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. 

You Couldn't Make It Up!

 Tuesday. 5.45 a.m. Up early, as usual, walking around Oldbrook Green with Alfie. A really dramatic cloud formation over Milton Keynes.

Yesterday, I think I got closer to upgrading my bathroom. Vashti (S.H.O. at Dexter House.) gave me a telephone number to ring, the Community Occupational Health department at Milton Keynes Council. I gave my details and that was the end of the conversation. I was surprised at how quickly I got through. Later that afternoon I got a call from a lady from Millbrook regarding having the bathroom refitted, although I couldn't understand why occupational health would be involved. Anyway, this lady made me an appointment in August to go for a bath test. No, I don't understand either, but if it meant I got the bathroom upgraded, with at least a decent shower, I can use it without stooping because the current arrangement isn't high enough for me. Crazy, but true. Continuing . . . She needed a photo of the bathroom and later, she texted me, so I sent a photo via text, which moved the thing further forward, with details of my height and weight, and she then told me I wouldn't need to visit, and that I could have a wet room rather than a bathroom, meaning I could have a shower unit, which I wanted in the first place, and it would need her manager's approval for the work to do ahead. Al this, running around in circles, when it needn't have to be so complicated. Considering what I have gone through to get this far with my bathroom, you certainly couldn't make it up!

1.30 p.m. I think the Voltarol is beginning to have a definite effect on my lower back pain. I haven't been to Camphill, because of this, but I do miss going, and I'm hoping things will have returned to near enough normal by next Tuesday, so I can go there again. Being stuck in this flat with covid was bad enough, but this new thing makes it even more difficult to put up with.

3.45 p.m. I have upgraded my details to be eligible to vote. I got a letter from the Democratic Service department of Milton Keynes Council and you can go online to a special website 'household response,' and enter two unique security codes and your postcode to make sure your name is on the database. I have done all this, and it's now amended.

Wednesday. 7.50 a.m. There was 'sort-of'' rain when I took Alfie out at around 5.15 this morning. What do I mean? Well, thin and wet dribbles, not a proper fall of rain. But as I write this, the sun is out, and it appears bright and rather pleasant.

The Voltarol is doing its work and I feel a good deal better. Considering what the pain was like only a few days ago, it is a relief to be able to bend, particularly when putting my clothes on, it is certainly better.

1.25 p.m. Around half an hour ago there was a tremendous rainstorm, which lasted all of two minutes. This delayed me taking out Alfie, but it appeared to be only a light rain.

6.35 p.m. I'm watching the BBC sitcom 'The Good Life' on Britbox. I have seen it before, and probably when it was originally broadcast in 1975. It seems to stand the test of time really well. We don't have this sort of show any more. It was produced when there were only three channels, BBC1, BBC2 and ITV.  It made a star of Richard Briars, Felicity Kendal, Penelope Keith and Paul Eddington. I must have seen Richard Briars in several Alan Ayckbourn plays, 'Absurd Person Singular' and Penelope Keith in one of 'The Norman Conquests' trilogy. Thinking about Ayckbourn's plays, I did the book for a production of 'Relatively Speaking' when I was A.S.M. at Liverpool Playhouse in the early 1970s. That play (although not that production.) would have been Ayckbourn's first major success, and in the West End, it starred a young Richard Briars. On a further note, I was working on some BBC show, as a walk-on, and one of the runners (or at least, one of the stage crew.) was one of Richard Briar's daughters, although she didn't want to admit to being his daughter.

Thursday. 5.35 a.m. Another relatively mild morning. The Voltarol is working well. The only side effect of using it is I think it's making me feel sick.

Watching 'Fawlty Towers'

We've been watching 'Fawlty Towers' on the digital television channel 'GOLD.' I have seen this countless times and infact I saw it when it was originally broadcast on BBC2 in the mid 1970's. Since that time I can't say how many times I've seen all the episodes, but even then it matters not as it's so well written and performed it stands up to endless repeat viewings, considering it's age and the limitations of technology and such things as editing and set construction. As  a series it has been described as 12 of the best farces ever written. In that respect it can't be bettered. It also features heavily in polls when the public has to vote on their favourite television programme or sitcom.

What makes it such a successful situation comedy? It follows all the rules of a well-written sitcom. It is set in a closed setting, in this case a hotel. The characters are recognisable, with Basil as the owner and manager of the hotel (at the top of the hierarchical pile.) It has a definite class structure (again, Basil at the top) and below him the staff are further down the class pile. Basil looks down on those who are below him, or so he believes, and is an incredible snob as a result. It is set in a work-place, with the characters forced together. They wouldn't presumably meet if they met in the outside world. It is set firmly within the walls of the hotel and rarely departs from this setting. The set of the hotel is clearly defined and as such we, the viewer, have to know the layout, where the bar is, the reception desk, the dining room and the kitchen, which allows the machinations of the characters to work the way they do. It uses such tropes as deception, secrecy, misunderstandings and slapstick which have been used as devices in comedy for centuries. Basil Fawlty has an unhappy marriage. He's married to a dragon of a wife in Sybil. She's bossy and incredibly lazy. The rest of the cast play off these two central characters superbly; the maid/waitress, Polly (played by Connie Booth, and Manuel, the  Spanish waiter, played by Andrew Sachs.

