Deteriorating Television

 Monday. 8.40 a.m. Yet another sunny and warm morning. I don't mind it being sunny, but when it's too hot, I am not so keen.

Why has television in this country become so dire? At one time, you could spend most of the evening enjoying a really wide range of programs. You could start at around 4.30 with some sort of children's programme, ranging from Jackanory, Blue Peter, Vision On, and Magpie, ITV's answer to Blue Peter, and then move on at around 5.45-5.50 to The Magic Roundabout. That was a sort of bridge between the children's programmes and the adult world of the Six O'clock News. Then, Nationwide, a sort of mixture of stories from around the British regions, the serious and not-so-serious. Then, around 7.30, a sitcom, aimed at the whole family. These ranged from anything with June Whitfield and Terry Scott in, or Richard Briers, in 'The Good Life.' Then, 'Dad's Army', which is still as popular as ever, some 50 years since its first broadcast. 

At around 9 o'clock there might be a documentary or a drama. The BBC was always good at drama, whether it be an adaptation of a classic novel or something with a social comment, such as the strand 'Play for Today' or 'The Wednesday Play', with writers such as Dennis Potter or Alan Bennet providing scripts or directors such as Ken Russell or Mike Leigh putting in the necessary spade work. Some of these plays could be quite controversial, such as Up The Junction or Kathy Come Home. Several series of dramas by Dennis Potter were produced, such as 'The Singing Detective' or' Pennies From Heaven.' Then BBC 2 opened in the early 1960s. This bought what they liked to term 'alternative' programming', in contrast to the more mainstream stuff shown on BBC1. So, we got such things as 'Late Night Line Up' which had Joan Bakewell as one of it's presenters and featuring late night discussion. Joan Bakewell was described as 'A thinking man's crumpet' apparently said by Frank Muir, who, with his writing partner, Denis Norden, appeared in a BBC 2 panel game which rand for years, called 'Call My Bluff.' BBC 2 produced the 26-part adaptation of the John Galsworthy series of novels, 'The Forstye Saga' which, although probably the last big dramas to be made in black and white, can be said to be the grandfather of such serials as 'Upstairs, Downstairs' and much later 'Downton Abbey, both on ITV during the 1960s and 1970s. BBC 2 also had comedy by Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, fresh from the success of their comedy review 'Beyond The Fringe', called 'Not Only, But Also.' It was also from'Beyond The Fringe' that the remaining pair, Alan Bennett and Jonathan Miller, went on to either write or direct. Miller did a rather self indulgent adaptations of 'Alice In Wonderland', which was never intended for a children's audience. Downstairs', 'Downton Abbey' and a range of crime serials, from 'Morse' through to 'Broadchurch' and 'Grantchester. A really big serial came in around 1981, 'Brideshead Revisited.' Based on the Evelyn Waugh novel. It had a great cast, which included Jeremy Irons, Anthony Andrews, Laurence Olivier, Diana Quick and John Gielgud, with Castle Howard in Yorkshire standing in for Brideshead. It was very lavish and not the type of series that would be made now, because of the cost of production and wouldn't be a fit for how ITV has now become.

In around 1982, Channel 4 came along. It was intended to be an alternative to the mainstream channels and to not pander to ratings. A great deal of imaginative and original material, not seen elsewhere. Channel 4 was what's known as a 'publisher' channel. It doesn't make it's own programmes, but commissions programming from independent producers.

In the early 1989s,  along came Sky television, beamed into homes via satellite. Eventually it developed into a multichannel platform, with sport being the main selling point. Then, the analogue television system was closed down and digital television came in. As a result, the number of channels increased considerably. The BBC had BBC1 and 2, then BBC 3 was introduced, aimed at a youth audience and BBC 4, for more cultured programming. ITV had its main channel, imaginatively called ITV 1 and then 2, 3, 4  etc, all of which were very much the same as each other, although I think there must have been some sort of difference. Then there was UKTV, a sort of hybrid channel, partly owned by the BBC's commercial arm and Thames Television. It has since been fully owned by the BBC. It shows a good deal of original programming, but mostly its reruns of BBC shows and quite a few from independent production companies. UKTV (now, imaginatively called simply 'U'.) has a portfolio of channels, Gold, Dave, Eden etc.

Then, in the early 2000s, along came streaming, with BBCi Player, Netflix, Disney+ and a host of other services, enabling the viewer to watch television programmes whenever they wanted, without having to wait for the next episode in most cases, as all episodes of some shows were uploaded, so, if you wanted to, you could 'binge' watch an entire season one after the other.

