‘The tension was built up ingeniously with the suspense evenly distributed amongst the various subjects so that one remained entirely in the dark until the end.’

The Times on ‘Someone We Know’.

‘It is difficult after all these years of television plays to imagine anything more amateur than last night’s TV Playhouse production of “Someone We Know” … nothing rang true … It came as no surprise when Thomas Harris came out as the murderer.’

Daily Mail

‘Pleas send us two of your free photo bookie and address from your Company, because we wanted to join your Company. Try to write our names on your Company book.

‘We will send you monkey skin, parrot feathers and old stamps.’

Letter from two schoolboys in Ghana.

‘Whilst reading my paper this morning something set me thinking. It is the everlasting brickbats thrown at the programmes televised by commercial television. As a humble housewife may I give some praise for the many, many evenings of pleasure afforded to me on television. I am not a TV Zombie, because some shows I do dislike, but I realise that everyone has his own taste.

‘We have only had a television now for less than a year but I shall always be grateful for the many hours of pleasure it has given me, in an otherwise rather drab life.

‘Good luck to you and all who make it possible.’

Letter front an Eltham viewer.

GALA

‘As compilations of bits and pieces of culture go, this was a distinctly superior compilation.’

Philip Purser, News Chronicle.

‘As a job of offering culture to the mass audience without appearing to use force, Associated-Rediffusion’s Gala, a concert programme by leading international artists, deserves encouragement.’

Peter Black, Daily Mail.

‘My mind boggles at the thought of what ITV must have paid out to get together last night’s amazing array of international talent for Gala, the first programme in a new musical series … I had to settle for that discredited old adjective “fabulous”.’

Phil Diack, Daily Herald.

‘I am eighty years old and practically an invalid. I find the ITV programmes so varied. They certainly make my life (I live alone) 100 per cent more interesting.

‘I love the African series and the television games, “Green”, “Miles” and others, the plays and films. But please don’t have too much sport, education and such. The BBC have that in abundance and it makes me tired. Your programmes arc so right and friendly. I speak not only for myself, but many who visit me.’

Letter from Mr A. M. Wilce, Bridgwater, Somerset.

‘All the same, I believe the common man has a perfect right to enjoy himself in his own way. If superior persons dislike his tastes (and they do), then they must lump it.

‘More than that: they had better stop going on and on and on with their wailings against TV. For they have become a bore.

‘The fact is that most people, grown-ups and kids alike, watch the telly, on the whole, for fun.

‘They want to be entertained. It does not corrupt them, or debase them either. Nor do they take it as solemnly as the superior persons suppose.

‘For the common man with all his limitations, has a large supply of horse-sense. So has his wife. And they are perfectly capable of taking care of their own kids.’

Charles Curran, Empire News.

The post They Say… December 1959 appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

‘I read in the national Press that Val Parnell and ATV are against Associated-Rediffusion’s suggestion to the ITA that the third network, if and when it comes off, be a cultural one.

‘The reason suggested for this was that AR-TV is frightened of opposition. How can it be when it made more money than any other commercial TV company last year? It has fought through and triumphed against the opposition to date. So why should a commendable suggestion to support a cultural network, sharing the costs with other companies, be interpreted as a case of “nerves”?’

Letter from a Swansea viewer.

‘Sir Ian Jacob, BBC Director-General, said in London yesterday any new television wave-band should be shared by the BBC and ITA. Both organizations should be allowed to transmit two services, giving viewers a choice of four programmes.

‘Each of us could start a new service, but it has to be something new and not a duplication of what is going on in the present services.’

Daily Telegraph – June 10, 1959

‘Both ITA and BBC should be provided with an additional service solely for educational programmes (I use the word “educational” in its broadest sense) and specialized programmes with minority appeal. Such services would make it possible to provide more programmes for minorities, covering for example opera, ballet, and classical music, apart from which there might well be distinct commercial advantages in helping to make these specialized activities financially more self-supporting. We should be willing to participate in such a service, notwithstanding that it would have to be subsidized by our existing service.’

John Spencer Wills, company chairman, Nov. 25, 1958.

‘The Age of Juliet’. . . was fascinating to watch and a great exercise for our wits.’

