There has been a fair view reactions to last night's BBC1 drama "The Amazing Mrs Pritchard" (which I discover has its own website) in the Lib Dem blogosphere most of which seem to be negative. Paul Walter thinks it "a rather lukewarm show", Richard Huzzey was "disappointed by it" and thinks it "a missed opportunity", James Graham hasn't seen it but wouldn't have liked it if he had, and Alex Wilcock really, really, really didn't like it. As I have gone on record as saying I "really enjoyed watching" it, but only very briefly saying why, I feel I need to mount a defence of the amazing Mrs Pritchard.
But first a little story.
I have a strong recollection of reading a review of the first episode of Alan Bleasdale's TV drama G.B.H. by a prominent Labour MP. I forget precisely who it was. The MP attacked the drama for daring to portray the Labour Party and labour politics in such a negative light and accused Bleasdale of betraying his socialist beliefs for bringing such a work to the screen. Such a drama, he argued, would only bring comfort to the then Tory government.
G.B.H. is of course one of the greatest political dramas every broadcast on British TV.
I also recall that after several other episodes of the drama had been aired, and we had seen the story develop to include the council leader played by Robert Lindsay (obviously based on Derek Hatton) being exploited by sinister right-wing forces, the Labour MP published another review. This was a more balanced reaction to the drama and to his credit he retracted much of what he had said originally and apologised for some of those things.
What lessons should we learn from this? First, that politicians are probably not the best people to review political dramas. Those actively involved in politics and committed to a particular cause probably carry too much baggage with them to react to such a drama as the non-political person would. Particularly when the drama portrays professional politics in a negative light. I know I do. In my previous post I mentioned that I felt uncomfortable for moments while watching last nights drama. These moments all stemmed from my reacting as a politically engaged person, especially when "my" Party was coming off worse.
Second, that you shouldn't rush to judgement about a drama after only the first episode. There are apparently 5 more episodes of The Amazing Mrs Pritchard to go. This first episode established the basic premise (unknown woman wins election and becomes PM) and put out there a number of ideas and views about the way politics is in the UK. We don't yet know how the drama will explore those ideas. Will it reinforce them? Undermine them? Will it be subtle, contradictory and interesting in developing them? Or will it fluff it? We'll have to wait and see!
Now before I look at some of the specific criticisms leveled at this programme can I just say "calm down". This is not a serious political drama aimed at us saddo politicos who like to quote dialogue from the West Wing at each other. This is a "fantasy satire" aimed at a prime time evening TV audience requiring some suspension of disbelief. Some of the comments I've read this evening are taking the whole thing far too seriously. Lighten up guys.
The portrayal of politicians
One criticism leveled at the drama is they way it portrays professional politicians and the three main parties. It is accused (by Alex) of "presenting every single ‘politician’ as a slimy, worthless piece of scum all the same as each other". And Richard feels "the criticism that stings most deeply, as I watched it, is the rejection of political parties as obstructive and ‘all the same as each other’." There is a lot of truth in those comments. But consider this is fantasy drama, Mrs P and the Purple Alliance are the good guys so the bad guys have to be, well, bad.
Also, this is a drama about the public's disengagement from and disenchantment with politics as it is currently conducted. Yes, the politicians in the drama are portrayed as unattractive. But wake up guys, for many people in this country politicians are unattractive. If you were to go out and ask the managers, staff and customers of the real world equivalents of Greengages supermarkets they would say that this drama's portrayal of politicians is, while a bit over the top, an accurate one.
Is that uncomfortable, worrying, disturbing? Yes! But true. That is the problem we've got.
But she's got no policies!
Well duh! The premise of the programme is that she becomes PM by accident. Of course she's got no policies, no worked out platform, no detailed analysis of the state of the nation. This is a fantasy drama about an ordinary woman who ends up running the country. If she had policies she wouldn't be ordinary - she'd be a politician!
