Desperate Times

Well, it seems that Artillery Man has been forced out of semi retirement by the really rather unexpected excellence of the recent Torchwood five-parter. Who would have thought that something that had previously always been something of a guilty pleasure would suddenly transform itself into the what could quite possibly be the best piece of TV drama of the year.
And what with the return of Jimmy McGovern's The Street and with Dominic Savage's Freefall getting more right than it did wrong, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the recent onslaught of dramatic misfires (do I really need to name them again?) was finally at an end. Maybe it was time for Artillery Man to hang up his poison pen once and for all.
And then Desperate Romantics came along.
Regular (and long suffering) readers of this blog will know that I really didn't hold out any hope for this drama of being any cop. To reiterate, the basic pitch was described as "a Pre-Raphaelite Entourage" and that pretty much says all you need to know about the mindset behind commissioning this nonsense.
While it was admittedly not as bad as expected, it was still pretty dire. It was aiming for edgy and irreverent, but as has been noted elsewhere, what it actually managed to achieve was something like the tone of a poor Carry On film. It's not that any single element can be singled out as being particularly awful - it was competently acted and some of the performances were even bordering on quite good and the writing was on the whole pretty sound. But the basic problem was that the whole show was actually based on a faulty premise.
The basic problem is that it suffered from the arrogance that often seems to beset the commissioning process these days. The earnest desire to be 'street' and 'relevant' actually betrays an arrogance on the behalf of the programme makers. It seems to be saying that 'while we can appreciate the contribution of the Pre-Raphaelites, the proles on the street won't unless we dumb it down with some laddish japes and plenty of tits'. But rest assured, the viewing public is not as thick as they seem to think.
I believe the time is right to look again at the Pre-Raphaelites and a fascinating series can be made out of it. And yes it can be edgy and it can be explicit. But what's required is to decide on whether or not the story demands such treatment. Tone should be at the service of story, not the other way around. It seemed to be another example of the writer being reduced to a glorified PA, reduced to taking down the shopping list of ideas of the 'creatives' at the top of the food chain.
I haven't read the book on which this series is based and on the strength of this adaptation I really have no desire to. One would hope that it is a bit more serious in its intention that the series is because as it stands this show seems to be just a collection of raucous set pieces simply tagged onto the name of Rossetti et al.
Another fine (and frustrating) example of just how schizophrenic the BBC's drama output is these days.

Read More......

Out of London

Further news of the changing face of BBC commissioning can be found here and here.
It seems the BBC if pursuing an 'out of London' policy with major centres of production going the headquarters in each of the regions.
While it's obviously too early to say exactly what this will mean for future production, particularly the likes of drama, I'm inclined to think it's quite an encouraging move. It should give any indies outside of London a fighting chance of getting more commissions and ultimately should mean that the beeb's output might be more diverse and representative of the nation as a whole, rather than the sub-Hollywood high-concept drivel we've seen of late, coming from a handful of names in the capital.

Read More......