Nancy Spain, Daily Express.

‘Ones fears for ‘The Age of Juliet’ adapted from the French on Independent Television last night, were only too well founded.’

L.L., Daily Telegraph.

‘This is the first time I have ever commented publicly about a televised programme, but I feel I must tell you how much I appreciated, enjoyed and admired your initiative in flying over so promptly the filmed interview with Lord Montgomery by Morrow and Colinwood. In particular did I appreciate the value of this following the criticisms which appeared in the British Press by people who obviously had not seen the film, but quoted excerpts of the interview, which gave erroneous impressions.

‘It was really excellent, but if there is a next time with another interview with Lord Montgomery by two such first-class interviewers, please do try and make it earlier in the evening, as I feel many people probably missed this beneficial programme by going to bed. I like to think the advertisers would understand – !

My very sincere congratulations.’

Letter from a Beaconsfield viewer.

‘May I slap you on the back for “Motoring Club”? I do not drive, never owned a car, but you set me thinking. The whole fifteen minutes was fascinating and the script very understandable. More power to your elbow!’

Letter from a Twickenham viewer.

‘My little boy of five has been very ill since before Christmas. During his long stay home from school we bought a TV set. Believe me, the different programmes have done more to buck him up than any doctor ever could. He is not only interested in the programmes but asks no end of questions about the studios and cameras, etc. I feel that I would just like to thank you all for unknowingly giving my son a great deal of entertainment during his illness and convalescence.’

Letter from Chelmsford viewer.

‘My husband and I look forward to seeing Jim’s Inn. We both think that Jim’s Inn is the best Advertising Magazine on television. Let us hope we will be seeing Jim’s Inn for many more weeks to come.

Postcard from Fulham viewer.

The post They Say… November 1959 appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

‘My wife and I would very much like to get tickets to see one of your programmes as we are trying to be in London for our twenty-fifth wedding anniversary on a second honeymoon. When we got married the only way we could get the family car for our honeymoon was to take my mother and family along, which consisted of a pet monkey and seven children. Most of our honeymoon was spent looking after the seven children and chasing the monkey who was always getting loose. We do hope if we can make it that the second honeymoon will be less eventful than the first.’

Letter addressed to ‘Commercial TV London, England’, from Greensboro, North Carolina, U.S.A.

‘A massive slice of ham was cut off by Associated-Rediffusion last night in the play “Family on Trial’’.’

Nancy Spain, Daily Express

‘“Family on Trial” was one of the most worthwhile ITV plays I have seen for a long time.’

Phil Diack, Daily Herald

‘Your programme is a very good one. I like it very much. I enjoy the music page best. Will you have some more animals because I like animals. I enjoy your programmes because there is a lot of variety in them. The programme is not too long. That is why I like it.’

Edenbridge, Kent, viewer, aged 9, on ‘Lucky Dip’.

‘I would be very interested to know who are the twelve most popular BBC television actresses considered by the BBC, in order of popularity and, also, I wondered if you could tell me if there is a new panel game to take the place of “What’s My Line?” If so when is it due to start.’

South Devon viewer’s letter addressed to Associated-Rediffusion – one of the few which we couldn’t answer

‘Surely the oddest thing about television is the fear, prejudice and open hostility which it seems to arouse. There is a widespread feeling among educated and responsible people that it is something more than a new means of communication; that it is a sinister influence undermining educational standards and social life.

‘I believe this to be nonsense, and I am certain that the same things were said about the printing press and other inventions in their nursery days.’

L. Marsland Gander, Daily Telegraph

‘As a member of Associated-Rediffusion’s Educational Advisory Council and a headmaster who has been using television programmes for schools since their inception in 1957, I was interested in your readers’ letters on schools TV.

‘It was reassuring to see that most of them agreed with the policy adopted in this country; namely, that at present television programmes for schools should be supplementary to the work of the teacher and make no attempt to replace him.

‘There is no danger of standardization, because teachers receive sufficient advance information – by means of Teachers’ Notes – to enable them to select and use programmes according to the particular needs of each class.