Tory bias
I have to say I was wondering whether I detected a Tory bias in the programme. There were a number of things that suggested it, despite what I thought was a rather sympathetic portrayal of Blair at the end. I think this may be perceived bias rather than a real one again brought about by thinking like a politico. I think the jury is still out on that one.
The references to Thatcher? I don't think you make a drama about a woman becoming PM without some reference to the great she elephant.
Feminism
Finally, there is the charge that the drama makes the simplistic argument that it is men that are the problem and if only we put the women in charge things would be a whole lot better. Well yes it does. At least the first episode does. We will have to see how the plot develops and whether having set up that argument it continues to make it without qualification or whether it wants to knock it down.
I will admit there is a good deal of old fashioned feminist polemic about the drama. But that is no bad thing in my view. When was the last time we had some angry feminist polemic on prime time TV? And if you don't think there is good reason for having that kind of thing then, putting party political prejudices aside, ask yourself this - Why is it that George Osbourne has a more senior job in the Tory party than Theresa May? I think the writer of "The Amazing Mrs Pritchard" could hazard a guess at the answer. Can you?
OK. Here endeth my first proper rant on this blog and my defence of this TV programme.
Posts
The Long Affray and The Towers of Trebizond
8 hours ago
4 comments:
Well done on your first proper rant, Andy (and in even more paragraphs than mine)! I look forward to many more.
Good little story; I take your point about GBH. It was great drama, and political, and it did turn things around from where the early episodes used to be going (to the point of socialist wish-fulfilment fantasy where the evils of Mr Hatton and his ilk were really all the fault of a vast right-wing conspiracy). I’d add Queer As Folk, in which though the first episode had much to recommend it, I didn’t like any of the characters and didn’t warm to it, but the drama changed over later instalments and I found myself proved wrong in my early assumptions. So, yes, good drama can often turn things around, and I’ll happily eat my words if it turns around its vacuous prejudices into something less shallow. Trouble is, I saw both GBH and QAF, and however unpalatable at times, they were both a whole lot more intelligent from the start than this has been. “Will it be subtle, contradictory and interesting in developing them?” I hope so, but from the quality of part 1, I’m only expecting the middle one ;-) When you say “the Purple Alliance are the good guys so the bad guys have to be, well, bad,” well, up to a point. But good drama tends to be a bit more shaded than that, and even melodrama tends to have a limited group of nasty, fantasy villains. Whereas in this, the villains are half the population in general and a wide, diverse group of real people in particular, not ones the author has made up, and the drama’s a lot less balanced towards them than Doctor Who is towards your average alien supervillain. So if it’s claiming to be a fantasy, it’s a pretty feeble one; ‘fantasy’ is not an excuse for poor quality, and surely if it’s got real people and real groups in it, in the real place where we really live, its fantasy content is lower than most?
Yes, you’re right that I shouldn’t dismiss a drama after just one episode. It’s a fair cop. But “politicians are probably not the best people to review political dramas”? No, Andy, I can’t agree. If a large group of dissimilar people are being smeared as completely worthless to a man – and they are all men – then aren’t they exactly the people who should be able to say, ‘Hang on, and piss off?’ And that’s what I’m doing; because I’m a Liberal, I fiercely oppose marching on the BBC with a blazing torch, or demanding it be taken off the air, but defending the BBC’s freedom of speech to spew out a pile of garbage doesn’t mean I have to give up my freedom of speech to say that it is, in fact, a pile of garbage. Because although it’s ‘only a fantasy’, the places and many of the people in it are real – real parties, real journalists, and an actor really playing Tony Blair. Let alone the tiresome sexist rubbish, I’d have disliked it if it said every single farmer was worthless, or accountant, or librarian, or even journalist. I’d certainly have taken umbrage if it grouped together every single gay person, or black person, or – as politics is about belief, even though Mrs Pritchard doesn’t have any – said every single religious person was slimy, corrupt and faithless.
