As the days draw in, the children go back to school and everyone (presumably) stays in and watches television, the new Autumn television schedules start in earnest. 'The Great British Bake-Off" started it's latest series on Channel Four on Tuesday. I can't say I'm all that bothered with it. I can't say I'm that interested in cake-baking competitions. I did see some of last year's episodes, but I don't know why this has taken the nation by storm. I know there was a great deal of fuss when the BBC lost the show to Channel Four because, basically, the makers of the show got greedy and wanted more for making it. I still don't see how it can be worth something in the region of £5 million pounds. After all, they don't have to pay actors, writers and all the host of production staff that you would need for, say, a costumer drama, or any other sort of drama. Nor would they have to do endless takes as you have to have when making drama. I actually prefer the similar show where potters have to produce ceramic items. 'The Great British Throwdown' or something. I think it's made by the same production company that makes 'Bake Off,' called Love Productions. They also do something else called 'The Great Sewing Bee,' both shows were on BBC2. Having done a Google search I find that the pottery competition has been cancelled after two series and another says that the company who makes it is 'looking for contestants.' So, which one do I believe? I know you can't believe everything you see on the internet, but it seems a pity that the BBC had to fall out over 'Bake-Off.' Independent production companies are great, but I think some have let things go to their head. Money, that is. The format of 'Bake-Off' isn't exactly original, let's be fair. We all know it's 'formats' for television shows like this that sell. Different television 'territories' around the world, remake their own versions and the originating production companies make a lot of money from this. No doubt there are many versions of 'Bake-Off' being made in other countries. But if it wasn't for the broadcasters, such as the BBC, ITV or Channel Four, they wouldn't be able to survive without their money to make their shows, which they seem to forget. If the BBC hadn't commissioned the show in the first place, and looked after it on BBC2, where it started life, and then, eventually, moving it to the higher-rated BBC1 where it really took off, then they couldn't have managed to hike the price when it caused the trouble when the BBC realised they could no longer justify the higher production costs, hence the move to the commercial Channel Four, who can at least recoup the costs with sponsorship and higher advertising revenue.
We have a host of new drama series coming up, most notably ITV's Sunday evening costume drama, Vanity Fair. I notice it's also being shown on Mondays, so presumably they're hoping that viewers will be so hooked on to it on a Sunday evening that they will want to switch on the next evening. But surely, with catch-up technology, it makes no difference when you watch. I also see it's in seven parts, which at least means they're giving it enough air-time for the story to be allowed to breathe. I was concerned that it might only get four episodes, which certainly wouldn't be enough, because it's a long and rambling novel which has lots of subplots, similar to a Dickens novel. Having read it, Thackeray, it's author, spends ages going somewhat 'off-topic', wandering off from the plot to discuss certain pertinent matters, a bit like Victor Hugo in 'Les Miserables,' where he also spends whole chapters discussing things that aren't all that central to the matter in hand. (This is also going to be adapted for BBC television, as a non-musical version, by Andrew Davies, who has adapted many of the more successful BBC classic dramas, such as 'Pride and Prejudice.') 'This 'Vanity Fair' is being co-produced with Amazon money, so no doubt you'll be able to see it if you have an Amazon Prime account and a Fire Stick. This is at least the third version of Vanity fair done by television. I remember that the BBC did a version in the late 1970's which had Susan Hampshire playing Becky Sharp and it was probably the first classic serial they did that was in colour, no doubt on BBC2 which was the first channel to go over to colour in 1967. There was a production in 1987 and then a more recent one in 1998. It therefore seems quite a popular book to adapt for television. The newest one is the first done by ITV who don't seem to do a lot of costume drama, unless you count 'Downton Abbey' which definitely isn't (or wasn't, as it has ended it's television run) a classic drama. No doubt the thinking behind this being adapted is that audiences love classic, costume drama, which the BBC seems to have the lead in producing them, when one thinks of the 1995 version of 'Pride and Prejudice,' which has become the blueprint for adaptations of this type. I even hear that ITV is now developing a new version of this Jane Austen book, although one wonders how they can better the BBC, Andrew Davies scripted version. Perhaps it's because these novels are now in the public domain so they don't have to pay royalties to produce them.
I've now seen the first two episodes of 'Vanity Fair.' Having enjoyed the BBC's adaptation which was broadcast in 1998, which I enjoyed enormously, and read the novel, this new version had plenty to live up to. Part from the opening sequence with Michael Palin as Thackerary, and the vision of a carousel and so on, it wasn't particularly inventive in style or production and no more different from any other classic period drama series.
I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by what they'd done with 'Vanity Fair.' It must be difficult to do a classic novel such as this which has had so many previous adaptations, all having been produced by ITV. There are people on social media, such as Twitter, complaining about nit-picking things such as, why have C.G.I. in a 19th century serial? Doesn't make sense. Nor does the fact someone doesn't like having characters speaking directly to them, breaking the proverbial 'Fourth Wall.' But this has been done plenty of times before, in such shows as 'Lovejoy' and 'House of Cards.' All very petty and why not just enjoy the story and not find fault with things?