‘I, too, am “cool” about the closed-circuit “master-teacher” technique sometimes used in America. In this country the teaching profession still has a big job to do in making fuller use of the existing service and helping the two broadcasting organizations to produce the best possible programmes for schools.

Letter to News Chronicle from Fielden Hughes, Wimbledon

‘I should like, now that our bookings have temporarily come to an end, to thank you all for your most valued support and co-operation.

‘There is no doubt at all that this particular department is still fired with the old “pioneering” spirit, and the manner in which you nurse such a diverse range of peculiar products in each programme fills me with admiration.’

Letter from an advertising agency to advertising magazines.

‘Despite the slight discrepancies, Cyril Coke’s production extracted every ounce of entertainment from a smooth plot and a neat, if not witty, dialogue.’

Neville Randall – Daily Sketch, on ‘Skyline for Two’

‘By handling the main idea respectfully and playing down the marginal incidents, the director, Mr Cyril Coke, made something stilted and humourless of the whole.’

The Times

‘We have had our TV set for four months now and after looking in at your programmes almost every evening I thought I would like to thank you for such good entertainment. One hears people criticise television but I can only think they must be very hard to please. We have three young children so can very rarely go out of an evening. We think the children’s programmes are very good, our children will never miss any of them. Please thank everyone concerned for giving us such good viewing in such a friendly way.

Letter from Thornton Heath, Surrey, viewer

‘When I grow up I would like to be the mother of eleven athletic boys. Then I could start a football team of my own and sell them to Gateshead, because they need some help.’

Letter from 12-year-old Blaydon-on-Tyne viewer.

‘I would like to make a suggestion about the programmes when you get the extra viewing time. Is it possible to have a record programme similar to the one Joan Edwards used to introduce in the early days of commercial TV? There have also been some really good shows that could bear a repeat. How nice it would be to see the “Father Knows Best”, “Sir Lancelot” and other series we enjoyed so much over again.

‘I must be one of your most devoted TV viewers as I am handicapped and I pass many a happy hour watching TV. So you see I for one would welcome the extra hours of TV.

Letter from Dalton-in-Furness, Lancashire, viewer

‘Having viewed television both here and in Canada I have come to the conclusion that your network cannot be surpassed and I must thank you for the fine plays that we, the viewers, appreciate.’

Letter from viewer in Hyde Park Gate

‘As a play it held me just about as closely as an animated story in an American magazine and, oh, so seldom animated.’

Nancy Spain, Daily Express, reviewing ‘ The Winner’

‘“The Winner”, directed by David Boisseau, turned out to be one of the smoothest plays of the year.’

Richard Sear, Daily Mirror

‘Why must such delectable programmes as “Private Secretary”, “Dick and the Duchess”, and “African Patrol” be screened at such unreasonable time as 6.10 p.m.? They are fresh and amusing and such a change from the eternal westerns. At 6.10 p.m. housewives like myself are cooking dinner with one hand and putting the youngsters to bed with the other. It makes me hopping mad to have to miss them, just catching a glimpse in passing. Surely programmes such as “This Week” or “What the Papers Say” could be switched to this time instead. After all, although these programmes are interesting, I do not think it would seriously upset anyone to miss them.’

Letter from Leyton viewer

The post They Say… August 1959 appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

‘I believe you are the right person I should write to on the following matter. It concerns the film entitled ‘Christmas in Cyprus’, which as you know was made out here largely under the direction of Peter Hunt, and shown over your network on Christmas Day in England.

‘You have very kindly sent us a 35 mm copy of the film and this has been seen by a large number of the security forces in Cyprus. I would like you to know what a very good impression indeed this film has made; it does not overstate the case and it shows very vividly the part played by the Security Forces. I am sure that it has been a big factor in raising the morale of the soldiers.

‘I would, therefore, like to thank you very much for all the trouble taken in preparing this film and for your kindness in letting us have a copy.’

Letter to Captain Brownrigg from Major-General Kenneth Darling, Director of Operations in Cyprus.

‘It is so very nice of you to reply to my letters. I expect you think it is quite mad for a happily-married mother to be writing after photos of TV heroes. But at least it proves what a good job you are all doing. Keep it up!’

Jean Swain, Coventry (Viewer’s letter to programme correspondence).

