A Year of Two Halves?

Unknown-7

Half way through the year and it’s been a real corker, at least by my own criteria: at this point last year, I had shortlisted 8 titles for my year’s top ten – this year the figure is 15! Many of those critical sources which do the same are reaching the same conclusion, though not necessarily citing the same titles as me, but there does seem to be a consensus that this is a vintage year.

 

In previous blogs I pointed out several things about which I was enthusiastic, but I was waiting for them to finish before shortlisting them (or not). So, I am happy to confirm that the two titles I anticipated adding to my list from my blog of 31stMay, Chernobyl Unknown-7(Sky Atlantic) and The Virtues (Channel 4), will indeed feature and very strongly so – both maintained the qualities I described to their respective ends and I think they are probably the two best drama series of the year so far. The Virtues provided an extended finale of even greater intensity than the episodes which led up to it, with the main plotlines leading to two simultaneous and harrowing confrontations with different, though unpredictable, outcomes (I won’t spoil it – do watch it if you haven’t already). And the extra information we were given during the end credit sequence of the final episode of Chernobyl was a devastating climax of its own – I’ve never seen that device used so effectively.

images-2

Also in my 31stMay blog, I mentioned that I was enjoying Russell T.Davies’ Years and Years (BBC1), but without any confidence that it would feature on my shortlist. The closing episodes made me change my mind, as the way it finished fully justified the somewhat over-the-top approach it had taken throughout. It turned out that the whole story had been extracted from the brain of the character Edith (Jessica Hynes), who was Unknown-3wired up to a mind-reading device in a futuristic scene reminiscent of Dennis Potter’s Cold Lazarus (BBC/Channel, 4 1996). And Anne Reid’s soliloquy about automated check-outs really hit a nerve – I always queue for the human-operated tills in my local Waitrose and refuse any offers to help me with the automated section – now I can say “didn’t you see Years and Years?” as well. If you look at it as political satire rather than drama, it has a much greater resonance.

 

Going a bit further back, I confirmed in the comments section of my 13thMay blog that Daisy Haggard’s Back to Life is shortlisted, so the declared shortlist reads:

 

Les Miserables (BBC1)

True Detective (Sky Atlantic)

Moon and Me (cBeebies)

Inside Europe: 10 Years of Turmoil (BBC2)

Three Identical Strangers (Channel 4)

Fleabag (BBC1)

Back to Life (BBC1)

Mum (BBC2)

Chernobyl (Sky Atlantic)

The Virtues (Channel 4)

Years and Years (BBC1)

63 Up (ITV)

Janet Baker: in her own words (BBC4)

One Day in Gaza (BBC2)

 

…..which makes 14, the 15thshortlisted programme being a recent release which I had not blogged about yet.

images

Back in February last year, the first of my “TV Catch-Up” blogs considered the classic HBO western series Deadwood (2004-6) and one of the reasons I gave for watching it complete at that time was the tantalising prospect that a concluding movie was in the pipeline, all those years after its screen life was prematurely curtailed. Well, that has now arrived and was aired on Sky Atlantic at precisely the same time as it went out in the US, that is 2am! As a way of wrapping up the story, it worked spectacularly well. There wasn’t as much consideration of the building of American society, which was one of the factors which made the three seasons so memorable, but there was as much as you could hope for in the limited time allowed. The style, the distinctive use of language and the characters had hardly changed, but the (fictional) ten-year gap since the end of season three was masterfully handled by David Milch and his wonderful cast – it was great to be back in their world and very little in the way of catch-up was required. The ending was a great nod to classic western tropes and, alas, the last thing we will get from Milch – one of the true giants of TV drama. Given that this is one of the greatest American series of them all, a fitting finale was always going to be one of the highlights of the year. Just as with 63 Up, it earns a place on the shortlist as much as for what it has been as for what it was this year.

Unknown

So, I already have an outstanding list, five of which (not saying which ones) I regard as absolute nailed-on certainties for my top ten of the year. However, if the second half of the year is only half as good as the first, then I may have some very difficult decisions to make. It couldn’t be, could it?

 

Well, we are in a bit of a summer lull at the moment, with only Catch 22 (Channel 4) demanding my regular attention, but that is to be expected. I was, however, glued to my screen all day last Sunday for the Cricket World Cup Final and I still can’t get my head around whether that was one of the great pieces of TV of the year or whether it was the incredible nature of the contest itself which makes it seem so. I think I may return to that next time.

Unknown-1

Up the Past

Unknown-1

Well, I promised that 63 Up (ITV) would form part of my next blog, so here we go. I also named it as a certainty for my running shortlist before I had seen a minute of it because of what it has been, which is an essential part of what it is now. It had already earned its place on my list, even though this edition did turn out to be a little less impactful than previous ones. It had a certain valedictory air, which may be because Michael Apted’s own advancing age makes him question whether he will be around to do it again inUnknown-2 another seven years’ time. Each participant was asked to comment on the original premise of the series – that a person’s character and life path is set at the age of seven – which gave an air of things being wrapped up, at least in the event that there is to be no more. Hopefully this will turn out to be a “just in case” precaution, but I think Apted needs to work out a way of letting it go on without him, because it is too important to let go until the last possible moment. It certainly wouldn’t be the same without Apted’s skill as a film-maker and as an interviewer, but maybe there could be just a small-scale studio get-together every seven years when he’s no longer around.

