Thursday’s uncurbed enthusiasm news

Film

Theater/Theatre

Polish TV

  • Clips from London-based soap Londynczycy

British TV

US TV

TMINE

The TV writer’s voice: should it be different or the same?

David Mamet

Today’s TV musing is about writers. Now it can’t have escaped your notice but fiction doesn’t emerge fully formed from the sea onto our TV screens – there are these people called writers who create all the words and deeds depicted in dramas, comedies and even some ‘reality’ TV shows.

No two writers are the same, of course, each usually having their own ‘voice’ – a way of writing dialogue, a way of developing and introducing characters, a way of plotting that is unique to them. But on a TV show, that isn’t always a good thing.

On a serial or long-running show, sometimes you don’t want individual writers’ scripts to stand out from the others; you want them all more or less the same because you have ongoing character arcs, back story, established forms of behaviour for the protagonists and so on. If a writer’s script stands out, it’s probably because it’s inconsistent with the other episodes, which you don’t usually want.

On many TV shows, there is a special role specifically for making sure scripts all mesh together nicely. In the UK, that’s the script editor; in the US, it’s usually the ‘show runners’ or exec producers – who unlike their film counterparts are typically writers who have ascended the career ladder.

Of course, there can be problems when the script editor/exec producer also writes scripts, because there’s no one there to check their work for consistency and because they typically give themselves more latitude than they do to other writers. It’s not always the case: you’d be hard-pressed to work out which Lost scripts are by Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse, which Mad Men scripts are by Matthew Weiner.

But take The Unit, for example. One of the exec producers on that is David Mamet. Yes, the David Mamet – the award-winning playwright and screenwriter who wrote Glengarry Glen Ross, Speed-the-plow, The Verdict and Wag The Dog, to name but a few classics. Who’s going to edit his stuff, let alone himself?

So whenever Mamet writes a script for The Unit, it’s always massively at odds with all the other scripts and contains an overload of his usual obsessions (martial arts, con tricks, overly manly behaviour). Surprisingly, they’re never as good as the scripts by the other producers, sister Lynn Mamet and Eric L Haney, on whose book the show was based.

Callan is another show that comes to mind. Creator James Mitchell resolutely refused to acknowledge there had been any character development in between his contributions to the four series, so whenever he wrote a script, every character immediately reverted back to the behaviours and relationships they’d exhibited in the original pilot play.

Yet there are some shows where different voices are tolerated and allowed. Take Doctor Who. Although show runner/exec producer Russell T Davies can rewrite up to 60% of a script created by one of the other writers, you can still usually tell when Gareth Roberts or Steven Moffat is writing the week’s episode – or when it’s one of his own. And that’s actually a great delight.

So today’s question: how much should individual writers’ voices be heard on TV shows – does it depend on the type of show and is the reason it’s tolerated on some shows because there are only a few decent writers on the show and we just notice when there are some good episodes for a change?

Wednesday’s nursing news

Film

Theater

  • Dirty Dancing moving to Broadway?

British TV

  • Jo Brand to star in BBC Four comedy about nurses
  • Another episode of Extras?

US TV

UK TV

What’s ITV for?

ITV1 logo

From the ITV web site

ITV is the biggest commercial television network in the UK, broadcasting the most talked about television and making a major contribution to the UK’s culture, economy and communities.

What is ITV for? This isn’t just an idle question. We know what the BBC’s for (sort of): it’s for public service brodcasting and higher quality populist fare – that sort of thing. That’s why we watch it. Channel 4’s there for a brave stab at public service broadcasting, US imports and daft rubbish. Five is there for, well, that’s actually a tricky question but US imports plus whatever else their Lucky 8 ball suggested that week, or what they could get away with making for crap-all budget.

But ITV’s trickier. Not only is it contemplating giving back its terrestrial licence to get out of public service broadcasting, no one really has an idea of what it’s for, apart from rubbish these days. It used simply to be an alternative to the BBC for the ‘common man’, designed to increase competition, improve standards and make programmes the Beeb wouldn’t because it was too snooty. But now the Beeb makes some very good programmes, not all of them snooty, and ITV makes some very bad programmes – is the television of the ‘common man’ simply crap TV or should it be something better?

Okay, standards are improving, with a number of goodish shows making it on to our screens of late (eg The Fixer and Lost in Austen). But we all know roughly what BBC1, BBC2, BBC3 and BBC4 are for. Do you honestly know what ITV1, ITV2, ITV3 and ITV4 are doing with their lives? Here’s the blurb:

ITV1: Britain’s most popular commercial channel
ITV2: An exciting mix of talent, celebrity gossip and factual shows
ITV3: Delve into the archives with classic drama from the ITV vaults
ITV4: Challenging drama, cult films and premium sports events

Are you feeling any wiser? Do these feel like well thought out focuses? Does it help to realise this is all lies anyway (eg Secret Diary of a Call Girl on ITV2, US imports like Life and BBC shows like Lovejoy on ITV3, old ITC shows like Space: 1999 and manly documentaries on ITV4).

So if ITV’s not there for public service broadcasting and doesn’t produce good TV, does it have a purpose? Or is it simply just another broadcaster these days – just like Five? And if it’s just like Five, are ultimately its ratings going to end up just like Five’s unless it can think of a proper place for itself in the world?

Over to you…

December at the BFI

Time for our regular round-up of tele events at the BFI.

  • 14th: The return of the yearly "Missing Believed Wiped" season. This features some of the first exhibits from Bob Monkhouse’s vast TV and film collection, and some BBC recoveries. Bob’s lot includes The Flip Side, an episode of My Pal Bob, some Top of the Pops and John Osborne in Chelsea at Eight. The Beeb’s efforts includes trailers for some 60s shows, a programme that’s gone through the Beeb’s new colourisation process designed to recover colour programmes from B&W-only recordings (Doctor Who or Year of the Sex Olympics, maybe?), and an episode from a 1950s classics-adaptation. 
  • 17th: Episodes of The Goon Show: The Whistling Spy, Tales of Men’s Shirts and The Last Goon Show of All. Part of the "Enduring Talents" season.
  • 22nd: To commemorate the 40th anniversary of the show, a collection of clips, rare footage, etc from Dad’s Army. Part of the "Enduring Talents" season.

Members’ priority postal booking opens 27 October
Members’ online and phone booking opens 3 November
Public booking opens 7 November

Despite promises in last month’s catalogue, it looks like An Englishman in New York isn’t in the programme this month; it’s probably a last minute removal, since it’s listed in the index under both "John Hurt in conversation" and "An Englishman in New York" and the front page talks about an "In focus" dedicated to TV literary adaptations. Fingers crossed for next month, then.

As always, visit the BFI web site for more details