Flag at half-mast
OK, let's declare an interest first. Two episodes in and I have yet to be seen on the seven-part landmark BBC2 series British Film Forever, but I have been filmed for it, and hope to see my freakish face on those devoted to Social Realism, War and Comedy - or not. The people who produce the series are Good People (I have worked with them before), and Matthew Sweet, who writes the links, is a nice chap who also sits in on Radio 4's Film Programme (see: entry on the other blog that nobody visits). At Radio Times I have been actively involved in promoting this series, and the British Summer Of Film it's tied in with, all of which strikes me a something worthy of support (classic British movies being shown at Odeon cinemas all summer - a chance to see the likes of Henry V, The Wicker Man and Withnail And I on the big screen). However ...
I've watched the first two episodes, Thrillers and Romance, and there's no doubt that this is a major undertaking, the kind the BBC does best - a vast survey of British film in terms of genre, with a high calibre of interviewees: filmmakers and actors, mostly, but with an admirable bias towards the older generation, still with us, and with valuable contributions to make (the likes of Ronald Neame, Lewis Gilbert, Guy Hamilton, Jack Cardiff - all of whom I interviewed while on Back Row, due to my own prediliction for veterans with a unique viewpoint). The graphics are good. The clips are enjoyable. And the long running time (an hour and 40 minutes) allows for detailed dissections of individual films. But there are three things wrong with British Film Forever and I hope I'm not biting the hand that feeds me in pointing them out at this early stage:
1. The narration. It seems that Matthew Sweet's brief was to "keep it light" - thus, we get a jokey tone throughout that seems almost embarrassed to take any of this silly cinema stuff too seriously. In the first episode there was a daft line about Harry Lime having something like "a strange taste in hats" (really?), and mention at one stage of something called "Cool Britanniadom" (sorry - is this Smash Hits?). The linking text should shed light, or contextualise, or provide information not provided by the talking heads, not demonstrate that the writer is awfully witty. Worse, Jessica Stevenson has been employed to voice the narration. Again, nothing against her, but the choice seems to have been made to soften the blow of a serious documentary; to make it more palatable; to get Spaced fans to watch it. (See also: Julian Rhind-Tutt, Seven Ages Of Rock, and Green Wing fans.) It's not because she's a women, but because she's been directed to deliver it with dropped "t"s and "h"s, as if to remove any boring sense of authority. She's just like you and me! The combination of the self-consciously casual writing with a recognisable comedy voice conspires to drag the seriousness of the analysis elsewhere to a much less challenging place. The voice sets the tone. The tone is one of, "This is not The World At War." Why shouldn't it be? It's about art. It's about social change. It's about British history.
2. The spoilers. At Radio Times we are ultra-sensitive about spoilers. We even rejected the idea of a piece about Great Last Lines in Films last week as it might give away endings to people who, through no fault of their own, might not have seen every classic movie ever made. The same with our Movie Moment series - we never do the final scene, or a scene that gives away the ending, no matter how much of a classic the film may be. British Film Forever, despite positioning itself as "a laugh", also wants to have its cake and eat it by treating its audience as if they were film studies students, where analysis of a film includes analysing the ending, because understanding is more important than entertainment, and because to study a film you must watch it first anyway. In a clips show, which is what this is, and one that's part of a drive to get the audience to watch the associated films on the BBC and at Odeon cinemas, why give away the endings of the films? It's actually vandalism. In the first episode we found out the precise endings - and were shown clips of them - to Brighton Rock, Get Carter and countless others, including (and this was a real crime), London To Brighton, which only came out last year and on DVD this year. It's a small film, and a brilliant one, but as yet mostly unseen by a broader audience. Any of the two million tuning in last Saturday has now seen the ending. The actual ending! They've seen it! This is a huge own goal. Unforgiveable.