 

It also struck me that there seemed to be a lot more questions about the participants’ views of political events this time around – in particular, Apted was keen to ask many of them about their attitudes to Brexit. Given that several of them have moved abroad or have family or business connections overseas, while others see themselves as firmly British, this was a fruitful line of enquiry. It also spoke to questions of identity, which have characterised the series throughout.

 

Overall, the series has perhaps become a little predictable now. Tony’s story usually comes first, to hook you in, while Neil’s is last, to keep you watching to the end. The first death in the group, that of Lynn, was very well handled at the end of the middle part, Unknownwhile the grave illness of Nick was also saddening, but otherwise it seemed to be business as usual, though with less to report. The series has mirrored my own life throughout (I was eleven when it started) and “less to report” is pretty much where I am now, too – that’s the main condition of retirement. Coming back every seven years has also worked particularly well with people of this vintage, especially as it only became clear that would happen gradually – with the impact of social media, it wouldn’t be the same for people of later generations, because their lives would be too obviously impacted by their fame. That has happened a little bit in the Up series, but not enough to affect its trajectory.

 

Up is pretty reliable when it comes to the credibility of its participants’ testimony. This may be because it involves “ordinary people” who are not considering their own place in history or attempting to remember more than seven years ago. There have, however, been a number of recent documentaries I would like to mention here, which have relied on the memories of more famous people or have demonstrated how they can be distorted, in one case even deliberately.

 

Going back a couple of months, one of my very favourite documentaries of this year has to be John Bridcut’s Janet Baker: in her own words (BBC4) a wonderful and poignant portrait of one of this country’s greatest ever singers. Baker retired (suddenly) 30 years ago and is now 85 but comes across as incredibly lucid and eloquent as she looks directly into Bridcut’s camera and recalls her glory days. She is, of course, aided by a tremendous catalogue of recordings, both sound and vision. Her core repertoire, as well as the details of her life (she has been caring for her disabled husband for many years) makes theUnknown-3 overall impression very emotional and wistful. Bridcut has a tremendous capacity for filming people simply listening to music which speaks volumes without a word being uttered (he did much the same in his documentary on Herbert von Karajan a few years back). This is a documentary which speaks to me as directly as the Up series – I have most of the Baker recordings featured on my shelves and my years of discovering classical music coincided with Baker at her peak. It is one most definitely for the shortlist.

 

The five-part Thatcher: A Very British Revolution (BBC2), on the other hand, was a recent history told at a distance but by people with their own place in it to cement. Mind you, as John Nott pointed out at the start, not many of Thatcher’s first cabinet are left. There were three main witnesses, interviewed at length: Norman Tebbit, Bernard Ingham and Michael Heseltine (John Major was strangely absent) and, although they all had interesting stories to tell, they also all had their own spin to apply to them. There were some obvious parallels for today, especially with a Tory leadership campaign going on and Europe still dividing the party. Ingham’s incredulous “who would want to lead a Unknown-4Tory government?” was a highlight. There was also some great archival material, including Norman Tebbit’s rescue from the Brighton bomb which was broadcast live on BBC Breakfast Time and has, for a long time, remained un-repeated at his request. I remember watching it at the time and thinking what a striking piece of television it was – the stricken Tebbit, covered in dust and wearing only barely in-place pyjama bottoms, being slowly lowered from the rubble by many hands – a scene resembling Renaissance depictions of Christ’s descent from the cross. The series contained a number of such resonant sequences but, as a whole, contained very little which we didn’t know or which had not been covered in previous series.

 

Even further along the scale, Martin Scorsese’s Rolling Thunder Revue: A Bob Dylan Story (Netflix) is deliberately fictionalised documentary making, maybe recognising that attempting to present any sort of “truth” about this subject matter was both impossibleUnknown-5 and probably less fun. Dylan himself is certainly in on the joke and it may well have been his idea. But what the hell, it captures a time and a mood and gives us some fantastic concert footage. It is often said in relation to drama documentaries that they aim to present a “higher truth” when they do not necessarily stick to verifiable facts, and I guess that also applies when what is ostensibly a documentary contains “mockumentary” elements. Whatever, I certainly enjoyed it, but I don’t think it is in the same league as the same director’s No Direction Home (PBS, 2005)

 

Much more recent history was presented in Olly Lambert’s One Day in Gaza (BBC2) transmitted exactly one year after the events it depicts (except in America, where the usually estimable PBS series Frontline shamefully pulled it just before transmission and has yet to re-schedule it). This is a case where there is plenty of evidential footage but also many different “truths” about what happened. Lambert’s doc was very well constructed, with just the right balance of actuality and context. Some of that actuality was remarkably vivid and the drone footage gave it an epic feel. The slow reveals in the interviews (the mother clutching her dead son’s vest, the activist who had lost a leg) personalised the individual experiences of a chaotic situation. Olly Lambert has made a number of films in and about Gaza and obviously has good contacts and made great choices. As for its value as a piece of history, only time will tell, but for the present it is one of the best windows on the Israel/Palestine situation and a must for my shortlist.

images

And that shortlist is growing long. It’s been a wonderful year so far. Next time I will update the list for my usual halfway report.

If You Didn’t Laugh…….

