chair laughing, but neither does The Soup, so I really felt this show was where American and British humor may have some crossover. It was silly, light-hearted and hilarious but it didn’t take itself too seriously. If other British “comedies” had this type of humor I would probably enjoy it more, but this style of show does not seem to be replicated multiple times throughout Britain. The essence of British comedy is just different from American comedy, even if TV Burp has some similarities to what we would watch over here.

Finally to Benidorm. Honestly I was just confused throughout most of this show. It really just wasn’t my cup of tea. Grandma had some good zingers in there, and the man who basically shops around his wife was funny, but the rest of the characters and plot lines didn’t do anything for me. Again, I think this goes back to the differing types of humor between the British and Americans, since Benidorm is so popular across the pond. Comedies that I am used to have jokes bursting from the seams and usually end with a heartfelt message or a wrap-up of the stories from the episode. Benidorm did the exact opposite, which kind of left a bad taste in my mouth. This episode ended with a monumental cliffhanger that was in no way funny or endearing. Maybe it was just this one episode that did not end on a good note, but this is not my idea of comedy. I definitely don’t think this show would be have the same success in the US as it has in the UK, but if that’s the kind of “comedy” they like over there, more power to you.