The sorry state of British television

A discussion on Frasier Online about the current sorry state of British TV has got me thinking. I certainly don't question the premise - sure, we make some good shows, but nowhere near as many as the States, and even those shows are mostly documentary or "quizcom": when it comes the sitcom and drama stakes, we're doing appallingly. What I do question, though, is whether that will remain the case. And, you know, though, the really sad thing is that I think it will -- and I don't even care anymore. I've resigned myself to the fact that the USA are the world's best at making television, and the UK isn't really a contender any more. That's sad - in years gone by, years before I was even alive, the British TV industry was clearly at the forefront of the game. But nowadays, we don't even try to compete. Gone are the days of Only Fools, Blackadder, The Prisoner. In the UK, we don't even try to push televisual boundaries anymore. By any objective measure, it seems we've gone seriously downhill.

I disagree vehemently with the usual theory that other countries only get to see the best output of the States, and that in fact, the quality of the US's output can be just as bad as ours. Certainly, the US has bad shows. Fear Factor, Dancing With the Stars and Joe Millionaire give our worst shows a run for their money, yes. But these are the exception, rather than the rule. What's more, they usually get just a single slot on primetime, once weekly. Channel 4 gives Big Brother close to to 24-hour a day coverage on digital channel E4, with one to two hours of highlights a day! Meanwhile, production-line-churned, mediocre scripted programming has no place at all in US primetime, Days Of Our Lives and shows of that ilk confined to the appropriate home of the mid-morning and early-afternoon hours. But the BBC and ITV give Eastenders, Emmerdale, The Bill and Coronation Street a combined ten hours of primetime slots per week! Sometimes as many as twelve hours!! Across just two channels!!! All these exclamation marks are justified, honest!!!!

I suppose that would be acceptable, if the remained of primetime was taken up with quality sitcom and drama - trash TV has its place. But no! Taking tonight, Thursday October 30 as an example, there's just one sitcom in primetime on any of the five main channels - Beautiful People on BBC2. (And it's shit.) There's good non-situation comedy in the form of Never Mind the Buzzcocks and The Graham Norton Show - both brilliant programmes, it must be admitted. But I'll be damned if there's anything else worth watching. Natural Born Sellers - an Apprentice rip-off. Real Crime - lazy reality schlock. Embarrassing Teenage Bodies. Danger Men. Slaves In The Cellar. All reality/documentary fare. The only sign of scripted programming anywhere is in BBC's overrated Silent Witness.

Then look at what viewers in the USA can look forward to tonight. My Name Is Earl. The Office. 30 Rock. CSI. Smallville. Supernatural. Ugly Betty. Grey's Anatomy. Life on Mars. Okay, there's some reality stuff - Survivor, Kitchen Nightmares. But at least it doesn't dominate the schedule. I'd argue there's around eight hours of what I'd call quality TV airing in the US tonight. In the UK, there's two at a stretch.

If UK broadcasters want to compete, they need to seriously up their game. Kill off the appalling soaps and mediocre hospital dramas that ER consistently kicks the ass of over a decade into its run. Bring in a decent Friday night sitcom, not crap sketch shows and My Family series twenty-five. Invest in quality drama and don't fall back on the (genuinely good) BBC4 documentaries alone to justify the licence fee. But I can't see it happening. Oh well, at least the US is still delivering a steady diet of quality programming. Here's hoping the credit crunch doesn't damage the pockets of the major US studios.. if it does, I don't know what viewers after quality television will do. The UK broadcasters certainly won't be there for them, that's for sure.

Objective or subjective?

As a semi-professional list-maker (and by "semi-professional" I mean "I don't get paid for it but I do it as much as a paid list-maker would") I often find it hard to determine whether I'm looking at things subjectively or objectively. Sure, most of my lists are heavily dependent on opinion - top TV shows, favourite songs, etc. - but it's still possible to reasonably judge a show based on certain quantifiable criteria - its influence; the extent to which it broke tradition and flouted convention; its cultural impact; its success, both domestic and internationally; its realism; its ability to weave multiple genres together seamlessly; its critical acclaim.