The BBC has 'The War Of The Worlds' in the pipeline, the H.G.Wells classic novel, which has been adapted quite a few times, notably the Orson Wells Mercury Theatre radio version which caused panic across the U.S.A. in the 1930's because of the way it was produced, as a sort of 'live' radio broadcast. Then it was made into a 1950's movie and more recently Stephen Speilberg made his own version, starring Tom Cruise. All these had in common was that the story was set in a contemporary period, but this new television version is to be set in the Virctorian era, like the original novel. Great that they are at least setting this production in the period in which the novel is set. I'm intrigued to see how they do the alien war machines and other sci-fi things such as the heat rays, and in particular, the way they do the opening scenes with the Martian spaceships crashing into earth and making the crater and the unscrewing of the capsule which gets buried on Horsell Common. With C.G.I. effects at their disposal they can make the war machines a good deal more realistic than trying to use miniatures which can look really pathetic. Wells gives the novel quite definite locations in places in and around London which gives it a reality amidst the fiction. That is why it works best being set in England and not in America as the two Hollywood films do.
As for comedy, well, sitcom in particular is rather thin on the ground at the moment. That is, if you mean by sitcom something shot in a studio with an audience, more like a stage play and it's done more or less 'live.' In this vein I can recommend 'Upstart Crow,' which is a sort of spoof on the life of William Shakespeare and starring David Mitchell as The Bard Of Stratford-Upon-Avon. It takes liberties with the perceived knowledge about his life and how his plays were written, but it's very funny and can even mention anachronisms which make the whole thing work. It's now in it's third series, which surprises me, because I was almost certain when it was announced that it would be produced in 2016 as part of the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare's death that it wouldn't survive much more than one series. How wrong could I be when it seems to have become almost to have gained a cult following, similar in style and tone to 'Blackadder." Indeed, it is written by one of that show's co-authors, Ben Elton.
I've now seen the first two episodes of 'Vanity Fair.' Having enjoyed the BBC's adaptation which was broadcast in 1998, which I enjoyed enormously, and read the novel, this new version had plenty to live up to. Part from the opening sequence with Michael Palin as Thackerary, and the vision of a carousel and so on, it wasn't particularly inventive in style or production and no more different from any other classic period drama series.
I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by what they'd done with 'Vanity Fair.' It must be difficult to do a classic novel such as this which has had so many previous adaptations, all having been produced by ITV. There are people on social media, such as Twitter, complaining about nit-picking things such as, why have C.G.I. in a 19th century serial? Doesn't make sense. Nor does the fact someone doesn't like having characters speaking directly to them, breaking the proverbial 'Fourth Wall.' But this has been done plenty of times before, in such shows as 'Lovejoy' and 'House of Cards.' All very petty and why not just enjoy the story and not find fault with things?
The BBC has 'The War Of The Worlds' in the pipeline, the H.G.Wells classic novel, which has been adapted quite a few times, notably the Orson Wells Mercury Theatre radio version which caused panic across the U.S.A. in the 1930's because of the way it was produced, as a sort of 'live' radio broadcast. Then it was made into a 1950's movie and more recently Stephen Speilberg made his own version, starring Tom Cruise. All these had in common was that the story was set in a contemporary period, but this new television version is to be set in the Virctorian era, like the original novel. Great that they are at least setting this production in the period in which the novel is set. I'm intrigued to see how they do the alien war machines and other sci-fi things such as the heat rays, and in particular, the way they do the opening scenes with the Martian spaceships crashing into earth and making the crater and the unscrewing of the capsule which gets buried on Horsell Common. With C.G.I. effects at their disposal they can make the war machines a good deal more realistic than trying to use miniatures which can look really pathetic. Wells gives the novel quite definite locations in places in and around London which gives it a reality amidst the fiction. That is why it works best being set in England and not in America as the two Hollywood films do.
As for comedy, well, sitcom in particular is rather thin on the ground at the moment. That is, if you mean by sitcom something shot in a studio with an audience, more like a stage play and it's done more or less 'live.' In this vein I can recommend 'Upstart Crow,' which is a sort of spoof on the life of William Shakespeare and starring David Mitchell as The Bard Of Stratford-Upon-Avon. It takes liberties with the perceived knowledge about his life and how his plays were written, but it's very funny and can even mention anachronisms which make the whole thing work. It's now in it's third series, which surprises me, because I was almost certain when it was announced that it would be produced in 2016 as part of the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare's death that it wouldn't survive much more than one series. How wrong could I be when it seems to have become almost to have gained a cult following, similar in style and tone to 'Blackadder." Indeed, it is written by one of that show's co-authors, Ben Elton.
No comments:
Post a Comment