3. The Clips Show Disease. This is not a problem uniquely associated with this series, but it shows how much the Top 100 and 50 Greatest and Britain's Favourite format has infected more serious documentary strands. The talking head format is not in itself inappropriate for this kind of histography. Indeed, the daddy of them all, The World At War, was powerful because of its talking heads - that is, its eyewitness testimony. Hearing from filmmakers and performers connected with the film or genre is absolutely right. As a viewer, I can also allow for film critics and academics, who can help to contextualise and offer a more critical view than the participants, who are bound to fall into luvviedom. (There, that's my potential appearances in the future justified!) But really - and again no disrespect to these individuals - do we need to hear from John Sargeant? Or Jeremy Vine? Or Paul O'Grady? Or Phill Jupitus? Sure, these are film fans, but when you've got Michael Caine and Dickie Attenborough and Daniel Craig and Richard Curtis, shouldn't their airtime be given precedence? Again, it's cowardice on the part of the producers. "What if people turn over because they haven't seen a jolly, familiar face off the telly for ten minutes?" Let them. I do not blame the makers of British Film Forever for this lapse in judgement - it's a much wider problem with the way documentary is now presented on telly.
Rant over. I am grateful that the BBC have spent this much money on a seven part series on British film, and I will, like Seven Ages Of Rock, watch to the bitter end, but there's something worrying about it. I'd value your thoughts on this matter, if you've seen the show, or if not, since it's a general moan. (I think I've made it clear that my talking head will appear on the series, but I hope I'm not part of the problem, since I don't make the programmes, I just appear on them when asked.)
posted by Andrew Collins @ 10:13 AM
17 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
17 Comments:
I agree entirely with this description. My telly watching companion and I were baffled by the seemingly haphazard structure of the thriller episode and spent a lot of time saying things like,
"Have you seen Get Carter/London To Brighton/Shallow Grave?"
"No, not yet but I plan to."
"You should it's really goo...oh...there's no point now."
What were they thinking?
Thought I'd better say that I've visited 'over there'. I heard your programme about Bergman last Friday and very entertaining it was too.
I thought Terence Davies was especially good value, announcing in the space of 25 mins, the end of any hope of decent acting, directing, producing, scriptwriting, filming, you name it. Worth a listen again.
I don't know a lot about Bergman and it would have been interesting to know from his contemporaries, if any remain, just why he turned out to be a film maker of the style that he did. Did others from that era follow the same path, less successfully, or was he really unique?
AnotherAnon Gary
Can't handle anything with spoilers. Philip French from the Observer isn't worth reading, as he tends to stick to a formula wherein he tells you exactly what happens in a film, relates it to a French new wave oldie, then spoils the ending. Unless it's a horror film, then he just says 'rubbish' (probably without even watching it).
Agreed, especially on the 'why are they here?' celebs commenting on movies, and also Jessica Stevenson's Estuary English narration. She's prodigiously talented - but not at this. I'd have chosen the deep, intelligent tones of Juliet Stevenson. Maybe the producer got confused.
The BBC dumbing down?
Never!
Andrew, I agree with everything you have said and I also agree with the suggestion that the BBC might be dumbing down. Talking heads should have more credibility beyong 'just being well known'. Given your background you have subject matter knowledge as do some of our famous actors. I don't care what Paul O'Grady thinks!
This is a great opportunity for the BBC to do what it is best at, inform and educate in an entertaining way, but it has taken a lazy approach.
The series should excite us to go back to the classics to balance the lightweight (but entertaining) stuff that hits the cinemas today, but the appproach does make you think, hey what's the point, I know how it's going to end!
In summary this looks like being an interesting series, where it could have been a great series.
AnonoNick
First of all, thanks for the warning about London to Brighton. I've only watched part two of this series so far, with part one sitting on the Sky+. I'll be fastforwarding through that bit.
I did notice during the second episode that a lot of endings were being given away - all the Powell and Pressburger films as well as Brief Encounter. I think a few endings can be given away if you handle the title in a serious manner. The ending of Brief Encounter is very central to why so many people love the film. But I think they should have trodden a lot more carefully.