As things are at the time of writing, it looks as if traditional 'linear' television has had its day. 

Saturday evenings in the 1960s were really great, from what I recall. There was Grandstand during the afternoon, which then got replaced by a children's show of some sort. Basil Brush or Jim'll Fix it. Then Doctor Who. Later in the evening there would be some sort of entertainment show, starring Cilla Black, Val Doonican or Lulu. A huge hit would be 'The Two Ronnies' starring Ronnie Barker and Ronnie Corbett. These were termed 'light entertainment' and made up quite a large portion of the schedule on not only BBC1, but ITV and Channel 4.

On a Sunday, at teatime, there was always a classic novel adaptation. Charles Dickens was a favourite. 'Great Expectations' being a novel which was adapted several times. The BBC did 'Play of The Month' on Sunday evenings, and you could expect very well mounted and acted productions of plays by Shaw, J.M. Barrie, Wilde, Chekov and Ibsen.

ITV had 'Game For A Laugh', '3,2,1', 'Blind Date, 'Upstairs, Downstair', and a whole range of successful programmes.

Generally, the television we had, with only three channels and, possibly four, when Channel Four came along, was relatively good. That was it. You couldn't record until the first cassette recorders came along, There were two systems, Betamax and VHS. These came in around 1975. So, with such a machine you could 'time shift' a programme, so you could watch it later or even keep it. We now have, since broadband Internet has become so prevalent, streaming of programmes is now possible. 'Catch-up' in the sense, that if you missed an episode of your favourite show, you could use streaming to watch it. 

So, what do we have today? More channels than ever before. Digital has meant we can have more or less countless channels. Freeview, which seems to be the main service in Britain for television, keeps on adding new channels to its platform.  If you sign up to any of the streaming services, such as Disney+ or Netflix, you can watch programming which is exclusive to those services.

I know I have waffled a bit here. Sorry about that. What I am endeavouring to say is, our television in this country used to be far better than it is now. We seemed to have a much wider choice, even with only 3 or 4 channels. Someone said, I think it might have been Margaret Thatcher, that with privatisation of utilities (and possibly with television) choice would be better. It doesn't look like it now. Television has lost any sense of imagination. Each day is identical to the next. Programmes are 'stripped' across the schedules, with the same programmes on each day at the same time. There are endless programmes on the same subject, such as gardening, antiques, homes for sale. Game shows proliferate, with some days one after another and at the same time across channels (Pointless is on BBC1, with The Chase on ITV at the same time. We get endless 'who dunnits', police procedurals, some of which are what I would term 'soft', some with a comic edge, such as 'Father Brown.' Beautifully written, acted and directed, but a bit predictable. Perhaps that's what a lot of people want.

The fact is, with only four channels, there was more money to spend on programmes. The BBC had the licence fee and the commercial channels had advertising revenue. With the possibility that the licence could be abandoned all together (it has never been fully discussed, how it could be funded after the current charter runs out. Possibly a subscription service? Paid for out of taxation? Seems unlikely.) Now, in the present financial state of the country, fewer and fewer people are paying the licence fee and preferring to only rely on the streaming services. Also, the 18-30 age group rarely watch any BBC channels, and if they do watch BBC material, it is through catch-up, such as iPlayer.

The rate of technical progress in the media industry, driven by the internet, as well as other factors, have changed the broadcasting landscape dramatically over the last couple of decades. The BBC hasn't kept up with these changes entirely successfully. Yes, they have websites, iPlayer and use digital recording equipment, but the idea of what is called broadcast television, that is, a schedule of television programmes which are broadcast via transmitter and shown one after the other. Or, if you like, traditional television. As I was growing up, this what I was used to. Once a programme was broadcast, that was it. You might get a repeat broadcast at a later date, but this was very rare, Even today, such programmes as 'Dad's Army' and 'Fawlty Towers' gets repeated on the main television channels. But now, with streaming, you can watch programmes whenever and however you like. There are free services, such as BBC iPlayer,  funded by the television licence. and others which are free and have advertising and sponsorship, such as the unimaginatively named 'U', formerly known as UKTV, as well as Channel 5 and Channel 4, although 4 has a paid subscription service without advertising.

The BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and 5 can hardly compete with the streaming platforms, as regards budgets. A show such as 'The Crown' had a massive budget, somewhere in the region of £100 million. For that they could afford lavish sets, locations all around the country and the world, a first-class cast of actors. The traditional channels would never be able to afford that sort of budget for a series, even though it ran for six seasons.