‘Congratulations and thanks for these very fine programmes. Daniel Farson’s interview with (R.C.) Fr. Christie; “The Killing of the King” – First Class!!!’

Edward O’Hara, Yorks. (Viewer’s postcard).

EXPRESS LIFT

‘Yet for all the fortune he has made in Associated-Television he is still a man of the people. His humour is lusty. His manners are adequate, but not impeccable. When he goes up to his close-carpeted suite in Television House he will still pat the lift boy on the back and know his Christian name.’

Extract from Daily Express story on Mr Lew Grade. We have been asked to deny reports that as a result lift boys are now going to be employed.

‘I would like you to know how much I appreciated your “Hallé at Work” programme. I thought the sound was handled particularly well.’

Viewer’s ‘phone call to Night Duty Officer.
Director: Cyril Coke; sound balancer, Tony Couch.

‘The lady in the programme should be shown off a bit more because she is good looking.’

A 14-year-old boy’s comments on Muriel Young’s appearance in ‘Lucky Dip’.

‘As it turned out we were given a production which can truly be called distinguished. Ronald Marriott directed with the deftest blending of sensitivity and passion, and the acting was good down to the humblest member of the 40-strong cast.’

Denis Thomas, Daily Mail on ‘The Killing of The King’.

‘Please forgive this rather long letter, I know you are busy, but being a strong supporter of commercial TV long before it became a reality, I feel I must let you know my observations of the viewing public.

‘I am an insurance agent and have to call on people in their homes and as my pet subject is TV I know you would be pleased to know that 90 per cent of the people who have a choice of programmes choose ITV. But the biggest let down is the much vaunted ‘‘Play of the Week”’.

‘In contrast, “Film of the Week” is very popular and the general opinion is a film is better than the average play…. So take less notice of M.P.s and enemies of ITV, many of whom haven’t a TV set.’

Letter from Tooting viewer.

‘Being a young housewife whose main pleasures are derived from a three-year-old son and a one-year-old TV set, you may be sure that my choice in programmes is confirmed to those which give the highest degree of entertainment.

‘Therefore, although I have never in all my days written to any personality (not even in my film-struck teenage days) I felt that I must write to you on a superb programme “Look In” which has only one fault – it is too short! Hoping you will continue indefinitely to give myself and others so much pleasure for many a Tuesday evening to come.’

Letter to Michael Ingrams from Mrs Lois D. Morris, Middlesex.

‘Why not have a separate channel for kids. That would suit everybody and please all of us. If that fails, the other alternative rests with the parents. Why do they allow the kids to sit up? They seem to be allowed to do as they please. That is why there is so much delinquency about.’

Letter from Redhill, Surrey, viewer complaining about ‘Mark Saber’ being taken out of the early evening because of the large number of children viewing.

‘I like “Lucky Dip” because you get so many personalities.

I have never written to “Lucky Dip” before because today was the first time I have seen it.’

Young Isle of Wight viewer.

‘Usually the show succeeds: it has some of the drive and guts of Fleet Street, and is not afraid of being brash now and again. I think most viewers would welcome a quarter of an hour’s extension here.

Henry Turton, Punch, on ‘This Week’.

“This Week” turned from men to rabbits and gave us one of those cleverly-cut interviews with children which grip the heart.’

Colin Frame, The Star.
Director: Sheila Gregg; interviewer: Michael Nelson; scriptwriter: Colin Willock.

‘… the people who put on television entertainment have a sense of responsibility appropriate to those who pour shows nightly into the home, where children may be watching. After inquiry into current stage plays I reject with scorn all complaints about TV violence and puerility.’

L. Marsland Gander, Daily Telegraph.

‘I want to hand a belated pat on the back to Associated-Rediffusion…. Associated-Rediffusion was the first company to transmit commercial television programmes in Britain and it has been well aware of its responsibilities in the field of culture from the start. One of its first acts was to place the Hallé Orchestra under long-term contract and for nearly five years it has featured this orchestra in televised performances and on the concert platform. AR-TV also embarked on the ambitious scheme for staging classical plays at the Saville Theatre and, after short runs, transferring them to the television screen. The company is now offering more life drama than any other programme contractor.

