Yanks Watching Telly

There is one major reason why I think “Downton Abbey” works (at least for me) which any of you have not continued your viewing will not totally get – the characters. The characters – from the too-good Anna to the bang-tastic O’Brien – are what keep me tuning in week after week, singing the show’s praises all along.

You’ve all heard by now how much I love “Downton Abbey,” but what I really want to make clear is that beyond all the beautiful costumes, soapy plotlines and Maggie Smith zingers lie some of most fascinating and well-developed characters on TV. And while you all may have started to build allegiances based on our screening of the first episode, I suspect that a major contributing factor in whether or not you will continue watching “Downton” is how much you liked, and connected, with the characters from that first episode.

As good as that first episode is, I’m not sure how much it can really accomplish that. It’s a tall task for a single hour of television, but let me tell you – give it a few more episodes and I promise you’ll be hooked. There’s lust, Communism and the Dowager Countess’ interactions with the new working-class heir to look forward to, after all.

Julian Fellowes writes great stories, but what makes his writing really great is the way his narratives contribute to really excellent character development that makes you bond with the residents of Downton Abbey in fantastic ways. For me, Mary is my girl and Anna and Bates… well, I don’t want to spoil anything for anyone interested in watching more.

I’m sure I am not the only “Downton” fan who parks it in front of the TV week after week to watch her favorite characters live their exciting, soapy lives. In fact, it is my very fondness for these characters that made an otherwise underwhelming Series 2 still appointment TV.

In that sense, there is no question why “Downton” plays so well in Britain, America and all over the world – good characters that one can build a real connection with are universal. It is that very trait that typifies most of my favorite American shows, from “The Vampire Diaries” to “Six Feet Under” to “Parks & Recreation.” Sure, these favorite fictional characters are clothed in Meryl Streep hand-me-downs and told what to say by an Oscar-winning writer, but “Downton Abbey” is just good human drama.

Prior to our class screening, I asked one of my friends from London about Downton Abbey.  His response?  “I’ve heard it’s excellent, but my mum watches it, so I’ve stayed away.”
I think it’s interesting to point out that my 20 year old male friend stayed away from the show simply because his mom watches it, which I think, from what I understand about ITV, isn’t really what the channel is going for.  The only real criticism I’ve heard about Downton Abbey is that it has been accused of being a soapy show that attracts mostly a female audience, which doesn’t seem to be such a bad thing if you consider how popular it is.

But are the rest of ITV’s show, such as TV Burp and Benidorm, also geared toward the mothers of society?   I’d say probably not.  (But then again, Benidorm is about a bunch of middle-aged married people on a vacation…? Clearly I’m not a mother and have no idea what kinds of shows mothers watch.)  I can’t say I was a big fan of the sitcom personally.  I did find TV Burp hilarious, but I’m certain that my mother would not.  She would, however, adore Downton Abbey, and I’ve already recommended it to her.

The “Comic Relief” clips that Professor Becker posted certainly show us one thing; that Downton Abbey is of a higher caliber than most of the other shows on ITV, even to the point where it can be made fun of for its pretentiousness and dramatic plot lines.  I think it is one of the more well-produced shows we’ve seen in class so far, and that’s impressive for ITV.  TV Burp and Benidorm aren’t exactly the same level of high-budget, glossy production value.

ITV’s remit claims that it wants to “provide a range of high-quality and diverse programming”, and I think that these three shows provide us with examples that it does just that; they certainly are a diverse group.  I think that Downton Abbey really is the “ideal” high-quality British TV show; plenty of accents, fancy dresses, servant drama, tea, and World Wars, and Americans have always been rather fascinated with British culture.  I think it’s great that ITV has such a smash hit that sets the bar a little higher for its programming.  And who knows? Maybe more great things are to come from ITV.

I’d like to add that I am on episode 6 of Downton Abbey and loving it.

Not TV, but relevant enough: “A billboard that went up on Wednesday in London uses facial-recognition technology to know – 90% of the time – whether you’re a man or woman. And it gives you a different advertisement depending on your gender.”

Just as Maija mentioned in class yesterday, Adele received an apology for being kicked off stage at the Brit Awards–but not before she flipped off the camera!

http://perezhilton.com/2012-02-23-adele-brit-awards-execs-apology-middle-finger

We haven’t watched many sitcoms this semester. Or maybe I should clarify; I do not think we have watched many sitcoms that are similar with the type we are comfortable with in America.  We all have our favorite American sitcoms, as well as the shows we could stand to see leave the airwaves. But as far as I can tell, with my limited knowledge of British sitcoms, there are not many similarities between the “sitcoms” from each nation.