Still Life

It's no secret that the US remake of Life on Mars has had a difficult birth, what with an abortive first pilot resulting in significant recasting, the replacement of the writer/producer and changing the locale from LA to New York.
But now that it's actually aired (in the States), but also available on the naughty internet if you care to look, have they actually got it right?
I would say that the answer to this is 'Probably'.
There are, of course, lots of arguments over whether the show should have been remade or not. There is, after all, nothing wrong with the original and if we're quite happy not to demand British versions of Mad Men or The Wire, why can't the Americans just be happy with the original versions of our shows?
Now, normally I'm on board with this argument and tend to think that the view that Americans won't watch a show just because it doesn't have American accents in it is either condescending or just downright depressing if it is true.
But with Life on Mars, I have to say that I think there always was a strong case for an American version. The US experience of the 70s is markedly different to the British one. It was perhaps the last decade where the two countries were culturally divergent and that from the 80s onwards we became much more entwined in our culture (as well as our politics). An American version could (and should) be able to bring enough new and unique stuff to the table for it to qualify as a different show in its own right.
This is what made the first pilot such a disaster. It was essentially a retread of the first episode of the British version merely transplanted to LA. And watching from an outsider's perspective, moving from LA of 2008 to the LA of 1973 didn't really provide the cultural jolt that is the whole point of the series because both worlds seem as equally otherworldly and strange anyway.
And that's why moving the series to New York was such a good idea. We're very familiar with New York of the 70s through countless movies, from Serpico to the French Connection and TV shows like Kojak to Hill Street Blues. To me it seems a no-brainer to set it here. If the original Life on Mars was designed as a homage to The Sweeney, then surely an American version must be intending to pay tribute to the American shows of the time.
If Life on Mars US gets anything right it's the design. The show looks amazing and New York of the 70s is brilliantly realised. When Sam wakes up, it really is "like a different planet" but one that is still strangely familiar to us.
The pilot still treads extremely close to the original, although less so than the first LA pilot did. There are many scenes that are shot for shot the same as the British version. But it's where the script has had the courage to diverge from the source material that it becomes interesting. Early on in the show, when Sam wakes up in a 1970s wasteland one of the first things he sees is the newly constructed Twin Towers. It's a great scene and and it gives the remake an emotional kick of its own and hopefully paves the way for it break away slightly from its source material in later episodes.
The other scene which shows a little bit of hope for this is where Sam seems to seriously consider killing the ten-year-old Colin Raimes in the hope that it will jolt him back to the future. One couldn't imagine John Simm's Sam Tyler ever doing this and perhaps we're going to see a darker Sam in the US version as the show progresses.
Jason O'Meara does, I think, an OK job as Sam. I really didn't like him in the first pilot but his performance seems changed, more nuanced and less beefcakey in this version. And as mentioned above, if the show does take him to darker more interesting places then he might still drag himself out of the considerable shadow of John Simm's definitive take on the character.
But the show lives or stands, of course, on Gene Hunt. And, sad to say, Colm Meaney just didn't cut it in the first US pilot. On paper, Harvey Keitel is great casting. He's the ultimate New York tough guy - from Mean Streets through to Reservoir Dogs. And while he's a strangely understated and background character in this pilot, he still shines in places. But he's a lot smaller and stockier than O'Meara who seems to tower over him. This is an underrated part of the dynamic of the show. Gene Hunt is a colossus - dominating Sam not just psychologically but physically. Philip Glenister intruded into every scene he was in. Keitel's Hunt all too often fades into the background. But what Keitel brings to the party is a more subtle, quiet menace. And this is perhaps what's needed. He's not channeling Jack Regan so much as he should be channeling Popeye Doyle and the like. He's not as overpowering as Glenister's Hunt but he might prove to be just as memorable and perhaps a slightly darker version as the show progresses.
Personally, I think they missed a trick by not making Gene Hunt black - in a nod to the blaxploitation aspect of 1970s America. How great would it have been to have seen Richard Roundtree or Fred Townsend as Hunt? In fact, dream casting would even have been Samuel L Jackson in the role.
On a totally unrelated note, can I just say how great it was to see Clarke Peters in a minor role as a modern day cop, effortlessly channeling Lester Freamon from The Wire. (Now, aren't there a couple of great Hunt candidates to be found in that show? Idris Elba would have been a great, as would John Doman as a more traditional Hunt.)
So, now that it's finally here, the US version of LoM is still riding too much on the coat-tails of the original. I think there's some signs that it's going to break free of that and take the show in directions that are unique to itself. It's also shown signs of willing to go to slightly darker places than the original. It if continues to do so, then it could become another piece of essential viewing from across the pond. It might be premature to say it but already it seems to be showing the potential to outshine the lamentable Ashes to Ashes.

Read More......

What are they thinking?

Right, once again I've been too tardy to say that Lost in Austen did not drop the ball in its final episode and proved itself to be one of the highlights of 2008's drama output. That's not to say it was utterly brilliant but it had charm, smarts and some great performances.
That and much of the competition this year has been pretty execrable.
But now let's talk about BBC3's frankly idiotic decision not to recommission a third series of Pulling.
Now, to me this is a decision that makes no sense. As well as being that rare thing - a sitcom that's actually funny - the show was also some of the best writing seen on TV in many a year. It was certainly miles better than the godawful Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps and the hideously overrated Gavin and Stacey. But it was obviously not loved by the powers that be because it was frightfully fucked about in the schedules and received next to nothing in the way of publicity (unlike the other two shows mentioned above).
Now while we're on the subject, this blogpost from Michael Jacob makes an oft-made and frankly riduculous point:

I often wonder if writers who want to break into television feel that popularity is to be avoided, and a puff in the Guardian Guide for one series with no viewers is worth more than eight series of success

Now, I've heard this argument used before in relation to The Wire. It goes roughly like no-one's watching this therefore it must be shit. Well, no, actually. The Wire was consistently the best thing on TV for its entire five-season run and I think it might even live up to its epithet of the best TV show ever. The same is also true of the revamped Battlestar Galactica - a great, quality show but not exactly a ratings hit.
There is possibly more weight to the converse argument that if a show is popular then it must be good. But this doesn't really follow either. My Family is wildly popular but it is, let's face it, anodyne shit. You can go through the ratings schedules of an era and you'll find shows there that were incredibly popular at the time but which can now be seen to be pretty awful.
Besides, in this era of DVD boxsets and 360 degree viewing ratings are carrying less and less weight, I suspect and will end up going the way of the Top 40 singles chart, with downloads and DVD sales carrying as much weight in the popularity argument.
However, back to Pulling. Apparently the reason why it was pulled was that it didn't fit in with the demographic that they were trying to appeal to. Thirty-somethings were too old for them, it seems. Personally, I thought that Ideal and Pulling were the only two things that BBC3 had going for it and with the passing of both of them there's absolutely no need for me to tune in anymore. Though because I am now slightly older than 16, I don't think they'll lose too much sleep over that.
It seems that BBC3 is intended to be an extension of CBBC and if that's the case, then it seems to be working. Except that I think they've got it all wrong. First of all, teenagers and twentysomething are not big telly watchers. They're too busy having lives. Plus the last thing you want is a 'special' channel. That instantly marginalises you. This is the age when you're finding out who you are and how you're going to fit into the world. This is the reason why soap operas are so popular with people of this age - they're (theoretically) representative of society as a whole. They offer context. It's not that long since I was that age and I think I would have found BBC3 patronising and annoying. It's the age when you're forming your individuality, your sense of your adult self. Who the hell wants that to be just part of some demographic?
The channel as a whole is childish, shallow and annoying - it assumes a level of thickness from its audience that I really don't think is there. It's 60 second news bulletins make Newsround look like bloody Newsnight and it now essentially is taking up resources that could be much better used elsewhere.