The 1970's was a fertile period for sitcoms. Not just 'Fawlty Towers,' but 'The Good Life,' 'Last of The Summer Wine,' 'Porridge,' all on BBC television. Meanwhile, ITV had success with shows such as 'George and Mildred,' 'Robin's Nest,' 'On The Busses' and 'Mind Your Language.' Many of these shows would never have been produced today, due to the racist and sexist content of some of them. 'Last of The Summer Wine' ran for well over 40 years, making it the longest-running sitcom in the world. It couldn't  have survived much longer because most of the cast died. It seemed to be a bit repetitive. Only so many times you can have a group of old men sliding down a hillside in a tin bath, or at least doing crazy things and getting away with it. If anything, the show can't have harmed the Yorkshire tourist industry.

When I did some walk-on work on something or other, several years ago, but I'm not sure, but I think it was at either Pinewood Studios or Elstree, I spoke to one of the other walk-on's, as I always did when we were waiting to be called onto the set of whatever it was (there's always a lot of waiting about on these jobs, so you have lots of opportunities to talk to people.). This was a lady who had worked on Fawlty Towers as a 'stand-in/double' for one of the old ladies who are regular characters in the show, Miss Tibbs or Miss Gatsby, (Renee Roberts and Billy Flower). She was more likely a 'stunt double' during a scene where Basil Fawlty hits one of the around the head or something and they obviously couldn't have him hit either of the actresses as they were probably quite elderly at the time. You wouldn't know this if you watch that particular episode as its edited in cleverly so it's not obvious. But this actress gets a repeat every time Fawlty Towers is repeated. I'm not sure this would be when it's on GOLD as it's always on at some time or other.

More About Sitcoms

I'm continuing to watch 'The Good Life.' For something that is well over 40 years old, it stands up remarkably well. I'm more than certain I saw it when it was originally broadcast in 1975. It's the sort of thing I would have watched with my family. I think my mother would have loved it. I know it was on at about the same time that 'Fawlty Towers' was first shown, but she hated that. I can see why, as Basil Fawlty is actually quite an objectionable character. Loud and a real bigot. 

Regarding 'The Good Life.' What makes this show work so well isn't necessarily the central characters of Tom and Barbara Good (Richard Briars and Felicity Kendal in tip-top form) but the secondary characters, particularly the neighbours Margo and Jerry Leadbetter. They make a good contrast with the self-seficiency lifestyle of the Goods. Both are materialistic to a large degree. We see the homes; the Goods house deteriates a good deal the further the Goods get into their way of life while the Leadbetter's house appears very neat and tidy, expensive furniture and fixtures and fittings. What really rounds out the character of Margo in particular is the clever use of what I'd call 'Invisible' characters, those characters which have an 'off-stage' presence. Miss Mountshaft, the doyenne of the choral society of which Margo is a leading light. Although we never meet this woman, we get a great deal of description of what she's really like, and in particular, during the episode where Margo is rehearing 'The Messiah' and turns up on the Good's doorstep in a long white shift dress which she wants Barbara to take up for her and she says that Miss Mountshaft had one set of measurements, her own, so we get the idea that she must be a very large lady. The very name Miss Mountshaft is likely to get a couple of laughs as it's definitely got the potential to raise a titter or two as it's got a sort of double entendre sound to it.

Another sitcom which has an 'invisible character' is 'Keeping Up Appearances.' The Buckets have a son whom we never see, but who has a habit of telephoning and always wants something from his mother or father, usually money. This son, Sheridan, is supposed to be at University (how old is he? If Richard is retired, how old were they when he was born. If he's at university he must be in his 20's. From what we discover, he comes over as incredibly camp. Is he gay? Does Hyacinth realise? Does his father? Again, like Miss Mountshaft, this invisible character helps to round out the characters of Hyacinth and Richard.

In 'One Foot In The Grave' we hear about the Meldrew's son, who died at an early age. Although not actually an invisible character, mention of this deceased child helps to give us more information about the back story of the Meldrew's. Although Victor is generally a somewhat irritating and annoying character, giving the background of their child does give them a bit more believability and makes Victor a good deal more three-dimensional and less of a comudgeon.