Yet when it comes to compiling my lists, I tend to pick and choose from these criteria, in an attempt to justify my rating of it (positive or negative). I often laud Friday Night Lights, for example - one of my favourite drama series - for its realism, yet its influence is minimal, and its success both at home and abroad has been muted. Similarly, Friends was fairly popular with critics and was a remarkable success, but it had minimal effect on the sitcom genre - instead of flouting tradition, it often adhered rigidly to it. Yet I still rate it as an all-time classic, and many others do too.

My top TV shows list surprises many people; not usually for what shows make it in to the list at all, but for some suspect choices in the top 10. King of the Hill and Malcolm In The Middle often elicit surprise in particular. Most accept them as good shows, but all-time top 10? Maybe not. Thing is, I actually agree with them that neither belong on an objective all-time top 10 list. Sure, King of the Hill is more realistic than most of its animated counterparts; and Malcolm was a pioneer of mainstream multi-camera laugh-track-free sitcom - but neither shook up the TV world like, say, The Wire. It's with these shows that subjectivity enters my list. One can make good cases for The Simpsons, ER and Seinfeld showing up in a top-10 TV show list - but KOTH and Malcolm? Harder.

So why are they there? I think it's because, along with The Simpsons, they were among my first forays into the world of TV beyond Nicktoons and Cartoon Network. I first stumbled across both back around 2000, at ten years old (and just a year after I discovered The Simpsons). Even though I'd been hooked on the idiot box since an early age, it wasn't until then that I picked up on the potential of the format, albeit in my little ten-year-old way. Comedy without a laugh track? Cool! Animated people that actually seemed like real people? Even cooler! I've been hooked on both ever since. It's no surprise that, given rather more years of exposure than almost any other shows, I rate them highly. 24, one of my highest-rated dramas, has been similarly affected: it was the first genuinely dramatic show I got interested in, back when I was 13.

Meanwhile, shows such as Friends, Whose Line Is It Anyway? (US) and Everybody Loves Raymond have been similarly affected. All rate within my top 20, even though none of them really challenged the format (and of course, WLIIA (US) is just a remake of the original UK show). Here, another subjective emotion comes into play: the feelgood factor. In late 2004 I was pretty unwell for a couple of weeks; marathoning seasons 2-5 of Friends for the first time made the time pass so much faster. Whose Line (US) became a staple of my Saturday in 2007; Five US's weekend afternoon marathons, which I'd always settle down to with a family member or two, was a highlight of my week. Raymond S3 made the return to school in September 2006 far more palatable. It's these little things that help me to build up a positive picture of a TV show in my mind, even if it's not genuinely deserving. (Not that I think the shows I've mentioned aren't deserving; but I'd be lying if I said those certain circumstances didn't have at least some effect on my perception of them).

I guess I've given up my search for objectivity. I'm sure stats-mad TV fan could come up with the perfect equation to determine how important a TV show is, based on ratings, sales overseas, Google hits, blog mentions, and the number of times Matt Roush has been quoted on its DVD boxset cover. But I'm happy to continue grading things my way: searching for what I find objectively hilarious and genuinely dramatic, certainly; but also allowing personal circumstances to prevent my list from becoming a dreary clone with no sense of independent taste. (Where else can you find Judge Judy, Saved by the Bell, The Sopranos and NewsRadio all on the same list?)

In defence of Amazon

Much has been made of Amazon's attempts to limit losses in recent months. All of their international stores have abandoned the "Post-Order Price Guarantee", which until September this year allowed customers to claim money back if the price on an item purchased was decreased within 30 days of shipment. Around the same time, a number of Amazon.com customers began receiving e-mails stating Amazon.com was closing their account as "unprofitable".

But based on recent experiences, my personal feelings about Amazon remain positive. This morning, my copy of ER Season 12 arrived (a steal at £19.97 just five weeks after release). I loaded up disc 1, and oh! the horror: on the episode selection screen, I'm presented with episodes 9, 10 and 11. "Not to worry", I think to myself, they probably just put discs 1 and 2 in the wrong holders. Not so -- turns out, I had two disc twos. My heart was, naturally, terror-struck. What would I do without my ER fix? (Watch Third Watch, as it turns out -- probably the subject of a later post).