And saying that people agree with that view of politicians, so it’s fair game to pander to their prejudices… Yes, it means politicians need to do a better job, but it doesn’t mean when someone shovels shit onto every single one of them that they can’t say, ‘This isn’t helping, you know’. Well, never mind saying every religious person is deeply unpleasant – how about just picking one religion? Imagine a drama saying how personally appalling every single Muslim was, unless they happened instantly to convert to the new branch of the faith set up by ‘the hero’. And, you know, I bet you could find plenty of people who’d watch it and agree that they hated all Muslims and all Muslims were the same. It isn’t the sort of bigotry I’d expect a Liberal Democrat to defend, though.
‘But it’s just a fantasy,’ the author could say, ‘It just happens to be a fantasy world where the country is coincidentally called Britain, and which coincidentally features large numbers of real people appearing as themselves, in which coincidentally the religion I’m having a pop at happens to be called ‘Islam’, and in which coincidentally a leading Muslim is portrayed by an actor under a name which coincidentally is that of a leading British Muslim, done as an impersonation. But it shouldn’t be taken seriously, or in any way a criticism of the real people that it coincidentally mentions by name.’
But Muslims probably wouldn’t be the best people to review that sort of religious drama. After all, they’d have “too much baggage,” they’re “taking the whole thing far too seriously,” and “Lighten up guys,” because it’s only a fantasy.
Phew. Well, that was longer than I expected, but not, I suspect, that you expected when you skipped over to my blog, lit the blue touch paper and ran ;-)
Oh, and I completely agree with you that a reference to Mrs Thatcher was necessary – but that wasn’t my point. It’s that they didn’t refer to any current female politicians, which though it blew another Tory dog-whistle, mainly contrived to avoid admitting what mealy-mouthed mediocrities women politicians can be, rather than just the men. The trouble with this as feminist polemic is that it’s a bit rubbish at it. Off the top of my head, I’d recommend another piece of feminist polemic as an alternative: the film Nine to Five, with Jane Fonda, Lily Tomlin and Dolly Parton. It’s dramatic, with three very different women working together but not thinking in exactly the same way, and gets over all its points without having to resort to 1972 sit-com-style feminist stereotypes of ‘all men are bad!’ It’s a fantasy, and even has some brilliant fantasy sequences (like the deadly Disney hallucination). And most of all, it’s very funny, which not only means it’s more entertaining but that – humour being more difficult to answer than a tirade of bigotry – you find it much more persuasive, which is what good polemic should be about.
Ok Alex.
Finally, I've got a moment to respond to this.
First, let's talk about what I actually said. From the very start I said that there were parts of this programme that made me feel uncomfortable. The dismissive negative depiction of the whole political class was at the heart of that and I accept most of your arguments in objecting to it. I said "There is a lot of truth in those comments". So I wasn't attempting to defend that depiction as acceptable or indeed deny anyone the right to criticise it.
What I was trying to say was that as people active in politics we are much more likely to react negatively to that portrayal and consequently miss other parts of the drama that have more value. I was also trying to put that portrayal in a wider context of what I perceived this drama to be about and what it was trying to achieve.
The drama (so far) has used a number of key arguments about the state of our politics around which to construct its story. I see these as being:
1) People are disengaged and disenchanted with the political process.
2) This is because most politicians are pretty much useless.
3) A big part of the reason for them being useless is that politics is too male dominated and things would be improved if more women were involved in it.
4) The solution to this problem is for more 'ordinary' people to take responsibility and get involved as part of the creation of a strong no nonsense independent force to 'sort things out'.
Now these arguments are not particularly new but I feel they are becoming increasingly commonly heard out in the real world. The first is true and is a very real problem. The second is not true and (as you have pointed out) is offensive to those many people of all parties who give up their time and energy to engage in politics. The third argument has a degree of validity. Politics is certainly too male dominated and the greater involvement of women is an essential component of reform. However, there are limits to that argument and aspects of it should be questioned.
The final argument is the key one. I hope it will be at the heart of what the drama will go on to explore. The appeal of the 'strong leader talking common sense' or the 'anti-politics party' is something we should be familiar with. We should also be very aware of the potential danger to liberty that represents.
