BBC TV and Radio Arts coverage

[DracoM]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rlnhk

Compulsory listening: a real toe-to-toe involving Melvyn Bragg, Alan Yentob, Gillian Reynolds, Steve Hewlett.
A slugging match between big hitters, and both Bragg and Reynolds absolutely going for the BBC jugular.
BUT
the programme really maps out contentious areas that must affect R3 as well.

I'd be very interested in Forum Members reactions to this programme and its implications.

[Richard Tarleton]

Already flagged up here, and just now on the Sky Arts April Fool thread. An excellent discussion. I was much struck by Yentob trotting out all the BBC presenters who had arts shows - I must have missed them but apparently they were Dimblebey, Bruce, Paxman - and Reynolds telling him in no uncertain terms that presenters including him got in the way of the arts as far as she was concerned, the BBC approach just too presenter-based. It will be interesting to see what Bragg gets up to on Sky Arts.

[David-G]

It will be interesting to see what Bragg gets up to on Sky Arts.

It would be interesting if one had Sky.

[Nick Armstrong]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rlnhk

Compulsory listening: a real toe-to-toe involving Melvyn Bragg, Alan Yentob, Gillian Reynolds, Steve Hewlett.
A slugging match between big hitters, and both Bragg and Reynolds absolutely going for the BBC jugular.
BUT
the programme really maps out contentious areas that must affect R3 as well.

I'd be very interested in Forum Members reactions to this programme and its implications.

Thanks for drawing this to our attention. I listened to it en route to this evening's concert and back. Fascinating. Not sure I am up to noting its implications but my reactions were great interest and an impression that Mr Yentob is rather slippery. He did some classic question-dodging, deployed the Blair-style "Look... " as way of shifting the ground of the discussion, and made some jaw-dropping assertions. In particular it was astonishing that he countered Ms Reynolds's comment about needing a proper film programme on BBC1 by referring to the abortion called Film 2013 presented by 2 apparent morons inc. the simpering Winklemann who received the Yentob name-check. If that is supposed to be exemplary arts programming, then we really are in trouble.

Ms Reynolds's comments about Arts coverage being personality-driven, not subject-driven, had most traction for me - one wants to hear about artists, composers, performers and their works - not what Messrs Yentob or Dimbleby or Paxman think about them. Ditto for R3 what Ms Mohr-Pietsch thinks about *uckeroo Holiday or Mr Spiggins from Broadstairs &c. &c. ...

[ardcarp]

Certainly no punches pulled by Bragg or Reynolds. How refreshing to hear the BBC bashed...on the BBC. I found myself disagreeing with Bragg where he said [words to the effect] people were increasingly expecting to pay for viewing sport and the arts. Well I'm not, and I found myself cheering Ms Reynolds...in fact Caliban puts it perfectly:

Ms Reynolds's comments about Arts coverage being personality-driven, not subject-driven, had most traction for me - one wants to hear about artists, composers, performers and their works - not what Messrs Yentob or Dimbleby or Paxman think about them. Ditto for R3 what Ms Mohr-Pietsch thinks about *uckeroo Holiday or Mr Spiggins from Broadstairs &c. &c. ...

Past BBC programmes about composers (with an off-screen commentary) have been superb as is frequently remarked here. There must sadly be a set of BBC production rules nowadays:

1. Begin the prog with 100 two-second unrelated shots
2. Spend 5 minutes explaining the content (same tag to be used repeatedly if more than one episode)
3. Have a cool (alternatively highly eccentric) presenter doing 'to camera' shots at least once a minute
4. Have the same ditto doing a cut-away or walk-off after each sentence
5. Ditto ditto driving (or on a train/plane) to Blue-Peterise the fact he/sha has gone somewhere else.
6. Don't go too deeply into the subject for the stupid audience
7. Re-iterate everything at the end.

Admittedly The Road to El Alemein (re-) broadcast last Friday wasn't too dumbed down. But Jonathan Dimbleby (who was given as cool a look as is possible for a man of his age) popped up all over the place; pretty much the whole of Europe, North Africa and the USA. Did he really have to be in every place mentioned in the script (but nice work, Jonathan)? But Mrs A and I found ourselves hysterical by the end of the programme because he wore the same blue denim shirt and trousers in every shot. Given that the programme must have taken several weeks to make, and discounting the possibility that JD's personal hygiene is suspect, one has to add :

8. Have your presenter dressed in the same clothes at all times in case the stupid audience doesn't recognise him/her.

[Richard Tarleton]

It's odd - I have less problem with the presenter-led approach in programmes about the visual arts, where the presenter is an unquestioned expert in his field - I suppose this goes back to Kenneth Clarke, through Robert Hughes to (more recently) Andrew Graham-Dixon or Waldemar Janusczac, the latter in particular being something of an acquired taste.

The "same outfit throughout" has long been the trademark of David Attenborough who travels to remote places, often camping, and who operates a "one on, one off" policy for largely practical convenience. He has discussed this - shirts are subjected to the sniff test to see if they will do another day. But it is silly when not necessary - Mary Beard's red coat, Lucy Worseley's blue coat, etc.

[aeolium]

Here's someone else attacking the BBC's coverage of the arts and calling for improvements under Hall:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/heres-another-job-for-your-todo-list-lord-hall-restore-arts-at-the-bbc-to-their-former-glory-8562067.html?origin=internalSearch

"The BBC has shuffled too much from the main channels to BBC4. But it is BBC1 and BBC2 that have the big viewing figures, and culture should be embedded into these channels. Also, the general lack, not just of new plays, but most particularly of classic drama, from Ibsen and Chekhov to Pinter and Stoppard, is woeful."