ITV and the other terrestrial channels are loosing advertising revenue, partly due to advertising budgets being cut, but also because advertisers prefer to spend elsewhere, such as social media.

So, in conclusion, how is the landscape going to change? Is the BBC going to have to loose the television license? How will it be funded in the future? Are we going to loose the big budget dramas which were so brilliant in the past? It used to be a highlight of the autumn schedules to have a classic adaptation at one time, but perhaps they've run out of Jane Austen novels to adapt.  

As regards the television licence, which is currently £174.50, which actually pays for radio as well, not just the main stations, such as Radio1,2,3 and 4, but many digital stations as well as local radio stations. But as regards television, we do seem to get less from far more, so I'm not sure about being value for money. 

Telly Watching- Part 3

Talking of television comedy as I was in the last 'Telly Watching' post, I should mention 'Inside No 9', an anthology comedy series which is what you might term 'black comedy.' It may not be everyone's cup of tea and some may not even describe it as comedy. The series is now in its sixth series and is created by and performed by the team behind 'The League of Gentlemen', Mark Gatiss, Steve Pemberton, and Reece Sheersmith. It's likely not to be to everybody's taste. The language is quite strong, but at least it's adult and some of the themes are quite controversial, so if you manage to see it (there are episodes on the BBC iPlayer.) you have been warned. I have only seen two episodes, so I can't comment on other episodes or earlier series. It has reached series 6, so there are plenty of episodes to choose from. The episode I watched the other day, called 'Simon Says' has similarities with the play and film 'Sleuth' which starred Michael Caine and Lawrence Olivier and based on the play by Anthony Shaffer and 'Misery' a story by Stephen King and made into a film and a stage play. Further to the similarities of other series, the most obvious must be 'Tales of The Unexpected', based on the short stories of Roald Dahl. Many of those stories have a twist that you don't always see coming. Then some themes crop up in the films of Alfred Hitchcock. Say no more. Just watch and then decide what you think. But considering the amount of dross that crosses our television screens, it's great to have something which is at least vaguely original and intriguing. I can hardly be described as 'Sitcom', but at least they're attempting to try different styles of comedy, although I don't think it's exactly 'laugh out loud comedy.

I have been watching the BBC Television adaptation of 'The Pursuit of Love, based on the novel by Nancy Mitford. I watched the first two episodes and enjoyed them. The production design, costumes and general look of the show is great and seems to have caught the feel of the period well. All the characters are well acted and presented, but this final episode just didn't hold my attention and I just lost interest. I think it's probably because I can't identify with these hedonistic, vacuous people. Self indulgent and empty. There's nothing likeable about any of them. Too much money, sex and drugs? Possibly. Just too self-obsessed. Just go and get a job. Mind you, it does make a change from murder and mayhem in so much of what passes for 'drama' in other productions. Too many television productions just seem to copy one another. Since the series 'Broadchurch', for example, other crime series have just copied the look and feel of that one show, characters shouting at one another, staring vacantly at nothing (in Broadchurch, which is set near the sea, there's a lot of scenes with characters staring at . . . the sea. 

Back on the subject of 'The Pursuit of Love', I'm drawn to the fact that it's structure and characters are similar to 'Brideshead Revisited.' Another set of selfish, moneyed, aristocratic characters that just complain about life, seem to do nothing and just moan on and on. Interesting in that it's exactly 40 years since the Granada production of this Evelyn Waugh novel. It was extremely lavish. It had eleven episodes and had an amazing cast, which included John Gielgud, Laurence Olivier, Diana Quick, Jeremy Irons and Anthony Andrews. But at least it had some redeeming features. The Charles Ryder character, played by Jeremy Irons, is an outsider and the one character you can at least identify with. I doubt that, with the current television landscape, that a production of a somewhat obscure novel such as Brideshead Revisited, would be adapted into eleven episodes. Unless Netflix was to make it. Just far too expensive to make by an ITV company (bearing in mind that in 1981 ITV was still made up of the 15 or so local companies, and not what it was to morph into when it became one rather bland organisation it has become in the 21st century.)

Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell and other great British Television Drama

We've been avidly watching the B.B.C. Television adaptation of the Susanna Clarke novel "Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell." I have to say that when I had first heard that this was to be adapted for television I had reservations, but now we are into the fourth episode of a seven-part adaptation, I am more than pleased with the result. I enjoyed the novel, and read it when it first came out in 2004. It is a weighty novel, the original hardback edition is some 780 pages long. When it eventually appeared in paperback I noted at the time that it was published in two volumes in a slip-case. I was concerned that if it was made into a film it would be condensed considerably to fit into a reasonable running time. Which is why it works best as a seven-part television adaptation as it allows for the story and the characters adequate space to develop. The special effects don't detract from the rest of the drama and are used sparingly and don't look, like a lot of computer generated effects in television and film, as if they've been stuck onto the film rather like using Photoshop and seems to fit in very well. In 'Doctor Who' (the revised version which began in 2005.) many of the C.G.I. effects, particularly many of the alien creatures, look 'stuck on' and very fake and not very scary. (I have to admit to being a 'Doctor Who' fan and saw the very first episode when it was first transmitted back in 1963. I have enjoyed the reincarnation of the show, but for some reason it just doesn't have the magic of the original. Those stories may have been somewhat 'low-tech', having very unconvincing sets, wobbly or otherwise, but the stories were always 'edge-of-the seat.' You always wondered where the Tardis would end up in the next stories when the good Doctor and his companions left at the end of each story and it was a surprise when they ended up on some weird and wonderful planet or different historic time and then meet the alien or lifeform that lived there. Spending more on the new Doctor Who episodes don't always mean that the stories or monsters will be better. In some cases the new stories are just not up to standard.) Back to "Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell." The setting is totally convincing. For once someone has spent time and effort with the dialogue and it sounds genuine. It seems that when they adapt a classic novel the dialogue which is used doesn't always sound convincing. In fact, in some other types of drams, particularly science fiction and fantasy, the dialogue is really awful. It's a wonder the actors can bear to speak such utter drivel. A good example is "Atlantis." Some of the dialogue in that was really poor. It's no wonder this series was cancelled.

I love British television drama. So we've seen a bumper crop of really excellent home-grown productions recently and the sort of shows that you want to tune into week after week and keep you guessing what is going to happen next with the characters and storylines. One of these series was called "In The Club" which is yet another excellent show written and created by Kay Mellor who always seems to come up with brilliant ideas. It's set around a group of women and their partners who are pregnant and each week we see the trials and tribulations of their lives leading up to the birth of their babies in the same hospital's maternity ward. Another Kay Mellor-scripted series is "The Syndicate." I haven't seen any of the earlier series of this series, which tells of the different groups of characters who's lives are changed with lottery wins. This one features Lenny Henry who seems to be making a career change from comedy to more serious acting roles. Yorkshire seems to be the location of a whole range of dramas (including the previously-mentioned "Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell.") Over the years we've had "Heartbeat", "Last of The Summer Wine" and of course the Granada Television series of "Brideshead Revisited"  which was filmed there, particularly the central location at Castle Howard. I suppose it does provide a very wide range of locations. Scarborough in particular is used a great deal and features in the new series of "The Syndicate." "Downton Abbey" is supposed to be set there, but is actually filmed at Highclere Castle in the south of England. The locations for the fictional Downton village is filmed in the Oxfordshire village of Bamford. We began watching "Downton Abbey" when it was originally shown but gave up because it had so many commercials in it that it was ruining our enjoyment of the show. I realise it's the advertising which pays for commercial television, but having ads every ten minutes or so for sofas and stupid car insurance really drove us mad at one point. So it was fortunate that we can currently watch this series from the first episode through download from Sky and watch without the interruption of the confounded adverts. I suppose as regards earning money from advertising this isn't such a good idea for I.T.V., but from the perspective of the viewer who has to endure the adverts which breaks up the shows it's a godsend.

We are enjoying 'Downton Abbey.' I have to say, though, that the stories revolving around the 'downstairs' characters are far more interesting than those of the 'upstairs' characters. The Hugh Bonneville character is somewhat wooden. Although it's supposed to be set in Yorkshire, there is absolutely no feeling at all that it's set anywhere in particular. Some of the characters mention places in Yorkshire, but you don't see anything at all that might suggest 'Yorkshire,' nothing of the scenery of landscape. They have used that village in Oxfordshire which I have mentioned earlier supposedly because it has houses that are made of a similar stone to that you find used in buildings in Yorkshire, but I don't get any feeling of 'Yorkshire.' The best character is that played by Dame Maggie Smith who seems to get all the best lines and a lot of the humour revolves around her character. We visited a National Trust property recently, Basildon Park, which is used for a lot of the interiors in 'Downton Abbey' and it seems that another National Property, Waddesdon Manor, near Aylesbury, is used for the interiors of another of the fictional houses in the series.