Television Comedy: Watching 'The Good Life'

I've just been watching the first episode of 'The Good Life.' One of the great advantages of having Sky for me is the fact that there is so much classic television available to watch on catch-up or download (will someone explain what the difference is? Surely they are one and the same.) This has to be one of the finest television sitcoms produced in this country. I know when polls are held to come up with a list of the top ten or even a hundred television comedies this one often comes close to the top of the list, alongside Blackadder, Fawlty Towers and Dad's Army. From my viewing today this particular one stands up particularly well. It has hardly dated, except perhaps for fashions in clothes and the car Gerry drives (a large yellow Volvo which must have been heavy on petrol consumption.)  I know very well how the show develops, I'm fully aware that Barbara and Tom Good set up their own smallholding in their garden in Surbiton, and all the problems they encounter, in least the fact that it's in suburbia and not in rural Sussex or somewhere else in the countryside. It's the fact that they're going against the grain that makes this comedy work so well. We can all identify with Tom, wanting to escape the rat race. He starts out at the beginning of the episode working as a draughtsman in a company which makes plastic toys which are put into breakfast cereal packets. When his boss tells him the next project is to design and create a giraffe Tom can hardly keep a straight face. And who can blame him. The style of production would be typical of the way sitcoms were made for television in the 1970's, with the bulk of the action recorded on multi-camera in a studio with a 'live' audience and the exteriors shot (in advance) on location with film cameras. One imagines if it was produced today (most unlikely) they would make it on video and all on location and the audience would watch a sort of 'playback' to give the laughter track. But, let's be honest, isn't television comedy of this sort best done when there isn't a studio audience? By comparison, I'm thinking of the Peter Kay's series 'Car Share' which has no studio audience. Also, it couldn't have been made 40 years ago, as 'The Good Life' was made, basically because there wouldn't have been the technical ability to shoot it within a moving car because there weren't the small-scale cameras available as there are today. My only complaint about that show is, why were so episodes made? Why only around 4 per series, and just two series? Again, it it because the commissioners didn't have the faith in this show to allow more episodes to be made? It surely can't be the cost because it can't have been particularly expensive to make as there are only two actors in it.

What I want to know is, why were there so many excellent sitcoms produced when this was first transmitted, in 1975? Dad's Army had been running since around 1967 and by the time this came out we also had Fawlty Towers. Perhaps it was the fact that there were only three television channels in the mid 1970's. Channel 4 didn't open until 1982 and multi-channel television didn't make an appearance until at least the mid 1980's or early '90's. Television companies were presumably more likely to take a risk on a new show such as this. A series would only have been around 6-8, so if it didn't succeed in the ratings it wasn't such a disaster. It starred to consummate professionals, Richard Briers and Felicity Kendal. I think I saw Richard Briars in one of Alan Ayckbourn's plays, possibly 'The Norman Conquests' or 'Absurd Person Singular.' 'The Good Life' does rather have the feel of an Ayckbourn play. It has similar middle class characters, it pokes a finger at life in a suburban setting and has a deeper message under the comedy exterior. Even the fact that there's a sitting room with French windows and a sofa makes it similar. I think today's television commissioners are far too concerned with ratings. Also, they don't allow a show enough time to build an audience. It takes at least two seasons (series in Britain) to allow the actors a chance to develop their characters and allow the writers time to develop not just the situations but their characters. ITV had a wealth of sitcoms of it's on. They've never quite had the success with this form of television as the BBC. Perhaps because with a commercial broadcaster you have to factor in the commercial break. For a thirty-minute slot you'll have to have a running time of no more than 23-25 minutes, to allow for the commercial break and then have a sort of 'act break' in the middle to take the commercials, so your writers will have to build up the situation to then have a sort of 'curtain' as you'd have in a stage play and the, after the break, keep the situation going and just hope the audience had remained and not changed channels. Although, it has to be said, having a commercial break can have it's advantages, for example, allowing viewers to go to the toilet or go for a snack or make a cup of tea. Of course, with modern technology you can always skip the adverts when you record the programme. ITV had such shows as 'Rising Damp' which starred Leonard Rossiter and ran for a couple of series. Based on a stage play called 'The Banana Box' and originally produced at the Phoenix Theatre in Leicester and starring Wilfred Brambell in the Rigsby role as played by Rossiter in the television sitcom. (this character was originally called Rooksby in the play. I have no idea why they changed his name to Rigsby for the television sitcom.) Rossiter was to go on to play the central character in another sitcom of this period 'The Rise and Fall of Reginald Perrin' written by David Hobbs and adapted from his novels. It was revived more recently with Martin Clunes in the title role, but for me it didn't quite have the same impact as the original. Not always a good idea to revive old sitcoms, although when ITV revived 'Birds of A Feather' it was a ratings success and has gone on to have several more series.

How many comedies have neighbours who add to the 'mix' of comedy situations? I remember 'Sykes' which starred the amazing Eric Sykes along with Hatty Jacques (as unlikely twins. How did they get away with it?) They had a neighbour, played by Richard Watts, who kept popping in and out and he represented the sort of interfering busy-body type, voice of the minority. Then, in 'The Good Life' we have Margo Leadbetter, middle-class, classic snob, married to Gerry, long-suffering husband who brings in enough money from his executive post to be able to allow Margo to have the sort of life she dreams of, plenty of gadgetry in the kitchen, decent car every couple of years and so on. This counter-points the life the Goods have created for themselves, digging up their garden to grow fruit and veg, even importing a goat and some pigs, much to Margo and Gerry's disgust. 

In 'Birds of A Feather' we also come across a neighbour who pops in and out in the shape of Dorien, played with absolute conviction by Lesley Josephs.