As for the narration, having only seen the second part, I thought that perhaps we were getting the light-hearted narration because of the nature of romantic films. But even then, the script was far too glib. I think you're right that the producers have been trying to have their cake and eat it; you either go down the "top 50" route and be a little sarcastic, or you try to be a bit more serious. I also thought that the "Coming up - some nudity in the cinema!" was all a little childish. While sex and the cinema can be properly analysed and deserved a section, it seemed to have been put together by an adolescent thirteen year old.
Incidentally, doesn't Jessica Stevenson go by the her married name, Jessica Hynes, these days? She's not credited as such.
And I couldn't agree more with your thoughts about some of the people they've used. If we are going to get Paul O'Grady just talking about how much he loved a film, then we may as well have anybody on. In fact, given that none of her films were on show this week, I wasn't even sure why Kate Winslet was included, other than that she'd been available for an interview. Save her for the appropriate titles.
I must admit that overall, I wasn't too sure about the overall structure of the romantic comedies episode. We started and ended with Four Weddings, and while the programme was broadly ordered thematically rather than simply chronologically, I felt that it was just a sop to drag people in early. I was more interested in the fact that a title I'd never previously heard of, Spring in Park Lane, was actually the UK's fifth most popular film ever (in terms of number of seats sold). And I enjoyed learning about those wartime Gainsborough films when my knowledge of the studio largely starts and ends with The Wicked Lady. Finally, I do think the sequence about homosexuality in British cinema was well done.
During the first episode the only name I could put to the narrators voice at first was Fearne Cotton; which rather set the tone for me. Watching further I did think it can't be but there was nothing in the level of the program that convinced me it couldn't be narrated by a children's TV presenter. In Andrew's blog on The Seven Ages he did say that he thought he was the target audience for that program which I disagreed with at the time. The target for that has to people for whom it was all new so aged in the teens somewhere. I get that same feeling about this one too. Still it was not as dumbed as Saturday night on BBC1 and OK with a glass of wine. An old fashioned Sunday night BBC2 tone would have made me happier though. But then I liked the BBC4 two part documentary on the pursuit of absolute zero so I suppose a light and entertaining program about films never was going to satisfy.
One thing I did notice to my surprise was a bit of background music from Filigree and Shadow by This Mortal Coil. I have never heard that anywhere before except by listening to the record. Documentary makers seem to have a copycat way with music; I wonder if there is an approved BBC list of tunes that must be chewed into clichés before moving on to the next. I'd like to know how that tune made it onto the sound track.
I'm afraid I have some serious issues with the series and haven't been too complimentary already.
Apart from Seven Ages of Rock, I think you have to remind yourself that this time last year we were treated to the eight-part documentary series The Story of Light Entertainment. Wonderfully researched, and divided up into the likes of Double Acts, All-Round Entertainers, and Chat Shows, it certainly benefited from the 90-mins per episode format.
British Film Forever however, on the evidence of two episodes - and I doubt it's going to change - is, by comparison, an absolute mess.
The narration is just bad. Not just the delivery but the content. I mean, when the first episode got to Brighton Rock, the first clip of Richard Attenborough's Pinky Brown came with narration that explained he was “the old man who made the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park.”
The spoilers are just unforgivable.
And as for the clips....
Before the first episode was screened BBC2 ran a Culture Show special about The Simpsons. Now, I'm all for talking heads if the heads are on the bodies of people who worked on the project under discussion. There's nothing wrong with an oral history backed up by clips and an informed narration to stitch it all together.
What I don't want is Evan Davis tell me his favourite character is Marge Simpson. I don't care.
The first episode of British Film Forever seemed to be people talking about their favourite scenes from the films, followed immediately after by the scenes from the films. I don;t care that Kate Winslet thinks she wouldn't make a great Bond girl.
There was no real examination or contextualization. 'Thrillers' started with The Long Good Friday and then went all over the place. Actually, I described the romance episode as being like a drunken buffoon climbing out of the audience and trying to join the end of a chorus line.