 

Unknown

Following on from my previous blog on sitcoms, and with particular attention to the issue I am constantly returning to – the emergence and growing primacy of the half-hour dramatic comedy form – two more recent examples are currently lighting up Monday and Tuesday nights on BBC1 and 2 with some of the darkest comedy we have yet seen. I say “dramatic comedy” because I think that is probably the best descriptor for the genre. The BBC announcer recently described one of the two new titles as “comedy-drama”, but that is not a particularly new idea – it is a term which has previously been applied mainly to programmes with a dramatic form and comedic elements, such as Cold Feet (ITV). The newer developments are essentially comedy forms (sitcom) with serious subjects and narrative progression. “Form” here is mainly a question of length – with hour-long or 50-minute episodes being associated with things that are primarily drama, and half-hour/25 minutes for comedy. But in the age of binging and streaming that doesn’t (or shouldn’t) really matter anymore; series creators can now set out to make half-hour episodes without foregrounding either the drama or comedy elements. The only time the genre descriptor matters is when it comes to awards, which are important for recognition: some great acting performances either get lost or are submitted for comedy awards (such as Leslie Manville in Mum), while some shows, like Inside No9, seem to get overlooked because they fall between so many stools.

 

So, to the two new shows I want to consider. As well as both being on the dark side and both being made immediately available in full on the BBC i-player, they have a number of other things in common. Both have been created and co-written by somebody previously known only for their acting, most recently in sitcoms.  Both feature fine ensemble casts of quietly desperate characters. Both are set in fading English seaside towns.

 

Toby Jones’ Don’t Forget the Driver (BBC2, Tuesdays) seems at times like an attempt at a “state of the nation” comedy (particularly in the context of Brexit), but in its quieter, imagesmore character-driven moments, is reminiscent of Detectorists, on which Jones, previously better known for his dramatic roles, cut his sitcom teeth. Jones’ main character, Pete, is a similar ineffectual but decent everyman and, again, is living with a daughter from a failed marriage. He works as a coach driver in Bognor Regis, a town I am very familiar with from childhood holidays and one which, probably because of its “funny” name and association with the phrase “bugger Bognor”, referenced here, has often featured in sitcoms – it was the Steptoes’ regular holiday destination. I say “main” character, because Jones also plays Pete’s twin brother Barry, who has emigrated to Australia and is seen via skype, but returns to Bognor as the series progresses. While the taciturn Pete carries most of the bleak plotlines, Jones indulges himself in some knockabout comedy, too, through the character of Barry.

 

The dark elements are foregrounded from the opening scene, when Pete finds the dead body of a would-be immigrant washed up on Bognor beach (in a Bergmanesque dream sequence later on, he turns the body over to find it has his face). The immigration issue takes centre stage when Pete unwittingly brings Rita, an Eritrean girl, back from a trip to France, hidden in his coach, then rescues and hides her from the people traffickers who are waiting to pick her up. But, yes, this is a comedy.

Unknown-3

The cast of characters and the situations they are placed in do seem to have been created to represent facets of contemporary Britain and sometimes the “little England” symbolism gets a bit heavy-handed, quite literally so in the episode in which Pete takes a group to visit a model village. However, the direction, by the excellent Tim Kirkby, is very subtle and the way the narrative is often advanced wordlessly is impressive. The fact Unknown-2that Rita’s story is happily resolved in the final episode and the main characters return to their ongoing lives, including Pete and Barry’s mother Joy (Marcia Warren) battling with dementia, daughter Kayla (Erin Kellyman) attempting to leave home and rejoin her mother in Birmingham and roadside burger-bar owner Fran (Claire Rushbrook) trying to get Pete’s affection, indicates that we will probably be set for a second season, which would be very welcome.

 

If Toby Jones had been taking notes and gaining inspiration during the making of Detectorists, then Daisy Haggard must have spent most of her time on Episodes, during which she was given faces to pull rather than lines to learn, actually creating Back to Life (BBC1, Mondays), which she has co-written with Laura Solon. This is an even darker piece, in which Haggard plays Miri, released from prison after serving 18 years for a brutal murder and resuming her life with her parents in their middle-class home inUnknown-1 Hythe, on the Kent coast. So far, so Rectify, except there is no doubt about Miri’s guilt, though there are some mysterious mitigating circumstances about the murder which emerge slowly as the series progresses (and I haven’t watched it all yet, so there may be revelations to come). And, yes, this too is a comedy, though a highly dramatic one and packed with a fine cast – Geraldine James particularly outstanding as Miri’s wayward mother and Adeel Akhtar as Miri’s neighbour, trying to cope with caring for an unstable and foul-tongued aunt.

Unknown-4

Haggard plays Miri as a relatively “normal” and well-adjusted person, trying to reconnect with life, get a job and survive the hostility she receives. There is little indication (at least not yet) of any psychological effects on her of her crime or of her years in prison. Indeed, it is the characters who surround her who seem the most damaged and in need of help, which she is happy to provide. The series is very well written and performed and provides constant moments of shock and surprise, but not that many laughs, though when the laugh lines do appear, they certainly hit home.

Unknown

The half-hour form has provided most of the best TV of the year so far, and we still have the final season of Mum to come. Back to Life took over Fleabag’s slot and, while it can’t quite compare to that masterpiece, it certainly hasn’t failed to make an impact. Of the two series I have discussed here, it is the one most likely to make my shortlist for the year’s best, though I will wait until I have seen it all to decide. In the meantime, I am expecting this year’s “dramatic improvement” to arrive imminently. Sky Atlantic’s Chernobyl has made a very strong start and there are new series from Russell T. Davies and Shane Meadows looming on the near horizon. Happy days.