Benidorm provided me with a curveball at the end of the episode we viewed. I was not expecting there to be so much drama amongst all the families, especially in a “sitcom”.  In American shows, such as The Middle, Modern Family, How I Met Your Mother and Parks and Recreation, the end of an episode usually results in some sort of cleanup of all the issues that had arisen.  A touching voice-over, a new relationship or peace between two enemies often leave the viewer with a sense of happiness and wonder as to what might happen next, but this was not the case in Benidorm. British comedy, Benidorm included, seem to have a slightly darker sense of comedy. I am not saying this is bad, but just different than the family friendly comedy that would be seen on American broadcast networks. For example, the daughter deciding to leave the grandmother out in the sun after bickering with her throughout the morning was a funny incident but probably not the type of cruel humor one would find in America. This is not to say, however, that a more risky cable network does not provide this content, but ITV is a terrestrial station not a satellite one. This is what sparks my interest, a family could sit down to watch this and find marital troubles that would go beyond the understanding of an eight year-old.

Based on the other comedies we have screened, Benidorm is not much different from British humor in that it doesn’t slap you in the face with a joke like most American humor. I am not saying this is a bad thing, just not what I am use to. I found Benidorm to be interesting and I laughed a few times, but the ending sort of left a bad taste in my mouth because I was not expecting the drama. Had I gone into this episode with the genre of “dramedy” in my mind I may have reacted differently, but this, again, could just be my Americanized sense of humor speaking out of line.

I was extremely impressed and intrigued by the first episode of Downton Abbey. Not only did it come across as polished and professional, but the show maintained a sense of opulence throughout, encouraging the idea of escapism among viewers. The high quality of the program made me think about the show’s recent success in the U.S.

So, why are Americans hooked on Downton Abbey? When I mentioned the show to my roommates, one of them mentioned that their dad shipped them the first series last week, while another has been watching it on Netflix. It appears Downton Abbey is quickly developing a following in the United States. Upon doing further research on the fandom associated with the show, it appears American fans organize Sunday night viewing parties, heavily discuss plot twists on Twitter and even purchase show merchandise.  News outlets air programs instructing people “how to dress up” like the characters and online fan clubs engage viewers. This level of cult-like fandom reminds me of Twilight and the Harry Potter series, where fans fully embrace media convergence and become enveloped by the characters and plot lines. I believe that the American tendency to develop cult-like followings towards media is one reason why Downton Abbey has proved successful. We like fandom.

As I initially mentioned, I think escapism also plays a vital role in sparking the interest of American viewers. In a time of economic instability and cultural turmoil, Downton Abbey portrays a simpler era that relishes in luxury and sophistication. Americans who are looking to escape their current predicament, even for an hour, can seek refuge in the show.

I think Americans also like watching a show the illustrates the wealth gap, seeing as we are living in the middle of one. The distinction between societal classes makes for good entertainment and satisfies the guilty pleasure of the American people. Let’s face it, we love shows about rich people. Shows like Keeping Up With The Kardashians, The Real Housewives, Gossip Girl, etc. all succeed because we like to see what rich people do and how they do it. The wealthy family in Downton Abbey is no exception.

Finally, airing the show on PBS is a smart move in my opinion. Current “quality American television shows” air on Showtime, AMC, HBO, etc. Placing a quality show on a free channel as opposed to a costly cable channel gives it greater exposure in the U.S., which might be another reason why Americans are getting hooked.

The creators of Downton Abbey certainly know what they are doing by casting American actress Shirley MacLaine for the third season – even more incentive for the fifty states to keep on watching.

What’s interesting to me about this (besides the fact that it’s hilarious) is that the first few minutes in particular mock the show for being pretentious. The idea that an ITV show would be targeted for pretentiousness is significant. (Also, one American actor you might recognize in it: That’s Kim Cattrall as Lady Grantham) (And also, the second clip has some S1 spoilers, in case you’d prefer to remain entirely unspoiled)

Game shows fascinate me. I don’t actually watch any, but the history of the game show on television is really interesting, especially since people have been making that argument that they fill public service mandates for decades.