Where was the narrative thread? Yes, there were a heck of a lot of films to cover, so why not pick relevant films that were of their time? And from that have little asides to other movies like the way the Comedy Connections programmes are put together. The Italian Job section, for instance, could have talked about it's relevance to the UK entering the Common Market. Rather than interview Troy Kennedy Martin - he's not that difficult to find. Even I've got his phone number! - we get James Brown continuing his career as Michael Caine's Number One Stalker.
Even with the talking heads, why didn't they just stick to the relevant people. I mean they had John Mackenzie and Len Deighton in front of the camera, surely they had a lot more to say than the brief soundbites that appeared on screen.
The other thing that lets it down for me are the sleazy tabloid elements. Why get personal about Diana Dors' career? When it came to talking about The Third Man a lot of the time was spent discussing how he used to disappear from the set. (Wasn't that because he was off trying to drum up finance for his own projects?). Weren't there better things to talk about?
Now, I'm a big fan of Powell & Pressburger's work. Their films should be celebrated. Instead, the second episode seemed to put them down. The suggestion that the reception to The Red Shoes destroyed their careers is utterly retarded.
On the evidence of the first two opportunities, I'm sorry to say I think it's a badly produced missed opportunity.
I'll probably watch the War episode. Only because if they take a pop at The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp or A Matter of Life and Death there will be blood.
I appreciate the criticisms made. But I have to say aprt from the point about Spoilers I think there are more things good about it than bad.
I never expected anything at the level of an 'Arena' look at the art form. However the tone s fairly reverential and I like the comments of most of the TH's. Yes we could do without Mr. O Grady and Jupitus but I think they are pretty minor complaints really.
Incidentally I am off to see Brief Encouter (my third favourite film ever) on the big screen tomorrow. I would not be doing this wthout the season BBC are running. So I am in forgiving mood.
Spot on.
The spoilers were so bad I switched over. Yes, I know I should have seen the Wicker Man, and yes I know the gist just by osmosis. But I have the director's cut, still in its wrapper ready for that special sunday afternoon movie treat. Knowing the end is one thing - seeing the ending has more than taken the edge of it. Thank Christ "The Vanishing" isnt British.
The World At War analogy is also spot on. 30 years on, you catch it on freeview, and its pretty timeless. Much as I admire John Sergeant, British Film Forever will be lucky to pass the 30 month test, let alone a 30 year test.
Perhaps in this new era of transparency, BBC2 have decided that nothing can be hidden from the audience. I hear they're running a phone in competition if you wish to complain...
It's quite simple, isn't it? This crazy policy has ruined a decent stab at a (semi) serious film series. As someone once said: don't spoil the ending - it's the only one we've got.
Had overnight to think about this. Do you think it is possible we are being a bit sniffy here ?
Surely the documentary is not aimed at people who know a lot about films already and maybe it is trying to draw new people in.
I doubt a lot of the general public will have heard of Powell and Pressburger. Its possible even a few of them don't know of Brief Encounter. Maybe using Jessica Stevenson and the likes of Paul O'Grady (who most of us like but still is not the point) is a reasonable price to pay to get them to see these films and help them survive to a new generation.
I'll second the above comment. I'm going to see Brief Encounter tonight, whilst I've seen it more than once on the small screen the people I'm going with haven't and without this season of films I doubt they would have seen it.
If you've seen The History Boys on stage or on film, that spoils the ending to Brief Encounter in it's own particular style.
I also agree, in the last programme, there were films featured that I'd never heard of (I know, it is disgraceful) that I now know the ending of. It has removed some of my desire to ever bother watching them, I like surprises.
I agree with your comments totally. The other thing which annoys me, particularly with the "random vaguely famous people not known for film work" comments is that they often describe a scene which is then shown. Why?? I think the problem with this series is that it isn't sure who its' audience is and so falls between stools. The real problem for me is that the good bits are really, really good which makes the irritating bits doubly annoying. Like you, though, I will be there for every episode!
Post a Comment
<< Home