Skip to main content

The Failure of British Television Drama: The Shadow Line

The Shadow Line is a travesty of epic, jump-the-shark proportions - mannered, shouty, preposterously OTT, and filled with every nasty cliche dialled to 11 of British grime and copper TV and film - gum chewing nasties, fey rent boys, sadistic thugs, and soft-spoken spies with trilbys and gloves.  Okay, so what?  Well this was a huge BBC investment, a flagship series.  And up next in the never-ending crime flow is Luther, a fun series, to be sure, but one filled with more ultra-violence, shouting, and cop cliches.  TV, it is fair to say, is now better in America (much like fiction and poetry is).

There has been no ongoing British TV series of the last decade as brilliant as The Wire or The West Wing or Mad Men.  This is not about acting chops - The Wire was manned by Brits.  Style?  The British (and Irish) invented it.  So what is the problem?  Well, it is cultural, and the rot is spreading.  Simply put, British drama is inflected and infected by several things: comedy, class, and crudity.  British comedy is out of control - it is everywhere, and the default position is to laugh at anything all the time.  Add to this the reluctance to see class for what it is, rather than with a cringe, or rage, and the knee-jerk need to make every event a f-off moment, means that British telly always seems to be a swear-filled, angry, nasty, and gurning comedy-fest, with lashings of silly sex thrown in.

Mad Men is an excellent example of what The Shadow Line is not.  Mad Men is a slow burn - witty yes, but poised, controlled, and mature, a work of televisual literature (and not just an adaption of one).  The British have great stories to tell, but the cynicism and sneering get in the way.  Let me give you one example - where is the British TV series about the Thatcher years, punk and all?  Or the years of the Angry Young Men and Women?  Or the series about Bletchley? Or the St Ives scene?  Or the Austerity Years?  I saw story bibles from my students at Kingston far better than what ITV or the BBC comes up with.  Stories with heart and soul.  It doesn't have to be another detective solving another murder of a sexy woman, Britain.  It can be a drama about human lives in interesting times.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Couldn't agree more with your analysis of cliche ridden British fare. We seem to specialise in what I call whassassa drama. In UK drama about prisons, crime, gangsters,football you can guarantee that at some stage one character is going to snarl, 'what's that supposed to mean?' (pronounced whassassapostamean) as a prelude to either physical or mental aggression. That or some poncey, ridiculous costume drama. Time to change the record -- we need to explore new territory.

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".