Since we were talking about the boring/super-informative versus compelling/fun-to-watch distinction between BBC and ITV game shows, I decided to look to see what other game shows each channel airs. Keep in mind, the game show genre to me is very broad. I don’t distinguish between (as Jim Collins would say) the “stupid human tricks” shows and the “I need to use my brain for this” shows because the goal is the same: get on the show, do something (with your brain or with your body), win something, and usually leave and never appear on another episode again. To be honest, I just don’t like making this distinction because of shows like Deal or No Deal (which, as we all might remember, aired on NBC for every single day for what seemed like an eternity) which really had nothing to do with learning something useful OR getting through an obstacle course. (Fun fact: Deal… is on Channel 4 in the UK if for some reason you can’t get enough.)

Something that surprised me was that the BBC, with its plethora of informative game shows like Mastermind, adapted ABC’s Wipeout (called Total Wipeout) and aired 101 Ways to Leave a Gameshow before we brought it to the States. The argument can be made that there is a Q&A component of 101 Ways…, but I’m almost positive that those questions are not going to be about luxury cruise liners from 1939-1979. It’s great to learn about other things and I’m sure it’s much more exciting, but it still seemed like an almost complete shift from what seemed in class like the typical BBC gameshow. Now: Total Wipeout. Can someone please leave a comment and explain why it’s on the BBC? Seriously. I suppose it can be said that it works for mixed broadcasting, but is it enough to just explain it away like that? Maybe it’s on because it teaches you that balance and a high pain threshold are important parts of survival. Are game shows exempt from the public service remit?

The ITV shows reflect how unregulated and fun the channel is. Shows like Odd One In featured celebrities and Divided featured general knowledge questions. They’re fun, informal, entertaining and potentially compelling. The best show I found was called Golden Balls (made fun of by our pal Charlie Brooker below), a 2007 game show that was 10% strategy and 90% euphemism, which I think is the very essence of the high-tension, slightly complicated, but weirdly entertaining brand of ITV game shows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR9QVI04v3M&noredirect=1

Overall, I felt that the ITV game shows had a clearer, more consistent brand than the BBC ones. Again, this could be because the BBC wants to reach a diverse audience, but if over half of your shows are going to be informative, why not be consistent? I am honestly very intrigued, especially because of the distinction that was mentioned in the Hills article and seen in the clips we watched in class. Strictly talking game shows, why is it difficult to pin down a BBC brand or, alternatively, why do a number of show swerve so far from it? (And, perhaps a question for another time, why is there so much Deal or No Deal in the world?)

An excellent House/Sherlock crossover vid, taking advantage of the fact that Benedict Cumberbatch once played Hugh Laurie’s son in a 2003 TV series. But one warning: the ending of Sherlock‘s Series 2 is spoiled near the end, so don’t watch past the 3min mark if you don’t want spoilage.

After spending the whole week learning about Channel 4 and its somewhat unique position within British broadcasting, I’ve come to the conclusion that, from what I’ve seen, the channel has essentially abandoned its mandate. I’m not faulting the network for this; its public service remit is simply unsustainable for a channel supported by advertisements.

Now, if we had simply watched the episodes of Peep Show and Black Mirror, I might be able to concede that Channel 4 is still looking to innovate, educate, and create a more edgy, experimental brand. However, the episode of Big Fat Gypsy Wedding as well as the typical week’s schedule that Professor Becker showed us seems to indicate otherwise. When a channel like TLC is showing me “Toddlers and Tiaras” or “Strange Sex Stories” I don’t buy it if they say they’re trying to educate me or show me what a diverse country I live in. No, they’re trying to be sensationalistic to get more viewers and higher ad rates. So just because Channel 4 is twisting the stated purpose of these programs doesn’t mean they’re not trying to do the same thing TLC is doing. I remember my Mom talking about Gypsy Wedding earlier in the year, and I had no idea it was a British import. The fact that I couldn’t tell a TLC program from a Channel 4 program seems to indicate that it isn’t pushing the limits in ways Channel 4 wants to.

That kind of turned into a rant, but even the other shows on the schedule all seemed pretty derivative of each other. Even if the “fly on the wall” documentary shows were edgy or educational at one point, having them fill up half of the channel’s schedule kind of causes them to lose their remit-fulfilling luster. Even Peep Show, which may have been a perfect example of what Channel 4 should be doing, is in its 7th series, and is already commissioned for two more. Frankly, to do what Channel 4 should be doing, it always has to be innovating instead of remaining stagnant. Unfortunately, when you’re supported by commercials, becoming stagnant, relying on inertia and giving the people what they want is often the most financially sound choice.