I found myself disagreeing with Bragg where he said [words to the effect] people were increasingly expecting to pay for viewing sport and the arts.

And I, ardcarp - and anyway, they are paying already through the licence fee which all but the oldest pensioners have to pay. Access to the arts through the BBC should be the equivalent of the early libraries in opening up these works to many who would otherwise be unable to find out about them (except by paying to go to theatres, concerts etc). Bragg mentioned the popularity of the live-to-cinema broadcasts of operas and plays but why is the BBC simply missing out on this? Instead the arts coverage is largely confined to tedious vanity-fests for presenters like Yentob, who has been as responsible as anyone for the serious decline in BBC arts programming in the last couple of decades. I so agree with Gillian Reynolds (and ardcarp's amusing set of rules) about presenter-driven programmes. Half the time when I watch a programme about the visual arts, like Graham-Dixon's one on the arts of the Low Countries recently, I am yelling at the presenter to get out of the way so that we can see the damn paintings

Edit: And of course the personality cult has infected radio arts programming, see Playlist threads passim ad nauseam.

[Ferretfancy]

It's odd - I have less problem with the presenter-led approach in programmes about the visual arts, where the presenter is an unquestioned expert in his field - I suppose this goes back to Kenneth Clarke, through Robert Hughes to (more recently) Andrew Graham-Dixon or Waldemar Janusczac, the latter in particular being something of an acquired taste.

The "same outfit throughout" has long been the trademark of David Attenborough who travels to remote places, often camping, and who operates a "one on, one off" policy for largely practical convenience. He has discussed this - shirts are subjected to the sniff test to see if they will do another day. But it is silly when not necessary - Mary Beard's red coat, Lucy Worseley's blue coat, etc.

In a sequence on one location, a museum or a gallery for example, what appears on screen for a few minutes might take three days to film, in which case changes of costume would appear from shot to shot. It's easy to forget how shooting out of chronological order needs careful control of continuity.

[ardcarp]

It's easy to forget how shooting out of chronological order needs careful control of continuity.

Yes, but the 'new' style of production is so obsessed with 'telling a story' (Yentob said how important this was ) it becomes like Jackanory. It would be quite refreshing for the viewer to be allowed to make his/her own connections.

[aeolium]

Yes, but the 'new' style of production is so obsessed with 'telling a story' (Yentob said how important this was ) it becomes like Jackanory. It would be quite refreshing for the viewer to be allowed to make his/her own connections.

And a story can be told without the narrator appearing on screen at all. This happens in a number of documentary films about composers, for instance Christopher Nupen's film about Respighi. The only real reasons for the constant appearance of presenters on screen in documentaries are vanity and self-promotion.

[ardcarp]

This happens in a number of documentary films about composers, for instance Christopher Nupen's film about Respighi.

This and other Nupen documentaries have never been bettered IMHO.

The only real reasons for the constant appearance of presenters on screen in documentaries are vanity and self-promotion.

I'm sure there is some truth in this, but I suspect it has more to do with the producers' low regard for the viewer. Their thinking? We live in a world of fame and celebs. Therefore our attention can only be grabbed by a celeb and sustained by an appearance of the celeb at least once per minute.

In other programmes, admittedly not in the arts, celebs have to be seen to be 'hands on'. Visiting the blacksmith? Celeb seen making wrought-iron gate. Embroidery? Flying a Jumbo Jet? Making a violin? Taming a lion? Celeb seen doing them all. Amazing how talented they all are.

Now how about a hands-on painting of the Sistine Chapel vaulted ceiling?

[Serial_Apologist]

Now how about a hands-on painting of the Sistine Chapel vaulted ceiling?

Nah - scaffolding firm would charge too much.

[ardcarp]

And there's elf 'n safety issues...

[DracoM]

This and other Nupen documentaries have never been bettered IMHO.



I'm sure there is some truth in this, but I suspect it has more to do with the producers' low regard for the viewer. Their thinking? We live in a world of fame and celebs. Therefore our attention can only be grabbed by a celeb and sustained by an appearance of the celeb at least once per minute.

In other programmes, admittedly not in the arts, celebs have to be seen to be 'hands on'. Visiting the blacksmith? Celeb seen making wrought-iron gate. Embroidery? Flying a Jumbo Jet? Making a violin? Taming a lion? Celeb seen doing them all. Amazing how talented they all are.

Now how about a hands-on painting of the Sistine Chapel vaulted ceiling?

And if I have to sit through yet ANOTHER travel / history / stately home documentary with some over-earnest jerk walking with rucksack on back while looking backwards over his or her shoulder while talking to 'us' I will scream. I just long of then to trip into some all-consuming abyss and the last we hear will be a vanishing scream a la Nigel.

Except that they'll edit it out.

[ardcarp]

Having now just about caught up with all the music on TV and radio that I missed over the Easter period, I feel it ought to be said that the BBC did give us some very good programmes and plenty of them. I've spent the last hour and a half watching JEG's Bach a Passionate Life (OK, I know there's a thread about it elsewhere) and thoroughly enjoyed it. Maybe his reputation and force of personality made the producer wary of forcing him into the currently fashionable documentary straitjacket that we all hate so much.