 

 

TV Top Tens: No.1- British Sitcoms

unknown-3

I’ve always intended to start blogging lists of my top titles in various genres, which will be a useful thing to return to in quieter periods, and I am inspired to start now by the list of Top 20 British Sitcoms in the current issue of Radio Times.  I enjoy lists and, much as with awards, usually manage to find something to annoy or even enrage me in them. Of course, it’s all opinion (especially when it comes to comedy!) and I would hope my own lists may cause rage in others – that’s part of the fun. The latest Radio Times list is actually pretty good overall and the reason for that is not hard to find: the list of 42 practitioners who voted on it contains many estimable names, including the likes of UnknownClement and La Frenais, Linehan and Matthews, and Barry Cryer. However, there is a glaring omission – even these luminaries have somehow managed to produce a top twenty sitcoms list containing nothing by the generally acknowledged masters of the genre – Galton and Simpson. This is not just an oversight – this is mind-bogglingly wrong.

 

The Radio Times list has some other faults, too – there is nothing earlier than 1968, when Dad’s Army started, so nothing made only in black and white – even Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads? is specifically included without its monochrome predecessor, The Likely Lads. It’s usually the case that things which get regularly repeated stand a better chance of inclusion and the original Likely Lads is not only not in colour – much of it is missing. The biggest problem I find with so many lists is the lack of historical perspective – the most recent material usually predominates and, looking back on the roster of contributors to the Radio Times list, it is clear that those who would remember the earliest material are in a small minority.

 

There is one thing I need to get clear before setting out my own list and that is to define the parameters of the genre under consideration. In his inaugural 2017 Ronnie Barker imagesComedy Lecture, Ben Elton made the case for the traditional sitcom, recorded in a television studio in front of a live audience, and argued that it is a classic genre which is nowadays looked down upon by devotees of newer forms of comedy, made on location without a laughter track. Now, I am probably one of those Elton is thinking about – most of my favourite TV of the past two decades (both British and American) has been half-hour shows which are ostensibly comedy, but which have a serious edge (sometimes a very serious edge). Some of them are made primarily for laughs, but some are not – some are closer to drama than comedy (and never mind the duration). Another thing that sets them apart is narrative development across episodes, whereas a traditional sitcom usually has self-contained episodes which could be shown in any order. There could certainly be a separate list of half-hour comedy-dramas, but it would contain mostly recent material. Perhaps that is one for the future, or perhaps some of the titles may belong on drama lists, but for the present I am going to include both traditional studio and modern single-camera sitcoms on my list, as did the Radio Times, because I can’t think of any better way to do it.

 

One more consideration before I start – I am not including any titles which are currently still being made, though I may mention them, and some of the titles included here may yet return. Lists are always for future revision.

 

So, my top ten is:

 

  1. Steptoe & Son (BBC, 1962-65, 1970-74)

unknown-4

Galton and Simpson’s masterpiece – a traditionally made studio sitcom which broke with tradition by casting straight actors in the lead roles and included moments of heartbreaking pathos amongst the laughs. These were real characters with real hopes and disappointments and, when it got serious, you could sense the audience’s uncomfortable reaction, which, of course, released itself in an even bigger guffaw when the laugh line eventually arrived. Four seasons were made between 1962 and 1965, then a further four from 1970 to 1974, when it returned in colour. I was proud to have played my part in recovering a dozen or so missing episodes in the nineties – Ray and Alan knew their worth and had kept them on an early and obsolete home video format.

 

  1. Fawlty Towers (BBC, 1975, 1979)

images

Often a poll-topper (not only the Radio Times one, but the BFI’s TV100 in 2000) and for good reason: the highest laugh quotient of any sitcom ever; terrific characters, not all of them particularly empathetic, but all very human; brilliantly constructed plots; memorable quotes – “duck’s off”. It was traditionally made but its impact was revolutionary.

 

  1. The Royle Family (BBC, 1998-2012)

hqdefault

The key title in the transition from the “traditional” to the “modern” sitcom, thanks to the vision of Caroline Aherne: filmed mostly on a single set, but without an audience, it’s stately pace and minimalist narrative contained a wealth of insight, character, warmth and unspoken humour. Laughter track my arse!

 

  1. Getting On (BBC, 2009-12)

images-1

Certainly one which falls into the category of laughs not being the primary concern, nevertheless there were plenty of them and they hit home. With brilliant characters created and written by the three actresses performing them, and sensitive direction (in the first two series) by Peter Capaldi it literally laughed in the face of death. The final episode said more about life and death than almost anything else I can think of in any genre. The idea was so strong that the American version (made by HBO) was also excellent and Jo Brand has gone on to create more memorable work in a similar vein, Damned (Channel 4) being particularly outstanding amongst current sitcoms.

 

  1. Him and Her (BBC, 2010-13)

images-2

Another minimalist piece, this time not just restricted to a single set, but each episode shot in real time, allowing us to take in the acutely observed characteristics of the sympathetic, though lethargic, central pair and their relatives and friends, who range from the inept to the hateful. When the “action” moves outside the bedsit for the climactic wedding specials, it is apocalyptic. Writer Stefan Golaszewski has since repeated the trick with the beautiful Mum, the resolution of which is eagerly anticipated.

 

  1. The Likely Lads/Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads? (BBC, 1964-66, 1973-74)

unknown-5

Another sixties sitcom which was revived in the early seventies for colour TV, this could not simply replicate the previous format (as Steptoe did) but had to acknowledge that the lead actors had aged, thus introducing a narrative progression which became the series’ key strength. It became about the passage of time, about nostalgia and life progression and about social change in the north of England. It was also brilliantly funny (Clement and La Frenais) and perfectly performed by James Bolam and Rodney Bewes.