Another drama series which we have enjoyed considerably has been "Last Tango In Halifax.' Again, it's set in Yorkshire. In fact we have had holidays in this part of Yorkshire and stayed on one occasion in a rented house not far from where this series is filmed, in a small town called Cowling. The plot, if you didn't watch it, revolves around Celia and Alan, who are re-united after 50-plus years. At age 16, Alan's late wife failed to pass on his letter with apology for missing their first date and forwarding address. Both now have daughters with their own relationship problems. Derek Jacobi plays Alan and Anne Reid plays Celia. It also stars Sarah Lancashire and Nicola Walker. The series is written by Sally Wainwright and apparently it is based loosely on real events and situations. The series started in November 2012 and has now reached it's third series.

Yet another series we've seen is called "Ordinary Lies" which is set in and around  .J.S. Motors. Each episode tells a story from the angle of each of the central characters and how they tell lies to get out of a situation and how such lies causes problems for themselves and those around them. For example, the first episode revolves around Marty, one of the company's salesman, who is late for work consistently and then makes up the story that his wife has died. He is played by Jason Manford, not known for playing parts in television drama. It also stars Sally Lindsay, Mackenzie Crook (best known for his appearances in 'The Office' and the film 'Pirates of The Caribbean.'), Jo Joyner (EastEnders), Rebecca Callard, Max Beesley and Michelle Keegan (another former 'Coronation Street' actor.) It is written by Danny Brocklehurst.

Later episodes centre around the other characters. One is about receptionist Tracy who gets involved with fellow receptionist Viv when they get immured in a drug-trafficking charge into the Dominican  Republic when they go on holiday abroad.

Re-visiting Brideshead

I am currently watching the Granada Television series "Brideshead Revisited" which is currently being re-run on Sky Arts. I remember seeing it when it was originally shown in the early 1980's.  Couldn't help then being captivated by it then and the same can be said about it now. It seems to have stood the test of time remarkably well. It's amazing to think that Granada, in those days a single company within a 'federated' ITV would produce something as lavish as this series. It runs to 11 episodes and if I remember rightly the first and last episodes run for 90 minutes. So that's around 12 hours of running time! Seems amazing that you would even think of making a drama series that ran that long in the 1980's, but nothing would be made with such detail and with such a superb cast in the early part of the 21st century. I do have some sort of link to it, having worked as an A.S.M. at Greenwich Theatre in the early 1970's and was involved in a play written by John Mortimer called "A Voyage Round My Father"  (see earlier post where I give much more detail on this.) John Mortimer was credited with writing the screenplay, but, having just looked on I.M.D.B. I discover that his screenplay wasn't used although his name remained on the credits. I wonder why. Anthony Andrews portrayal of Sebastian is quite mesmerising. It's the sort of acting which has you hooked. It would have been easy to have gone 'over the top' and played him as just camp, but he seems to avoid this quite admirably. There's no acting that comes up to this sort of standard on television that I can think of at the moment, intact, there's nothing that equals this series on anywhere on television at the moment. I can't think of anything which keeps you so hooked, where you have to find out 'what happens next' and look forward to the next episode.

I can't say that I'm actually over-enthusiastic about it as a piece of television drama. I know I watched it way back when it was first broadcast in 1981 and I read the book, but I have to say the characters are so arrogant and hateful I can't say they exactly draw you in. They are all self-centred, don't exactly show any redeeming features and are not particularly likeable. The central character, Charles Ryder, the narrator and played by Jeremy Irons, is so totally boring that you can't latch on to him at all. He goes about being to ally miserable all the time. He's supposed to be a painter but he's not very convincing. Who would bother hiring him? Sebastian, the character played by Anthony Andrews, is an interesting character, but he doesn't have to work as he's got money, presumably from being a aristocrat. He drinks himself stupid. Who would employ him anyway? None of the characters have to work, which is one reason I can't possibly engage with any of them. I have to say that the filming, direction and settings are excellent, but I can't imagine this series being produced with such a lavish style in the early part of the 21st century. It has a very downbeat ending to it and not exactly leaving you with a feeling that any of the characters find happiness in any way shape or form.