Luckily, there’s still hope. I thought Black Mirror was a perfect example of what Channel 4 should be doing. First of all, it was only three episodes, so there wasn’t a chance of stagnation. In addition, the show really did have an edge to it that set it apart from the various BBC dramas that we’ve seen so far. It definitely stuck with me far more than most of the other shows we’ve watched, to the point where I was annoying my housemates by talking to them about it hours after I had gotten home from the screening. Even if Channel 4 can’t be edgy and innovative all the time, hopefully it will continue to commission shows like Black Mirror that really do exhibit the distinctive character the channel wants to portray.

Kim Akass says don’t forget that Big Fat Gypsy Weddings is also sexist. But here’s a brief defense of the show (after a section about how boring BBC docs about the countryside are): “Is it exploitative? Is it voyeuristic? Is it a freak show? Yes, probably. But it is also endearing and strangely sensitive. We soon come to accept that these travellers don’t have bad taste necessarily, they just don’t have conventional taste. Their customs and rituals are fascinating; indeed I would say they are the British equivalent of the Amish, if the Amish wore fluorescent green dresses in the shape of pineapples.”

And now here’s an open letter to Channel 4 from a Romany gypsy arguing that the show is basically fiction.

Since the majority of posts are focusing on the trashiness or the shear discomfort from the Channel 4 shows we watched, I’ve decided to play the role of devil’s advocate. I’ll begin with the old adage “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.” Channel 4 was not created to be the best of the best in British programming, but as an alternative to BBC and ITV. But what exactly is Channel 4 trying to offer in the form of public service? In 2003, Channel 4 stated about itself that “The public service remit for Channel 4 is the provision of a broad range of high quality and diverse programming” and listed four criteria which its programming follows:

1. Demonstrates innovation, experiment and creativity in the form and content of programs
2.  Appeals to the tastes and interests of a culturally diverse society
3.  Makes a significant contribution to meeting the need for the licensed public service channels to include programs of an educational nature and other programs of educative value
4. Exhibits a distinctive character

Based on these four criteria, is Channel 4 doing what it claimed it would do when it came to the three shows we watched? All three shows were certainly innovative, creative, and experimental. In addition, Channel 4 absolutely has its own, distinctive character. From the first person views in Peep Show to the uncomfortable feeling that spread across viewers in Black Mirror as everyone realized that the Prime Minister was going to have to have sex with the pig, it was certainly thinking outside of the box (I’ll talk about Gypsy Weddings later on).

Channel 4 tries to appeal to the fringe groups of society. Not all programming is for everyone. While their target demographic is the 16-34 age group, not everyone who is part of that age group is going to like everything that is offered on Channel 4. By trying to appeal to a diverse society, there is a good chance that viewers can watch Channel 4 “buffet style” and just pick and choose what interests them.

But where does the educational value come in? I think that the education from Channel 4 comes from its ability to make people think and talk. Programing that simply reaffirms the beliefs of its audience doesn’t do much in terms of education. A different, and often controversial, opinion can open up communication. The message of Black Mirror wasn’t that the Prime Minister does everything to protect his country, it was more that today’s digital world is a powerful tool that can have repercussions far beyond an innocent tweet or comment on youtube. The education comes from people being made uncomfortable by what they see and talking about what they saw with others.

The most difficult example to try and stick up for is Gypsy Weddings. While I do feel like the Gypsy culture was exploited for the sake of entertainment, I do believe that it does open up the eyes of the world to the lifestyle that this minority group participates in. While the focus of the show is on the over-the-top-ness of the wedding, the viewers are also subtlety educated about what its like to be a Gypsy in contemporary times. The most poignant moments are the moments where the Gypsies interacted with other people in society and the reactions of the other people. While this was hardly the focus of the show, it just reinforces the absurdity of their actions. While its not the same kind of education that one would receive watching a documentary on Gypsy life, it certainly is one way of getting people to watch a show and open up discussion about the Gypsy lifestyle. The delivery system is far from perfect, but Channel 4 does serve some public service beyond just getting people to watch trashy TV.