 

  1. The Office (BBC, 2001-3)

images-3

Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant not only dispensed with a laughter track, they made a sitcom in the style of an observational documentary, which was a stroke of genius, but an extremely difficult thing to sustain convincingly as the plot became more complex. They pulled it off totally and their inspiration was responsible for so many iconic comedy moments.

 

  1. The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin (BBC, 1976-79)

images-4

A trailblazing narrative sitcom in three distinct seasons, linked by memorable characters, all with their own catchphrases, and with Leonard Rossiter’s towering performance at the centre. The repetitive nature of the dialogue (“17 minutes late…”; ”I didn’t get where I am today,,,”; “cock up on the….front”; “I’m not a…..person” etc), creates an oppressive but secure world which simply cannot be escaped.

 

  1. Blackadder (BBC, 1983-89)

images-5

Following Rowan Atkinson’s Edmund Blackadder and his familiar associates down through the centuries was a joy and the format allowed for constant renewal. Much of the humour came from anachronism, a very special trick which Ben Elton continues to show himself the master of in Upstart Crow (BBC), the best thing he has done since Blackadder.  Difficult to choose a favourite season, but if pushed I would probably go for Blackadder the Third.

 

  1. The League of Gentlemen (BBC, 1999-2017)

images-6

Of all my choices, this is the one I think is most arguably not a sitcom – you could say that, with three performers taking all the parts, it is more a series of sketches linked by a fictional location, though with narrative continuity for each set of characters. But, having included it, a top 10 spot was assured. Its triumphant return at Christmas 2017 was testament to the strength of the format and the characters created for it.

 

I intended my lists to be top tens, but the Radio Times sitcom list is a top 20 and, for purposes of comparison, if I were to continue in the same vein, these would be my next ten choices:

 

  1. I’m Alan Partridge (BBC, 1997-2002)
  2. Father Ted (Channel 4, 1995-98)
  3. Till Death Us Do Part (BBC, 1965-75, ITV, 1981)
  4. House of Fools (BBC, 2014-15)
  5. Hancock’s Half Hour/Hancock (BBC, 1956-61)
  6. Red Dwarf (BBC, 1988-99, Dave 2009-17)
  7. The Thick of It (BBC, 2005-12)
  8. Peep Show (Channel 4, 2003-15)
  9. Detectorists (BBC, 2014-17)
  10. Fleabag (BBC, 2016-19)

Unknown-7

Some of these choices require little further justification, but others demand comment: it is hard to overestimate the importance of Till Death in its sixties heyday – the searing impact of the writing and performances – but unfortunately the inevitable focus on its treatment of race makes it difficult to assess in a modern context; in House of Fools, Vic and Bob were not only conquering yet another genre, having produced their own surreal versions of the variety show, the sketch show and the comedy quiz show, but, by using the traditional sitcom model (70s style), subverting it still further; Detectorists drew you in with its relaxed pace, but the shows just flew by – on so many occasions I was astonished to find it finishing when I thought I had only been watching for ten minutes or so (great direction by Mackenzie Crook) – and I’m really enjoying Toby Jones’ own creation, Don’t Forget the Driver, on BBC2 at the moment; and Fleabag has only just finished, though we are assured it is over, so it qualifies for inclusion and I have put it at 20 simply because it feels too soon to proclaim it an instant classic to rank alongside the others here – ask me again in a year’s time and I expect it to be in my top ten.

 

Last thoughts: having made such a fuss about the difference between “traditional” and “modern” sitcoms, I have (not deliberately) managed to come up with a list of 20 which contains 10 of each, evenly spread through the list. I’ve also included 11 of the 20 titles chosen by the Radio Times panel and regret not finding room for The Young Ones (and I suspect One Foot in the Grave is hovering just outside the 20 in both cases). So, I guess I must be reasonably in line with the consensus, but I’m sure there are plenty of things about my list which will make somebody angry – I do hope so!

 

Again!, Again!, Again!

Unknown-2

No programme-maker is more in touch with the wonder and the rhythms of infancy, nor is better able to express that wonder and those rhythms in audio-visual terms than Andrew Davenport. As a constant viewer of CBeebies with my daughter Hanna (as I have explained previously), I have been fortunate to have been immersed in his world and to have appreciated just what a brilliant and innovative contribution to the genre of images-2preschool television he has given us with the three shows he has created over the past two decades, the latest of which arrived in February. But he is not only the creator – he produces, writes and composes the music for each episode.

 

There is no doubt that his greatest impact was with Teletubbies (BBC2, CBeebies, 1997-), which changed the landscape of what was possible in a programme for very young children. There was plenty of controversy about it: the limited language which mimicked that of very young children perfectly, but was criticised for normalising it at a time when the main function of such programmes was meant to be education and progression; the generally surreal setting and atmosphere which led some to wonder whether the makers were on drugs and attracted a cult images-2student audience; even Tinky Winky’s sexuality! But its main and greatest innovation was repetition. This applied not only to the filmed stories of different children’s lives which appeared on the Teletubbies’ stomach monitors and which they immediately demanded to be repeated in full, but to segments of the show itself – dances, adventures, domestic life in the Teletubby house, which could be shuffled around to comprise parts of different editions.

 

Teletubbies starts with a sunrise and ends with a sunset, so each episode takes place over the course of a day, but Davenport’s next creation, In the Night Garden (CBeebies, 2007-) begins with a small child (a different one for each episode) in bed and being coaxed to sleep with a story, so it can best be interpreted as a dream (as the title suggests). It is a very beautiful and comforting beginning, which is probably more emotionally resonant for any watching adults than children. Once the dream world of the night garden has been reached, the stars in the sleepy night sky having bust into the flowers of the bright garden, familiar characters arrive and have various adventures, all of them once again interchangeable from episode to episode.

Unknown-3

Where Teletubbies was hallucinatory and surreal, In the Night Garden seems to be exploring the world of the early subconscious, and Davenport has taken this further with his new series, Moon and Me (CBeebies, 2019-). Again it starts with a child preparing for bed, this time by closing down the dolls’ house she has been playing with and putting her toys to bed, but now it is the same little girl every time and the similarity of their hairstyles indicates that her favourite toy, Pepi Nana, is her surrogate once she has gone to sleep and the toys have come to life. So, it can again be interpreted as her dream, though the Storyland sections indicate that it may also be a bedtime story. CBeebies’ scheduling of the series at 5.45 backs this up, though In the Night Garden retains its 6.30 bedtime slot.

Unknown

The similarities between the characters In Moon and Me and In the Night Garden are also obvious – Pepi Nana is like Upsy Daisy, Collywobble resembles Makka Pakka. My favourite has to be Mr Onion, who constantly says “onions” with a chuckle in his voice. Indeed, all the characters have their own catchphrases, which they repeat ad nauseam, though with variations of tone and stress to indicate attitude; Pepi Nana has a multitude of different ways of saying “tiddle toddle”. Mind you, having spent the last weeks (months!) listening to the same politicians saying precisely the same things about Brexit over and over again, day after day, this is clearly not confined to the world of pre-school television.

Unknown-1

One striking difference between Moon and Me and Davenport’s two previous series is the use of colour; muted pastel shades replacing bright primary colours, even in the pastoral Storyland, which has echoes of both Teletubbyland and the Night Garden. Davenport’s music is again a major factor, in fact even more so this time as it is integrated by having the characters play their own instruments: Moon Baby’s hand harp is key. The narration is consequently less important than in the Night Garden, where Sir Derek Jacobi’s actorly tones are so perfect for the nonsense rhymes he is asked to recite:

 

Ombliboo, Tombiboo, knock on the door.

Ombiiboo Tombliboo, sit on the floor.

Ombliboo, Tombliboo, here is my nose.

Ombliboo, Tombliboo, that’s how it goes.

The characters in Moon and Me are animated to move the way they would if a child was playing with them; just watch the way Little Nana moves up and down as though being picked up and placed down. There is no tea in the teapot or cups, but they are moved just as if a playing child were moving them. Davenport did a lot of research on play patterns imagesto get this right. When Pepi Nana comes downstairs, or crosses a bridge, you see her do it in real time, or, through clever editing including the beginning and end of the journey, the complete process of the action is conveyed so that it seems it has been shown in full. This is a style associated with the great French director Robert Bresson, and Davenport also uses close ups of characters’ hands or feet in a similar way to Bresson. (Is that comparison worthy of Pseud’s Corner or what?) The overall effect is a feeling of immersion – the sort you get from listening to minimalist music or watching a piece of “slow TV” like The Canal Journey. It is very relaxing and reassuring.

images-3

I hope this may inspire you to watch the odd episode or two of Moon and Me, even if you don’t have a pre-schooler to watch it with. It would be twenty minutes of your time well spent on the BBC i-Player. Both Moon and Me and In the Night Garden work for adults who may like occasionally to regress to the world of infancy, not as any sort of perversion, but as a relaxing break from the ugliness of so much everyday public discourse.

 

Tiddle toddle! Poop poop!

 

Onions.

 

imagesimages-1

TV Catch-up no.2: Rectify

Unknown

Rectify (Sundance TV, 2013-16) is one of those series I encountered through my service on the Peabody Board of Jurors and I supported its 2014 award on the basis of a handful of impactful episodes, while at the same time making a mental note that I should try to catch up with the entire thing at some stage, just as I did with Breaking Bad, The Leftovers and others. So, now that retirement is affording me the time, I have done just that. Unlike those others, it is not a series which is particularly well known in Britain, though it certainly deserves to be. This was brought home to me when I ordered blu-ray sets of the four seasons from Amazon and they turned out to be versions for the Dutch market.

 

Rectify tells the story of Daniel Holden, jailed as an 18-year-old for rape and murder, but released after almost 20 years on death row, when new DNA evidence casts doubt on his conviction. It concentrates mostly on the effects of his time in prison on him, and on theimages effects of his release on his family (including his new step-family) and on the small Georgia community he returns to. The question of his guilt or otherwise, and who else may have committed the crime, is a secondary concern – indeed, the suicide of another suspect at the very start of the first season sets up the possibility of a new investigation, but his body is not discovered until the very end of the second season, at which point that angle of the plot can be advanced. In the meantime, Daniel’s presence is a cause of great discomfort and divisiveness to many. The fourth season is about coming to terms with misfortune and injustice, not just for Daniel, but for many of the characters, as well as being about solving the case – and in the end it is more important for it to be established that Daniel didn’t commit the crime than to find out who did.

 

What makes Rectify so remarkable, though, is its pace and reflectivity. It unfolds very slowly, as Daniel’s faltering rehabilitation proceeds. He is only really starting to learn to images-1live and is more at ease in the flashbacks to his time on death row, to which he retreats as an escape from the stresses of freedom. Aden Young’s performance is very low key and understated – he speaks quietly and chooses his words carefully, but you can sense the inner turmoil at all times. At the same time, his brooding presence forces the other characters to reassess their own lives and problems. This extends eventually also to the legal and political authorities, gradually coming to terms with the nature of their mistakes, and to the family of the victim in terms of their misapprehensions.