The half-hour news feature programme, ‘This Week”, has been maintained in a peak-hour time every week since January, 1956. AR-TV also introduced the first regular television broadcast for schools ever seen in Great Britain, but the Beaverbrooks and the Mayhews prefer to forget about the good things and think only of the Westerns, the variety shows and the advertisements.

‘The Beaverbrook Press has backed many losers in its time but its campaign against television may well turn out to be its biggest failure.’

Ernest Kay, Time and Tide.

With all these faults the play still had some highly entertaining moments. Gladys Young (Aunt Ben) was a delight, and the meetings of the Irish M.P.’s full of life. Costumes and camera work excelled.’

Dick Sear, Daily Mirror, on ‘Parnell’, Play of the Week.
Director: David Boisseau; Costumes designed by Ernest Hewitt; Cameras manned by Vic Gardiner, Jeff Sheppard and the rest of crew 1.

Illustrations by Geraldine Spence

The post They Say… April 1959 appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

When Associated-Rediffusion first began to transmit in 1955 it was David’s challenge to the Goliath BBC. I think we all ought to remember that now, when, after a few near misses, the pebble has hit the complacent monster. We are all too apt to forget the impudent, and as it seemed, imprudent courage of the first assault.

The worst thing about metaphors is that they don’t mix as well as gin and French, and so I don’t want to pursue this David and Goliath business too closely. A-R TV isn’t so small and the BBC isn’t dead. Let me state my first interest in this effusion – apart from the money. It is to consider what part the TV critic has played in television.

In my opinion the influence of the TV critic has been valuable in providing entertainment for readers and publicity for individuals or organizations. It has been entirely negligible in its effect on the general spin of the wheel.

Now to my second point on which I can expand more. What is the function of the newspaper television critic? What is he trying to do? There is vast misunderstanding about this among television producers and planners, in fact among all those people on the other side of the fence. I find it exceedingly curious that this should be so. They understand well enough their own problem which is to entertain the public while at the same time maintaining as much artistic integrity as time space circumstances will allow. The critic is in the same boat.

When it comes to understanding the problem of the newspaper critic the average television man betrays an abysmal ignorance. This is evident in every reference made to reporters and newspapers in TV drama. Playwrights do not seem to know the first thing about newspaper technique and the producers even less. This applies to all TV organizations, not merely A-R.

The average TV producer, confused about the methods of the newspaper reporter, is equally at sea about the function of the critic. He thinks of Ruskin, Hazlitt, Shaw, and St John Ervine, failing to realize that none of these giants made his reputation within the framework of a modern newspaper. Newspapers exist, oddly enough, to propagate news. Anything that appears is the livelier for an admixture of topicality. A first night is news; the plot of a play not yet seen by any but the first-night audience is also news.

That is the big snag with television. At a first showing a TV play has been seen by ten thousand full houses. It may never be seen again. Has a notice about it any place in a paper that lives and dies on the day’s news? Yes, it can have if treated on the basis of a football match; the result is known but readers want to know the expert’s opinion and to re-live the thrills. But it is secondary to real news; if an economic blizzard came and newspapers were cut down, television criticism would probably be one of the first things to go.

Many people seem to think that there is some sharply defined dividing line between news and criticism in newspapers. This is not so. The function of a critic – and let me make it clear that I am speaking only of the newspaper type, not the lesser breeds without the law – is to entertain his readers, tell them something that they do not already know, while at the same time being constructive and generous. Style helps, but haste to catch editions, the telephone and the torture of a thousand cuts, or death on the stone, do not.

Some wounded television characters think there is no such thing as a good critic, only different degrees of bad ones. Personally I agree with Shaw that the golden rule is there are no golden rules. And I think Ruskin’s reminder that the most beautiful things in the world are the most useless, such as peacocks, ought to be applied to all TV critiques and critics. Or maybe, just to complete this piece of literary exhibitionism, Hazlitt was right when he said that the art of pleasing consists in being pleased, whatever that may mean.