If BBC is the staid channel of British television, providing programming that looks to “inform, educate, and entertain,” than Channel 4 is its rambunctious little sister that nevertheless is supposed to impress. Channel 4’s reigning motto is “Television with a difference,” and in 2011 the heart of the organization’s mission was to provide programming “not normally found in mainstream media.” To say the least, I had high expectations for what I was going to see with Monday’s screenings. In particular, “Big Fat Gypsy Weddings” intrigued me because I wondered how words like “innovation” and “original” would be applicable to a program from the very stale and overdone reality genre.

Unfortunately, “Big Fat Gypsy Wedding” did not live up to the Channel 4 expectations of creativity, but certainly did fall into the lower standards of exploitative reality television. On paper, “BFGW” could purportedly be high quality documentary programming for Channel Four; in fact the premise might even sound like a BBC or in America, Discovery Channel program. Cameras follow “travelers,” a socioeconomic class of people that until this point was relatively neglected by mainstream media. As we follow their everyday lives, we begin to understand more about their culture and lifestyle. It sounds like an award winning documentary that educates viewers on a group of people different than themselves, a slice-of-life style program.

Well, Channel 4 must have missed the memo about producing quality, innovative programming, because the shenanigans on “BFGW” seem straight out of any old trashy reality program – skimpy outfits, testosterone-driven males, and a flair for the dramatic that unfortunately paints the travelers in a negative light (substitute “travelers” in that last sentence and it would even sound like I was describing “Jersey Shore,” it is that bad.)

That isn’t to say we learn nothing about traveler culture. We see a traveler fair, we learn how important weddings are to travelers, and we learn of how boys and girls enter into courtship. The problem is not so much what is show as it is HOW it is shown. In the wedding portion of the episode we viewed, we saw the bride getting into her dress, which feature a large cutout at the front to give it some “Spanish flair.” Now, all the power to her for wearing a big wedding dress and showing off her body while doing it. However, Channel 4 then cuts to a shot of her dancing provocatively to rap music in her wedding dress. It is not exactly the image of a pure, blushing bride viewers have come to expect. Essentially, “BFGW” is exactly what its title implies, and what is advertised on the controversial billboards we saw in class—bigger and fatter. Everything is made larger than life on the show, something to laugh at, to judge, or to cringe at. We do see a picture of traveler life painted; the problem is it is done so in an exploitative manner.

While this may make for interesting television, “BFGW” certainly does not fulfill Channel 4’s mission of innovation. If I wanted to view trashy reality television, there are any number of programs I could turn to on British TV, just like in America. More importantly, and more disappointingly, “BFGW” is exploitative to the point it seems it is counterproductive to what a show like itself should be doing. Instead of informing and educating the public about a group of people different than themselves, it stereotypes and mocks them.

Our viewings this week definitely supported the readings assigned, highlighting the fact that Channel 4’s programs thrive off of uncomfortable and innovative programming. All three shows successfully made me uneasy in some way, whether it be constant eye contact, sexist traditions, or, you know, having sex with a pig. All represented something I hadn’t been exposed to before and didn’t particularly enjoy, yet kept watching.

That point solidified Charlie Brooker’s commentary in Black Mirror. Audiences enjoy programs that push boundaries and incorporate things never seen before. Whether through documentary series exposing the intricacies of an emergency room or the marital traditions of a sub-culture, watching uncomfortable situations unfold can be addicting…just look at the obsessions in either the UK or US. The promise of “normal people” doing something “abnormal” automatically draws in curious viewers who want to watch everything unfold, the goal of Channel 4.

Black Mirror used Channel 4’s own identity against itself, pointing out the danger of fascination with watching the unscripted, “reality” unfolding. Most poignantly, at least in my mind, the most disturbing part of the episode was the montage of viewers, specifically the hospital group. Throughout the episode, the crowd in front of that TV increased: three friends who happened to pass it, a larger group, a mob, and a full lobby complete with chairs they had moved in…glued to the TV even after an hour of watching one man repeatedly hump a pig. They spent all day in front of the TV, waiting for the deed to be done. Again, these people work in a hospital and seemed to have no other reasonable activity to occupy their time.

Brooker wrote a screenplay commenting on this “glued to the screen” phenomenon, questioning the appropriateness of such viewership and the effect this addicted public has on such subjects, what is done and under what conditions. Channel 4 provides this programming, an interesting mix of controversial and thought provoking shows. Love it or hate it, you know if in front of you, it would be hard to look away. Though I like to think no one in our class would have watched the Prime Minister’s defining moment…

Here’s a Charlie Brooker Screenwipe bit indicating that British TV isn’t very different from American TV after all: