You are here:   Civilisation >  Screen > Writers Blocked
 
Writers Blocked
September 2011

Television drama, like film-making, theatre and net start-ups, thrives in creative hubs. Yet when they try to produce intelligent and original work, British writers find that the commissioning editors and channel controllers they need to encourage and guide them are not there. Instead, they meet cultural bureaucrats who have wasted their careers churning out hack work, and do not have the talent or the artistic integrity to schedule dramas that can compete with the best American work. When they try, the result is an embarrassment.

The BBC described The Hour as Britain's answer to Mad Men. It was nothing of the sort, but not only for the reasons the critics gave. They have been hard on the series because it showed the 2010s telling off the 1950s for it fuddy-duddy attitudes. No viewer of The Hour can feel the slightest concern for Bel Rowley, the heroine. She is the equal of the men around her and damn well knows it. Rowley is a BBC producer, who begins a current affairs series — The Hour — just as the Suez crisis is looming in 1956. She never looks nervous or daunted by the prospect of breaking into a man's world. She is not a feminist pioneer, but a bright, 21st-century career woman who has stepped into a time machine. Contrast The Hour's phoniness with Mad Men. For all the elements of make- believe, its women feel as if they are a part of Madison Avenue before the second wave of feminism. Sexism is normal. The writers do not lecture us about it. They just show it, and thus create suspense. The viewers wonder whether the men around the talented copywriter Peggy Olson will casually destroy her career without even thinking about it because she is an interloper in a world that has never been meant for women. They worry about her in a way they never worry about Rowley.

If didacticism — the curse of British writing — was The Hour's only problem it would be bad enough. What makes the series symptomatic of the wider troubles of British television, is that after failing to create a coherent fictional world, the programme-makers overwrite in the hope that a frenetic plot can distract attention from their shortcomings. They have Rowley and her tangled love life, the first stirrings of the decline in deference to authority in the BBC that anticipate the arrival of the 1960s, the Suez crisis, the collapse of empire and the Eden government trying to cover up its folly. All that is not enough. The BBC has to throw in — what else? — a crime story as well. An impulsive flamboyant, convention-defying reporter working for Rowley realises that a beautiful woman has been murdered by dark and dangerous forces working for the state, which...well, you can probably guess the rest.  

The sadness of it is that Abi Morgan, who wrote The Hour, and Anthony Horowitz, the author of Injustice, show flashes of dramatic ability. Yet the superficial and cowardly hierarchies of British television prevent them  from flourishing. In future critics should not hold writers and directors to account but persecute a generation of television bureaucrats who have wasted creative talents that they are unfit to command.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Anonymous
September 22nd, 2011
4:09 PM
Abi Morgan has never managed to write a single minute of drama that wasn't so absurdly right-on as to induce feelings of nausea. She's a prime example of a person so unable to escape their own world view that they sabotage every programme they make with it. And frankly blaming the bureaucrats is taking the easy route. The audience and the writers are also complicit. The reason for so much crime? Because audiences love it. The same is true for the Americans. Just look at Five USA which is packed with US crime programmes. And the same is even true for the intellectuals with Wallander, The Killing and Spiral all being hugely popular on BBC4. Crime sells. It is as simple as that. As for your examples. Doctor Who is hardly the only science fiction programme on but it is the only successful science fiction (with Torchwood), largely because it is the exception. People who wouldn't watch SF will watch Doctor Who - it's an institution. As for fantasy - thank goodness we have so little. This is a genre best suited for children's TV. Admittedly it is a shame that so many brilliant children's books have yet to make it to the screen but this is a result of low funding and lower priorities. What about romance? Well, there have been quite a few recently, largely historical in nature. They've all been rubbish but then it isn't a genre that tends to work as anything better than comfort TV for women. As for war, that is very expensive and very difficult to do right(the war scenes in Downton Abbey are risible). The really big problem though is that war is seen as childish and violent by executives. Consequently you get the occasional message war series (Occupation, Mark of Cain, The Promise) but nothing else. TV bureaucrats are quite biased against this genre. Even Sharpe only worked because they accidentally hired a writer who loved G.A. Henty and wrote the scripts unironically (they hired him for being Irish, thinking it would mean he was a good anti-imperialist). Bravo Two Zero also worked but only because Troy Kennedy-Martin (and Tom Clegg) had the clout (combined with the success of the book) to do their own thing. And literary fiction - it is expensive to get rights, many TV execs barely read (or can't be bothered to read anything not published in the last decade) and the prospective audience is generally too small. Now all of this isn't to say that it couldn't be done. C4 and the BBC have enough tax payers money to do it but are scared of low ratings and crippled by over-management, a lack of risk taking, a very limited pool of writers and a lack of ambition. It is worth remembering that the population of the UK is much smaller than the US (harder to make money with risky subjects) and that only the huge, creative forces like Granada (that don't exist today) were able to take on such ambitious, risky projects as The Jewel in the Crown and Brideshead Revisited.

Tumblicious
September 18th, 2011
10:09 AM
I thought perhaps Nick Cohen's review would be something I would agree with; wrote a review here: http://goo.gl/HPyCB

Mynameischarlie
September 15th, 2011
1:09 PM
As long as people still watch them etc... I see the sad fact that TV nowadays is so fractured that dependable genre output is a simple necessity to stay afloat. I liked Injustice - Horowitz used his high concept premise to explore to a certain degree social stereotypes - and how the lawyer's actions affected disadvantaged youth in the justice system. For the record I loved Horowitz's other 5 part effort last year 'Collision', which wasn't a crime story at all... My biggest hope is that enough people watched 'Monroe', a real gem of a medical drama that managed to fend off the cliches but suffer from lazy critics comparing it to House (it was nothing of the sort). It was smart, low key, and very very funny.

Peregrine Pigeon
September 6th, 2011
7:09 PM
The same is true of the hierarchical Booker engine and what it does to literature: look at where its dinner party is tonight. Kensington Palace. Look at the Chair of the so-called judges: Dame Stella Rimington. Central, orthodox power and control. That's what the Booker is about. ITV looks loose and playful by comparison. And Appropriate Adult was, bizarrely enough for ITV, brilliantly intense drama.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.