 

As always with my TV catch-ups, I spot connections with other shows, past, contemporary and current. The blu-ray covers proclaim Rectify as “from the producers of Breaking Bad” (Gran Via Productions), but the only thematic thing it really has in common with that series is its small-town setting in a part of US which is rarely represented on TV (and my fellow Peabody jurors were full of praise for how well it captured the essence of life in Georgia). However, the series I was constantly reminded of while watching Rectify is not even a drama. It has a number of striking connections with Making a Murderer (Netflix, 2015, 2018): the small town setting and a community Unknowndivided over a shocking crime; a miscarriage of justice involving an imprisonment of almost 20 years; the release of a convicted man on new DNA evidence, but continuing doubts about his guilt; unreliable confessions; the iniquity of the plea bargaining process; machinations between police, legal and political authorities; the slowness of the legal system to provide redress; above all, the focus on who didn’t commit the crime rather than who did. It is not surprising that the overturning of convictions through new DNA evidence should give rise to both dramatic and documentary treatment. However, the two pieces have many stylistic as well as thematic connections – just look at the similarities, both visual and musical, in the opening title sequences. Drama and documentary now feed off each other in the era of cinematic television.

 

And, just as Making a Murderer fed off Rectifyso it has in turn provided one of the starting points for the most impressive new US drama of the year so far: HBO’s third season of True Detective (Sky Atlantic). After a very disappointing second season, True Detective is not only back to form, but provides its best season yet. As in the first season, a crime investigation is being reconsidered after a lengthy period of time, but in this case images-2there are references back to two time periods, 15 and 25 years previously, when a case of child murder and abduction seemed to have been solved and then re-solved by the same two detectives, though it turns out they were taking the easy option to close the case on each occasion. The new investigation is prompted by a present-day documentary team making a series on the case (in the style of Making a Murderer, of course), which was both a local trauma and the subject of a sensational book by the wife of the lead detective. The narrative is further complicated by the fact that the detective in question (played by Mahershala Ali) is suffering from the early stages of dementia, so that his memories may not all be reliable. Time is frequently folded in clever scene changes.

 

As with both Rectify and Making a Murderer, the resolution of the case is of much less importance than the process and the effects. Indeed, the final explanation, when it arrives (and if it can be believed) is very unsensational. As the ending makes clear, the real drama has been what’s been going on in the head of Ali’s character, much as Rectify is mostly about the psychological state of Daniel Holden.

Unknown-1

True Detective season 3 goes onto my shortlist for the best of 2019 so far but, as I have not posted any blogs about that yet (and apologies for the long gap between this effort and my previous one), I will follow this up with more of my thoughts on some recent highlights very soon.

Stan & Ollie: the Genesis of Sitcom

images

The recent release of the film Stan and Ollie and the associated revival of interest in the films of Laurel and Hardy, always great favourites of mine since childhood and a constant joy to revisit (especially in the company of my daughter, Hanna), has got me thinking once again about a pet theory of mine: which is, basically, that Stan Laurel, whom I regard as the greatest comic genius of the 20thcentury, laid the foundations of television sitcom in the sound film shorts he made with Oliver Hardy between 1929 and 1935.

 

The first TV sitcom was on the BBC; Pinwright’s Progress (1946/7), though it is during the fifties that the major pioneering titles appeared: I Love Lucy and The Phil Silvers unknown-3Show in the USA; Hancock’s Half Hour in Britain. When the origins of the form are traced back beyond the start of the television era, the usual medium cited is radio, quite naturally as it is also a broadcasting medium. Numerous titles which became significant television sitcoms originated in radio and, in the US, the form can be traced back to the 1920s. For example, the notorious Amos ‘n’ Andy originated on radio in 1928, before being produced for television (interestingly enough, at the Hal Roach Studios) in the fifties. As the earliest sitcoms were performed for a studio audience, theatre, especially music hall, can also be regarded as an influence, but film is rarely considered, other than for the impact of one comedian’s work on another’s (and Stan and Ollie are regularly cited in this regard). However, I can see many things which became essential elements of television sitcom in the Laurel and Hardy shorts of the early thirties.

 

So, what exactly is it that makes a sitcom? Well, for a start, I don’t think it is the “situation” as much as it is the characters and the relationship(s) between them. You should get to know those characters well and what to expect from them. What’s more, the characters’ “situation” can change, but the characters can’t, although they can develop. It is the strength of the characters (both in the writing and the performances) that matters, not the situation they are in: in fact, I’d go so far as to say that the characters are the situation. For example, the “situation” in Steptoe and Son (BBC, 1962-unknown-465, 1970-74) is an interdependent father/son relationship in which the son feels trapped. It is not the rag and bone business – there are plenty of episodes in which that business plays no part whatsoever in the narrative. Throughout their short films, Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy played highly recognisable and consistent characters and they developed depth to those characters as they continued to play them, much as happens in a successful long-running sitcom.

 

Duration is also an important element of sitcom, with 25-30 minutes seen as the optimum length for fitting in as many laughs as possible without wearing out the audience. The Laurel and Hardy two-reel comedies mirror that optimum length precisely. What’s more, they are often structured to end the first reel on a scene change (in case the venue only has one projector), which also reflects the structure of those sitcoms designed to incorporate advertising breaks. It is no surprise that the short films were so frequently on television in the sixties and seventies.