Read More......

What Jane did next

Well, it's not exactly a surprise to discover that Jane Tranter's move to the US has finally been announced.
While there have been some rumblings of discontent in some quarters about the autocratic nature of BBC Fiction under her reign, it can't be denied that she's produced some of the finest shows that the BBC has produced in years. I have some reservations that her approach has all but stifled the individual voice of the writer of TV drama, instead opting for a Hollywood style production-by-committee style that I feel is often sometimes makes for less satisfying (or at least less surprising)TV.
But it will be interesting to see what direction Ben Stephenson takes BBC drama in now - especially in the light of the other changes in the beeb's commissioning process of late.

Read More......

Merlin - No dreary magic puns allowed!

Perhaps the saddest result of the Bonekickers/Code 9 fiasco this year is that it automatically makes one suspicious of any major high-concept BBC drama.
I was fully expecting Merlin to be another sphincter-puckering misfire of epic proportions. And so I am surprised (and quite happy) to say that I actually liked it a lot.
Now, I'm a big fan of White's The Once and Future King so I am probably what's known as a 'tough crowd' when they try a major league retooling of Arthurian legend but in general I think they made more hits and misses here.
Of course, it's early days and it could still go horribly wrong but the groundwork laid in the first episode suggest that the series could go in directions that lead to a deep and rewarding mythology that could sustain the show for many years.
Of course, once again it is all rather cynically conceived - hoping to tap into the twin currents of Harry Potter and Doctor Who but I'm willing to overlook that at the moment to see if it's got the guts to find its own voice and direction. I suspect as it develops it will become more like a magical Smallville.
While some of the CGI was slightly on the dodgy side, I was impressed by how filmic the whole thing seemed to be. I kept being reminded of recent fantasy efforts like Stardust (not a bad thing) and Eragon (a bad thing). It was well cast too with Merlin himself coming across as likable rather than obnoxious and irritating and Richard Wilson, John Hurt and Tony Head doing good service in roles that could be described as 'well-travelled country'.
So, definite potential there and I'll be very interested to see how it develops.

Read More......

Bonnets and corsets and such

Apologies for the lack of posting of late. There are no excuses and I'm afraid it's now probably too late to wax lyrical about God on Trial, which was brilliant.
It's probably also no longer appropriate to lament how much Mutual Friends has failed to live up to what slight promise it had and now heartily deserves the ratings oblivion that's come its way.
Instead, let's have a literary discussion about Thomas Hardy and Jane Austen.
All the elements were present and correct for the beeb's latest period adaptation. This time, they're having another stab at Tess of the D'ubervilles. All the elements of these things were present and correct - high production values, sumptuous costumes and a decent-ish performance from the currently ubiquitous Gemma Arterton as Tess. All the boxes were ticked but somehow it seems lacking. What on earth could be the problem?
The problem was that this wasn't Hardy.
You couldn't help shake the feeling that this adaptation was being overseen by someone who hadn't actually read the book or who would much rather be making a Jane Austen adaptation. What they were after was another nice modern retelling of bittersweet romance rather than the brutal tale of social oppression that Hardy had had the cheek to come up with. This Tess is thoroughly, modern and emancipated and Alec seems to have been turned into a foppish pseudo-Darcy rather than the brutal rapist of the book.
As I say, this was all perfectly fine but it really wasn't particularly true to the spirit of the book and I'm inclined to wonder why they even bothered to adapt this in this particular fashion.
Also revelling in frocks in frothy tales of thwarted love - but with considerably more right to do so - is ITV's Lost in Austen. As I've said before, this is very much TV by committee but the writing is so light and sure-footed and the performances almost universally well-placed that it's easy to forget its cynical lineage and just get, well, lost in it. It's now well into its groove now and is starting to have fun with playing around with the novel - or rather the beeb's adaptation of ten odd years ago, the shadow of which still looms over every period drama to grace a TV set.
Jemima Rooper has become quite a charming Amanda - Bridget Jones meets Sam Tyler - and Hugh Bonneville is quite the best Mr Bennett I've ever seen (and I would say even eclipsing Benjamin Whitrow's wonderful performance.
I'm not quite sure how it's all going to end but I'm certainly hoping for another series. What would be nice if they just chose another book entirely and gave it a similar postmodern treatment. How about a Lost in Dickens? A Lost in Waugh?
Or how about having some TV exec transported into a Hardy novel and forced to deal with just how little they've actually understood the book they're supposed to be adapting?

Read More......