Annual Report - R3 drama

[french frank]

Glancing through the just published BBC Annual Report. Not a lot about R3, but one thing that struck me under Ambitious drama and comedy was:

"BBC Radio 3 audiences were offered a number of dramas that explored difficult themes, including Mogadishu by Vivienne Franzmann, a hard-hitting story of school racism."

Somehow, this seems to have more to do with using (exploiting?) drama to educate audiences on social problems than ... drama per se.

Last year may not have been felt to be a vintage year, but in terms of drama, it had:

Bulwer Lytton: Money
Rattigan: Flare Path
Shaw: Widowers' Houses
Corneille: The Comique Illusion
A Midsummer Night's Dream
Ibsen: Brand
Shaw: St Joan
August Wilson: The Piano Lesson
Farquhar: The Recruiting Officer
O'Casey: The Plough and the Stars

plus other new plays.

In drama terms they were at the very least interesting and worth acquainting the audience with, but to assume that a play is in any way 'difficult' because it portrays school racism, and that that makes it worthy of being singled out for special mention, seems to indicate an organisation which has totally lost its way where drama is concerned.

[Aubade]

"BBC Radio 3 audiences were offered a number of dramas that explored difficult themes, including Mogadishu by Vivienne Franzmann, a hard-hitting story of school racism."

Somehow, this seems to have more to do with using (exploiting?) drama to educate audiences on social problems than ... drama per se.[/QUOTE]

This would be entirely consistent with current teaching methods. Until recently, my daughter taught English in a comprehensive school. The whole drift of the lesson planning, the classes themselves and the responses sought from the pupils was that the poems or plays were simply used to 'explore' themes. Little or no thought or weight was attached to HOW the poet or writer said it, only to WHAT they said. Poets and authors were presented, not as creative writers, but as social workers presenting social themes.

One effect of this, was that it drove the selection of what was discussed: it had to be "relevant" — i.e. offer a theme for discussion — which scotched just about everything I hold dear.

For God's sake let us sit upon the ground ad tell sad stories about the death of kings. Wossat about then?

[Lateralthinking1]

I wonder whether the word 'difficult' reflects the idea among the decision makers that this is what drama on R3 should be. That is, difficult from their own perspective. On the other side of the coin, there is the less 'difficult' Breakfast on 3 and EC. One way of squaring the circle is to choose edgy populist themes - The World at One's idea of 'difficult'.

I would perhaps have expected the word 'challenging' to be used instead, alongside many others like 'classic', 'innovative', 'original' and 'entertaining'. The latter is probably the last word they would use, being in fear of accusations of dumbing down. Entertainment for such people is no doubt the same as light entertainment. If so, that is wrong.

The film 'Blackboard Jungle' is 57 years old. Many of us might wonder how its themes should still be current, a political problem seemingly never solved. As a work of art, it was 'difficult' and challenging in its time, having the audacity to bring to light the virtually unspeakable. That is not the case today and ditto most other 'contemporary' issues.

While I wouldn't argue that long standing issues shouldn't be tackled in novel ways, it would be nice if the word 'difficult' were not so readily applied to theme. When it comes to new material, there could be far more challenges in form and structure. Elsewhere, I remember attending the all black 'Measure for Measure'. Pinter did interesting things with time in 'Betrayal'.

And to some extent, the unusual use of melodrama in 'Tennyson and Edison' on R3 was welcome. Many felt that it wasn't wholly successful but I am not sure that being successful is the main point. At least some difference was tried and thankfully not in an overly gimmicky way. I learnt something from the discussion that ensued.

I would like audiences to be challenged, subtly, more in their assumptions about what constitutes a play, not every time but in more of the work that is commissioned. The current content is ok and sometimes good but it could be better.

[french frank]

Aubade - yes I think that's it. The BBC has the 'Public Purpose' of 'Sustaining citizenship and civil society', which includes informing the public about the society in which we live. This is why I think that 'drama' is being 'exploited' - by the BBC, I should say, not the playwright. The writer's work will/should be judged according to other criteria; the BBC apparently judges it as to whether it suits the 'Public Purposes'.

And why should the theme of racism in schools be considered 'difficult', in terms of a play? It may be a difficult social problem for the authorities, particularly the schools, and for victims, but that's quite different.

Lat - no, they don't used the word 'entertaining' much; they use 'engaging'! The five content characteristics laid down by the Charter and Agreement are 'high quality, challenging, original, innovative and engaging, with every programme or item of content exhibiting at least one of those characteristics'... <sigh>

And on the subject of the BBC's view of 'difficult' content, I've just found a quote from 2004, when a memo on Panorama was leaked to the Guardian:

'BBC executives believe it needs to be reworked to capture new audiences. The document says: "Criticisms of Panorama would revolve around the four Ds - that it is too distant, demanding, difficult and didactic." '

There is of course, no audience at all which wants programmes to be demanding, difficult and didactic.

[DracoM]

A topic 'difficult' for whom?