 

Other standard sitcom tropes can be traced back to Stan and Ollie, not least the familiar and regularly repeated catchphrases (“Well, here’s another nice mess…/well, it wasn’t my fault”; “Why don’t you do something to help me?”) or routines (Stan comes up with a good idea – Ollie asks him to repeat it – Stan fails miserably to replicate what he had said). Although not shot in front of an audience, the presence of a movie theatre images-6audience is also acknowledged in Ollie’s looks into the camera. And two male leads is very common in sitcom, particularly on British TV, which prefers its comedy characters to be losers & failures, rather than the wisecracking types more prevalent in the US – echoes of Laurel and Hardy can be found in the partnerships of Tony Hancock and Sid James, Steptoe and Son, The Likely Lads and more.

 

So far, so good, but, of course, there are flaws to this theory. The most obvious are that the Laurel and Hardy films are each made to stand alone, not to be seen as part of a series, not made in any sort of “order” and feature the characters in a variety of “situations”. However, it is only relatively recently that TV sitcoms have developed narrative continuity – most of the episodes of traditional sitcoms can stand alone. What’s more, it is possible to carry out an exercise of “ordering” on the Laurel and Hardy shorts, which I do purely for fun, but it does strengthen my claim that the shorts can be seen as an early form of sitcom. With one exception, the 38 full-sound shorts can be divided into 4 basic “situations” and it is not difficult to see how a progression could be made from one to the next, forming different “seasons” of the developing Stan & Ollie characters.

 

images-3

In the first “situation”, Stan and Ollie are drifters, trying to survive the depression and often on the wrong side of the law. The films which fit into this scenario are: They Go Boom (1929); The Hoose-Gow (1929); Night Owls (1930); Below Zero (1930); The Laurel-Hardy Murder Case (1930); Another Fine Mess (1930); Laughing Gravy (1931); One Good Turn (1931); Any Old Port (1932); The Chimp (1932); Scram (1932). It is interesting that this section does not include any films after 1932, coinciding with the optimism of Roosevelt’s New Deal. The duo’s first feature length film, Pardon Us (1931) also fits this scenario (and could thus be seen as the equivalent of a “special”).

 

 

In the second “situation”, our heroes are more settled – they have somewhere to live and are often seen in a variety of different jobs, though they invariably end up making a images-2mess of them, much as Charlie Drake did every week in the 1960s sitcom The Worker (ATV, 1965-70). The films which fit this scenario are: Men O’War (1929); The Music Box (1932); County Hospital (1932); Towed in a Hole (1932); The Midnight Patrol (1933); Busy Bodies (1933); Dirty Work (1933): Going Bye-Bye (1934); Them Thar Hills (1934); The Live Ghost (1934); Tit for Tat (1935); The Fixer Uppers (1935). Them Thar Hills and Tit for Tat are especially interesting in that the latter sees the return of a couple, played by Mae Busch and Charlie Hall, whom Stan and Ollie first encounter in the former, and the script makes specific reference to the connection, as regularly happens in serial sitcoms.

unknown-2

Domesticity takes over in the third “situation” – Ollie is either married or engaged to be married – Stan is the best friend who is a bad influence and disrupts the harmony of the relationship. This is the same basic plot as Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads unknown-5(BBC, 1973-74), which was a continuation of The Likely Lads (1964-66) itself comparable to the earlier Laurel and Hardy “situations”. The films are: Unaccustomed as We Are (1929); Hog Wild (1930); Our Wife (1931); Helpmates (1932); Their First Mistake (1932); Me and My Pal (1933); Oliver the Eighth (1934); Thicker Than Water (1935).

 

In the final “situation”, both Stan and Ollie are married, and the comedy usually comes from their feeble attempts to deceive their wives. The films that fit here are: Perfect Day (1929); Brats (1930); Be Big (1931); Chickens Come Home (1931); Come Clean (1931); Twice Two (1933). The feature-length Sons of the Desert (1933), a re-working of the plot images-5of Be Big and regarded as probably the best of their longer films, also fits here (another “special”?). In Brats, Laurel and Hardy play their own children (the final development?) and in Twice Two, their own sisters (and each other’s wives). A further flaw to my theory is that, in both the final two situations, the actresses playing the wives differ from film to film, but similar cast changes are not unknown in sitcom and don’t forget that in real life Oliver Hardy was married three times, while Stan Laurel was married at various times to four different women, one of them twice!

 

The only sound short which doesn’t fit into any of the four “situations” is Blotto (1930), in which Stan is married and Ollie is the disruptive friend. This was an early effort, though, and doesn’t really work – they obviously concluded that it worked better if Stan played the disruptive one. Blotto is the exception which proves the rule. Having established their characters’ rules in any of the “situations” for the contemporary movie audience, Stan and Ollie could exploit their familiarity as a shortcut to the laughs.

unknown

Make no mistake, the sound shorts are Laurel and Hardy’s masterpieces. Like most television sitcoms and sketch shows, they are just the right length for comedy. While there are some great scenes in the features, the films themselves are often padded out with musical numbers or romantic sub-plots which detract from the purity and the structure of the comedy. The main reason Laurel and Hardy made the best, the most successful and the most influential sound shorts is that they were the only ones of the silent comedians to exploit the change to sound with brilliant dialogue and characterisation, while retaining the structure of their comedy form, something neither Chaplin nor Keaton were able or willing to do, while those who came to prominence later – Abbott and Costello, the Marx Brothers – concentrated on feature-length films. So, the short films of Laurel and Hardy remain the original gold standard of the form and a clear inspiration for those who later came to make comedy at the same length.

 

Anyway, that’s my story and I’m stuck with it.