But if we are to find ways to solve the problem of peoples disenchantment with the political process we do need to explore ways that brings more people into politics. Something that gets people excited about politics and encourages them to take ownership of the political process is something worth exploring.
In this first episode we saw Mrs P become the head of a movement in which many non-political people were inspired to become involved in politics and stand for election. A movement so successful that it becomes the government of the country. Future episodes may or may not intelligently explore the questions that such a scenario creates.
This flawed (but I will say again brilliantly cast) drama put up those four arguments and constructed a narrative around them. Whether or not it tackles the challenges and contradictions in those arguments successfully in future episodes, it is still a useful exercise for us to think about the issues it throws up.
My defence of this programme was mainly an attempt to point out that by focussing on and reacting to only one of the arguments, most politicians are pretty much useless, we were missing out discussing the others and dealing with some more important issues.
I also think that a drama which clearly says that ordinary people can and should get involved in politics and by doing so they can make difference shouldn't be something that liberals should dismiss out of hand.
I did want to tackle some of the other points you made, especially the "sexism" issue, but this comment is already Wilcockian in length ;-) and so I will leave it there.
Cheers :-)
There is a much more serious argument about this programe,and that is its overwhelming whiteness.In the first episode, there were two or three very background non white extras. In the second episode there was a brief appearance from Meera Sydal,and then some token 'ethnic' cabinet members and MPs -none of whom had speaking parts. The glaring contrast was with the daughter's friends from the local school (so bad,we were informed by Mrs Pritchard, that it contained pupils speaking '20 different languages'-shock,horror!). Suddenly we had a shot of the kind of normal ethnic mix you might expect in a London school,and ,you might have thought, in a London casting agency.The BBC, however, seems to feel that non white people really should be seen (albeit sparingly) and not heard .
Episode 3 had a visiting black dignitary -in ceremonial garb so suitably exotic -and one black policeman with a very small speaking part. On top of all this, Mrs Pritchard wishes to move Parliament to Bradford because it's closer to the people, but no mention of which people-I strongly suspect if it happens we will find a white Bradford with the occasional background ethnic person,and,of course,absolutely no Muslims.
Makes you wonder why David Cameron is bothering with all that change stuff....
情趣用品,情趣,情色,成人,A片,自拍,情趣用品,情趣,色情,成人影片,色情影片,免費A片,情趣用品,情趣,成人網站,A片下載,日本AV,做愛,情趣用品,情趣,美女交友,A片,辣妹視訊,情色視訊,情趣用品,情趣,色情聊天室,聊天室,AV,成人電影,A片,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣商品,情趣,情趣情色,A片,AIO,AV,日本AV,色情A片,AV女優,A漫,免費A片,A片下載,情色A片,哈啦聊天室,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,色情聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,080視訊聊天室,080聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,免費視訊聊天,上班族聊天室,080中部人聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天,成人聊天室,一夜情聊天室,辣妹視訊,情色視訊,成人,成人影片,成人光碟,成人影城,自拍情趣用品,A片,AIO,AV,AV女優,A漫,免費A片,日本AV,寄情築園小遊戲,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色文學,色情,色情遊戲,一葉情貼圖片區,色情網站,色情影片,微風成人, 嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片,成人影片,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,080聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,080視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室情趣用品,A片,aio,av,av女優,a漫,免費a片,aio交友愛情館,a片免費看,a片下載,本土自拍,自拍,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色文學,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,色情遊戲,嘟嘟情人色網,一葉情貼圖片區,色情影片,情色網,色情網站,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片,成人貼圖,成人圖片區,成人小說,成人電影情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,自拍,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,哈啦聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,080聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,H漫,A片,AV,AV女優,A漫,免費A片,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色小說,情色文學,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,色情遊戲,SEX,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片,成人貼圖,成人圖片區情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣商品,A片,A片,A片,A片,A片,A片
Post a Comment