Anyone who knows anything about schools knows that racist bullying etc happens anywhere in the world and happens every day. Why bill it as if it were some kind of embarrassingly secret practice?

As FF says, how out of touch are the BBC getting? 'Othello' / 'MoV' are about kinds of racism, Titus Andronicus is about all manner of abuse and torture, Lear is about family break-ups [ ahem!], and all are powerful evocations of the issues round those story lines. The play in question I recall as being singularly long-winded and agonisngly precious, and distressed about telling it like it is, so why they are now trumpeting it as a medal showing BBC's so PC bravery I really do not know.

[Lateralthinking1]

ff - Are you able at a convenient moment to provide the paragraphs about the BBC having the 'Public Purpose' of 'Sustaining citizenship and civil society'. I would like to read them as (a) I strongly agree with them and (b) I am surprised that they exist. I do agree with you that this is not the right way to apply them, if without subtlety, and to my mind they (should) allude to something different, not very easily placed in words but I will try.

Many will hate my using the analogy again of Capital Radio in the early 1970s. Critics felt from the word go that it represented a downturn but it did have Attenborough at its helm. For those bothered to analyse that station and all of its obvious triviality for any substance, I think it was possible to hear. It was not a station that worked at its best when claiming to sound like London or to represent London. Neither was it a station that name checked London frequently but could have been a station anywhere. Rather, it was a station which by being its own voice as a voice of London became a voice of London and for many then one of the key voices of London. One could say that Attenborough perceived the role for it almost in dramatic terms - the play that enables us to reflect if we wish - which in turn had very distinct impacts on the ears.

And that is the BBC too for me in regard to this country, or it was, for it I am sure was the blueprint. Traditionally it was a service which by being its own voice as a voice of Britain became a voice of Britain and for many then one of the key voices of Britain. It didn't try to claim to sound like Britain or to represent Britain, for example via the extensive use of over-politically correct criteria. Neither was it a service that name checked Britain frequently but could have been a service anywhere. Then again, there was a time when it didn't have to strive to compete in overly emphasised wider markets.

Personally, I find the analogy interesting because it cuts across the usual demarcation lines. In terms of content, the obvious comparison even then was with Radios 1 and 2. While the play lists weren't as rigid, and the genres more wide ranging, than today, there was still plenty of scope for complaining about them. In fact, Capital within a few years became the bete noir for many rather than Bates and Powell. The obvious distinction was national versus local so one asked how it was also doing compared with BBC Radio London and looked at the raison d'etre for local radio in the round. But with hindsight, there is something substantive about overall sound, the way it is put together and mixed, the musicality of it if you will. That I think is highly pertinent to speech, it has a bearing on content which more naturally flows from it and that is more applicable somehow where there is supposed to be also a sense of location in radio. That's my 'vision' (!), as well as I can describe it!

[french frank]

Lat - the relevant parts of the Charter and Agreement seem to be here.

[Lateralthinking1]

Lat - the relevant parts of the Charter and Agreement seem to be here.

Thanks - but oh no! At a brief glance - more later - that is unexpectedly awful. It is 80% news/journalism and 20% new technology. Those objectives might as well be ones for a very dull newspaper undergoing functional changes in the 1980s.

Where are the arts and items of social interest? Where are the tone and colour that are only possible in the broadcasting media, not to mention specifically at the BBC? There is no distinct authority or character to it at all.

[french frank]

Thanks - but oh no! At a brief glance - more later - that is unexpectedly awful. It is 80% news/journalism and 20% new technology. Those objectives might as well be ones for a very dull newspaper undergoing functional changes in the 1980s. Where are the arts and items of social interest? Where is the tone and colour only possible of the broadcasting media? There is no distinct authority or character to it at all.

I'm not quite sure whether they came from the government, or the BBC with its eye warily glancing in the government's direction. It was all about the post-Hutton tightening up on how the BBC operated. I'm just writing 'our' Annual Report. Am bound to say I think descriptions like 'high quality, challenging, original, innovative and engaging' are almost totally meaningless.

The Trust appears to test this by asking questions like:

Do think (Radio 3) is high quality?
Do think (Radio 3) is challenging?
Do think (Radio 3) is original?
Do think (Radio 3) is innovative?
Do think (Radio 3) is engaging?

And people mumble, erm, yes, I think so, sort of. So, um, yes.

And the Trust says, that's good, then. Sorted.

[aeolium]

In drama terms they were at the very least interesting and worth acquainting the audience with, but to assume that a play is in any way 'difficult' because it portrays school racism, and that that makes it worthy of being singled out for special mention, seems to indicate an organisation which has totally lost its way where drama is concerned.

Exactly. I can't see what is particularly difficult about the theme of school racism, however difficult it is to experience. I didn't hear that particular play but I would be surprised if it came close to matching Giles Cooper's Unman, Wittering and Zigo as a portrayal of a school where a group of pupils exercised almost total control.

Of the productions listed, I think I was most impressed by the Corneille, the Ibsen and the O'Casey, though I missed the Wilson play.