I logged onto Amazon and chose to return the item. I filled in a reason, and I'm immediately presented with a freepost label and bar-code insert. All I have to do is print them out, attach the label, stick the set in the post, and job's done. Meanwhile, a new order for the set was placed on my account within an hour (for free, naturally), and it's already "dispatching soon". (Bonus: my original order was with free delivery; this one's with first class). Impressive stuff from Amazon.

(This post subject to retraction if they deem me "unprofitable" at a later date.. though considering the number of DVDs I buy from them, this is quite the minor blip. Plus, Warners should refund them anyway.. silly lazy packaging department. I guess it's less obvious a disc has been duplicated when you're using label-free double-sided discs though..).

A journey through my music collection

One of the popular memes going around the 'Net involves putting your media player on shuffle and discussing the first ten songs that come up. I've done it a few times on various forums (fora?) and website over the past few years, but not recently. A blog seems to perfect place to post such uselessness, so here goes.

1. Mason Williams - Classical Gas (added to my library June 2006)
Wonderful instrumental piece, very cleverly composed. Builds up to an impressive climax; the last minute or so must rank as one of the world's most recognisable tunes. 8/10

2. Fleetwood Mac - Tusk (added to my library October 2006)
I like the reggae beat, but if I'm honest, I tend to skew more towards the shinier, poppier side of Fleetwood Mac when I can. There's a cool drum solo, though. 6/10

3. Barenaked Ladies - The Ninjas (added to my library April 2008)
From their kids' album, Snacktime. It's one of the best tracks on that LP, with witty rhyming couplets ("The ninjas are deadly and silent, they're also unspeakably violent.. they speak Japanese, they do whatever they please, and sometimes they vacation in Ireland") and a catchy melody. 8/10

4. R.E.M. - Maps and Legends (added to my library June 2005)
One of the best tracks from Fables of the Reconstruction, an album that's grown on me considerably, this song pretty much sums up everything that's great about I.R.S.-era R.E.M. - Buck's arpeggio, an indistinct and incomprehensible Stipe vocal, and haunting Mills backing vocal. A nice driving, mid-tempo melody rounds out a fine song. 9/10

5. Barenaked Ladies - I'll Be That Girl (added to my library July 2006)
Another BNL track already? I'm not complaining - this is a career highlight. An irresistibly catchy, chant-along chorus masks a disturbing dark lyric ("if I had a gun, there'd be no tomorrow", anyone?) 9/10

6. Bruce Springsteen - Born to Run (Alternate Cut 3) (added to my library April 2008)
One of twelve versions of "Born" I have on my computer (what can I say? it's my favourite song), this version ranks somewhere in the middle of the pack. Not as polished as the later, and final cuts, but it does have a choir doing some backing vocals, which sound pretty awesome, and I wish they'd made it to the final cut. 9/10

7. Van Morrison - Cyprus Avenue (added to my library July 2008)
A solid track from the brilliant Astral Weeks, the near-acoustic opening gradually builds to something more powerful without losing its lilting melody. Van Morrison's vocals are on top form, too. 8/10

8. They Might Be Giants - Olive the Other Reindeer (added to my library March 2005)
One of the Giants' lesser tracks, it's simplistic and pretty forgettable, though it was the theme tune to the Matt Groening-developed Christmas special of the same name. 6/10

9. The Magnetic Fields - Boa Constrictor (added to my library December 2007)
From 69 Love Songs, this 58-second piece uses a nice metaphor ("your love is wrapped around my heart like a boa constrictor") but it's ultimately a time-filler. 6/10

10. Barenaked Ladies - Home (added to my library September 2006)
Them again?! Oh well.This is one of their best ballads, really sweet and restrained, and I love the heartfelt simplicity of the "that's when I knew that I was home" refrain. 10/10

Five reasons to love "Two Cathedrals"

SPOILER ALERT: Haven't seen The West Wing episode "Two Cathedrals"? Don't read this!

1. Martin Sheen. He delivers a powerhouse performance in the cathedral: he's not bombastic or over-emotional, he simply makes you believe every word he manages to spit out is straight from the heart. He knows when to hold back too though - his restraint in the episode's early scenes is remarkable, hinting that beyond the tough, world-weary exterior, something has to give. The final scenes, as he stands in the rain, before taking the long walk to the press-room, as the strains of "Brothers In Arms" ring out, are worth the price of admission alone: Sheen gives Bartlet an expression that delivers a statement of intent better than any real President ever could.