There is another connection I have, although vaguely with 'Brideshead Revisited.' I mentioned earlier that I had worked on 'A Voyage Round My Father' at Greenwich. During the run of the play, there was much talk of it transferring to the West End. It did eventually make it to the West End, but I don't think it was the same production and if so it had a different cast. I know that Alec Guinness played the central character of the Father, and if memory serves he did come to see the Greenwich production which had Mark Dignam playing the Father. Laurence Olivier came to see it and came back-stage after the performance. He played Lord Marchmaine in 'Brideshead, although he doesn't actually have a major part and is only in two episodes, when Sebastian takes Charles to Venice and in the final episode when Lord Marchmaine returns to England and there he has a somewhat long and drawn-out death. I remember when I first saw the series in the 1980's this episode, which runs for 90 minutes did seem a little over-long. But I can at least say I have been in the same room with Laurence Olivier, although not to speak to! Much later on Thames Television did a new television version of 'A Voyage Round My Father' and Oliver was in that. Another actor from "Voyage" has a small part in "Brideshead Revisited," John Nettleton, who played the commanding officer at the beginning and the end of the series, from the time that Charles Ryder, played by Jeremy Irons, revisits Brideshead Castle when he is an army officer and billeted at the house at the beginning of the Second World War. And I did notice in the closing credits that an actor I worked with at  Ipswich Theatre in the 1970's, Stephen Mallatratt, had a minor role. He went on to adapt the Susan Hill book "The Woman In Black for the stage and which has become a huge hit in the West End and on tour. He wrote scripts for many television series including "Coronation Street."

Compared to current television dramas it's light years ahead of, say Downton Abbey. I have seen one episode and I can't see what all the fuss is about.  Not particularly engaging characters and the story lines don't convince. I think the big problem  Carol and I have is that there are far too many adverts on I.T.V. I think within an hour's running time you get three breaks which is every 20 minutes. It's actually better to record on Sky+ and then when the advertising breaks come up just fast-forward through the commercials. I realise that it's these commercials that pay for programming on I.T.V., but when it's for such things as car insurance and sofas, then it does get incredibly boring. And can someone explain why these sofa companies are always having sales? We watched something else the other evening and there were no less than three adverts all for sofa companies? 

Having been to Castle Howard in Yorkshire, which is used throughout as the location for Brideshead Castle, and thoroughly loving the place, and the fact that it was filmed in various other locations throughout England, together with an exceptional cast, this is one television series well worth seeing again. I  can recommend it highly.

Why is it that so much of television today gives me a headache? I don't mean the subject-matter so much as the fact that directors insist on using some really headache-inducing camera techniques,
 what they call 'whip-pans' and something which makes me feel positively sick, where you have a couple of actors standing still and the camera spins around them? What on earth is that all about? You get things chopped up in the editing suite so you get a lot of very brief 'clips' and it's hard to make out what it is. Another is when they insist on having the actors walking along and the camera follows them, but instead of it being a smooth 'dolly shot' where the camera runs along a specially-constructed track, you get a really horrible wobbly hand-held camera shot which makes you feel queasy. Not nice. Well, none of this seems to be used in the making of 'Brideshead Revisited.' I presume it was made when such techniques weren't used much.  Is it because these unpleasant filming techniques are a way to cut costs? No reason can I give except that it's 'trendy' or 'arty.' Actually means that I'm not going to endure the show and just turn off or find something else to watch.  it seems that producers treat their audience with a great deal of contempt because everything seems to be in short time spans, that is, scenes are short as if the audience can't concentrate on anything for no more than a couple of minutes at a time. This was true of things like 'EastEnders' (which, incidentally, I can't stand as it's full of such hateful characters who are always falling out with each other and always shouting. Not good for one's nerves. Just not enjoyable viewing.) where you have several concurrent story lines and they keep on switching between them and you never know exactly what is going on unless you watch regularly.  Then there's the drama series adapted from a novel or something and instead of adapting it in sufficient episodes to make it worthwhile watching it's done in perhaps two or there when perhaps six or even more episodes would be better. No doubt this is because of budgetary constraints. This was evident a few years ago when they did a series based on 'South Riding' which was done in three episodes and the plot line was telescoped so much into the timeframe it was incomprehensible. None of this occurs with 'Brideshead Revisited.' In some ways it's incredibly slow and there are whole episodes where virtually nothing happens, but at least there is some character development. I know there is a newer, film, adaptation of 'Brideshead' but it makes me wonder how on earth you can telescope so much story into a running time of about 90 minutes without it seeming rushed. Well, with the vast running time of the Granada version of the book there is definitely space for the story to develop along with the characters.