On 18/11/12 20:56, Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:
> "FishFood" <d...@home.com> wrote in message
>> On the point of Brit TV writing like stage plays, i would say it does go
>> back to budget, eg how many location can you afford in that 40 min slot.
>> Today's 'green screen' tech, on the face of it, should allow many more
>> interesting ways to tell a story, trouble is it is so labour intensive
>> and costly.
>> Then there's the core question, what is entertainment for?
>> There use to be a stronger sense of purpose for drama, there was a
>> sense of drama as communication, education and stimulation. One
>> wonders if indoctrination and intellectual stagnation isn't now the
>> media's resendetra. Unchallenging understimulating fodder. Safe
>> escapes to keep the wheels of production in motion and smug about
>> itself. Is this still drama?
>> Drama when its stimulating, is about who we are, its about what we need
>> dispite ourselves, whether we see it now as such, or seek it out in the
>> future. Its about that potential in the human psyche for better or
>> worst, which will always need to be re-educated. We forearm ourselves,
>> forewarn ourselves, with our dramas.
>> Like a few of you here, i grew up on 3 channels. Beebs 1 & 2, itv.
>> That was it up until the 80's. Then you had c4 and c5, and then the
>> explosion of satalite/cable channels.
>> With only 3 channels to choose from we were exposed to gamut of ideas
>> and influences. Back then day time tv comprised of programs for
>> schools, which in its own way must have acted to civilised the harsher
>> elements of society. Late night tv had open university programs, again
>> exposing you in a benign way to ideas which hinted, in its own way, at
>> the rational order of things.
>> Our dramaa can comedies ran parallel to our debates, high and low brow
>> with a fair amount of course humour thrown in, [carry on's no
>> withstanding]. It was the mix, this wide selection from a few channels
>> which entertained and educated. These days there is so much to choose
>> from, that we now select our own entertainment, and in that way cease
>> to be entertained. We can now avoid what's good for us and never know
>> One way pass this habit of seeking what we already know, is simply to
>> settle on a given channel on for an extended period of time and in
>> that way be surprised by the unexpected, but i digress.
>> But back to that core question, before the money, and the apparent
>> need have the biggest audience, what is entertainment for?
> Nikita is a show that manages to put a story into 40 minutes without
> looking like a stage play. I was actually quite impressed with the
> last episode which threw in an inventive twist. In comparison Hunted
> is a wall of static.
> In simple terms entertainment is about reveals, delight, and pacing.
> Exactly how you mix things up obviously depends but I just find UK
> TV does nothing for me.
> Under pressure from the US and audiences beginning to be more vocal
> about US shows being better the BBC ramped things up. Unfortunately,
> people often mistake ramping things up for change (in the same way
> they regard "cutting costs" as saving money).
> I do think you make a good point about "choice" and, given the drop in
> quality of current affairs and documentaries due to shrinking budgets, how
> the pot of available money in the economy is spent on entertainment. It's
> just a fact the US is a bigger (and more uniform) economy so they will
> always have bigger budgets and more choice. This is why, to some degree,
> the UK may have specialised in less and less and been driven to make more
> collaborative deals. However, this doesn't seem to be working very well and
> is coming off the rails. So, again, we're back to change.
> Lew Grade, like Hitchcock, got entertainment. Post-war American movies did
> very well in the UK while even today some people still sneer at US
> entertainment. Yet, where has this sneering got anyone? Where have all the
> dreary kitchen sink dramas that win obscure awards got anyone? The most
> exportable Japanese directors also get entertainment. So what is it that
> Lew Grade. Hitchcock, Kurosawa (and others) get? I have my ideas but I'll
> leave the question open for others to answer.
If only we were brave enough to create for the niech. Alternative
drama, the way we had alternative humour. Instead the market demands
as we chase the biggest numbers. Which apparently means serving us
with more of what's deemed successful. IMO DW should be different
and quirky enough to create its own following, yet we're following
the formulas dictated by the numbers.
Which leaves one to ask where are the Artists... the brave
mavericks with their unique perspective? Have they all vacated
the stage for a scientific principle?