2. Flashback. Flashbacks are fairly commonplace in 21st century television - from the mythology-building of Lost to the teary sweetness of The Simpsons' high-school years, television shows have been employing them left, right and centre. Rarely to the perfection exemplified here, though - meticulously judged and drawn, the scenes with a younger Jed and Mrs. Landingham are astoundingly heart-warming. So it's from dear old Dolores Bartlet got that inspiration to do something right in the world.

3. Believable "younger" versions of characters. Point two would be null and void without this. All too often, flashback sequences fail to capture the youth of the characters they're supposedly representing. This can be because they didn't find anyone who quite looked the part so settled for the vaguest of resemblance; or (and arguably worse) they used the regular actor, dolloping on heaps of make-up and fashioning an appropriately stereotypical hairdo. "Two Cathedrals" falls victim to neither trope: Jason Widener and Kirsten Nelson are able to portray our beloved characters remarkably believably, without descending into self-parody. Without such talent, this episode wouldn't be half as revered as it is; Widener and Nelson are this show's unsung heroes.

4. Shot composition and direction. Most people take such things for granted; hell, I do too, most of the time. But in episodes like this, you couldn't help but notice just how well the technical department composed the show that wound up on our screens. The final shot stands out, as we look at Bartlet from his right, the American flag waving and rain pounding down; but the scene transitions from flashback to present-day are also worthy of note, as are the stunning shots of the expansive cathedral - a genuine work of art.

5. Writing. The flashback scene where Jed discusses gender inequality with Mrs. Landingham. The scene where a posthumous Mrs. Landingham reminds Jed why he's in office. The scene where Jed curses out God, in both Latin and English. In each one, every word is perfectly judged. Every line fits. Wit is present where needed. So is intense, impactful emotion. Actors, directors and producers are only as good as the material on the page. Thanks heavens that here, that material was genuinely outstanding.

How do I love Sorkin? Let me count the ways

Mere words cannot express my adoration-stroke-jealousy of Aaron Sorkin (masterful, impossibly witty scribe of The West Wing, Sports Night and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip). Having only recently really got hooked on Wing (how it passed me over for such a long time, I don't know - I watched the first season back in 2006 but never got any further), I was suddenly inspired to revisit his other properties.

Stop one, naturally, was the triumph that is Sports Night's "The Apology", an episode that starts off sparkling with trademark Sorkin wit but culminates in a totally unexpected, out-of-left-field emotional blockbuster of a speech from anchor Dan Rydell (the criminally underused Josh Charles). For two whole minutes (and that's a long time in television), Dan delivers an on-air response to a magazine that misinterpreted a comment of his as being pro-cannabis legalisation. What begins as predictable in its apologetic and formal nature quickly digresses into moving and raw catharsis, as the heretofore unknown drug-laced past of Dan and his younger brother is laid out for all the world to see. The concluding revelation, while not particularly surprising, still manages to the make the spine shiver: Charles' delivery is perfectly timed, Sorkin's language perfectly judged. For a TV character we've known for just two episodes at this stage, it's almost unbearably heartbreaking, and significantly, it feels real.

In many other shows, such a move would seem hackneyed - hell, even in the self-aware, irony-laced likes of Boston Legal, such tone shifts are jarring; to imagine it in a traditional multi-camera sitcom is cringe-inducing. But here, it works without reservation. The Sorkin trademark walk-and-talk rat-a-tat-tat dialogue is so audibly recognisable - after a few episodes, it becomes as familiar and comfortable as your favourite pair of shoes - a change in pace allows for subtle emotional impact without our characters being forced to deliver sappy cliche. It's an effect Sorkin would perfect later on in The West Wing, but it started here, in this very episode.

Next up on my recap of Sorkin's work will probably be the season 2 finale of Sports Night, "Quo Vadimus". Up there with the finest "last episodes" ever, it's home to that immortal line: "If you can't make money out of Sports Night, you'd better get out of the money-making business". Never a truer word spoken..