Perhaps one other thing ought to be said about TV critics. They have inherited the traditions of sound radio which from the start was not only mixed up with news but also with gossip writing and a certain amount of Press antipathy to a formidable new competitor. Luckily, in these more civilized times all is sweetness and light between the Press and ITV. All? Well, nearly all. That’s the best way I can express it.

Leonard Marsland Gander

The post They Say… Leonard Marsland Gander appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

How would you take it if I said that Associated-Rediffusion was the most BBC-like of all the programme contractors? As a compliment or as an insult? I suspect that some of you would take it one way and some the other, and if this suspicion is well-founded, then surely it tells us something interesting about Associated-Rediffusion.

I do say it, and I mean it as a compliment. The BBC have their funny little ways, and I, for one, have not been exactly bashful in pointing out what have seemed to be their errors of judgment. But, somewhere, submerged beneath the attitudinizing and the patronage and the rather pathetic intermittent yearning to be all things to all men, there is a solid stratum of nineteenth-century progressiveness and its invariable concomitant, integrity.

The BBC’s earnest wish to improve our shining hour is, to me, the permanently splendid thing about it, the British miracle; a fundamentally benevolent institutional integrity which survives the indifference of its beneficiaries, the variable quality of its servants, the derision and malevolence of its enemies. Some of this unquenchable nineteenth-century belief in the perfectibility of mankind and the entire rightness of ‘improvement’ rubbed off on to Associated-Rediffusion. I get a strong impression of it – not least when I talk to people who pride themselves on being free from it. Several of the veteran programme companies have their streak of nervous quasi-didacticism. Uneasily they slip in a few things plainly designed to ‘improve’, rather like a pickpocket slipping a contrite farthing into the collection box.

But whereas Granada are pickled in old-fashioned North Country radicalism diluted by modern scepticism, and ATV find it difficult to dissociate merit from money, Associated-Rediffusion are still without a characteristic corporate posture, and give an impression of benevolent amorphousness which suggests a rather deep-seated case of committee-ism.

This is common knowledge, perhaps. But is it a bad thing? I think not. Vagueness is itself a characteristic, and it can even be a useful and a healthy one. I do not belong to the school of cultural neo-fascists who scream for a dictator to impose his will on the organization (any organization). God forbid that a cult of Caesarism should encourage ‘strong men’ and their inevitable sycophants. I do not subscribe to the cult of the ‘strong man’, which is disturbingly widespread. The fuhrer principle is abominable wherever it is met, and the most disturbing of all current manifestations of defeatism is this pitiful urge to be marshalled, the almost pathological desire to conform. It is indistinguishable from the death wish.

Associated-Rediffusion gives the impression of being a civil organization, in which the individual voice is given a hearing. This is so very much preferable to the para-military set-up, dominated by one will, that I freely forgive a certain lack of definition, a touch of fuzziness, which can sometimes be discerned in the end-product. Time is on the side of Associated-Rediffusion. Over the long haul the inherent reasonableness of Associated-Rediffusion’s way of doing things will prevail, when we have become a little tired of the power-dominated approach, which makes a clearer-cut, stronger short-term impact, but of which one tires so soon. At least, I hope that this will be so.

Whatever the shortcomings of this almost metaphysical approach to the mechanics of corporate responsibility, in terms of day-by-day programme output Associated-Rediffusion holds its own pretty well. Your school programmes are, to my mind, uniformly good, and when you turn schoolmaster in the evening you rarely put a foot wrong. Most, if not all of your features, are informed by a spirit of pure reasonableness worthy of the BBC at its best: responsible television-making on the conscientious or above-navel level.

‘This Week’ is somehow permanently one pace behind ‘Panorama’ – not at all because you just can’t do it, but simply (I think) because ‘This Week’ tries so desperately hard, as if over-conscious of its massive rival, and just misses the calm certitude which comes of relaxing. Your drama is in the same boat as everybody else’s – that is to say, always on the lookout for capable writing, of which it finds its fair share if not a bit more – and in the weird twilight region of light entertainment you just about hold your own. Associated-Rediffusion television always reminds me of the London Evening News. No one would call that a boulevardier’s paper. It lacks that shine of smartness.

But it goes into a great many homes precisely because it is somehow homely, the product of slightly but not conspicuously above-average minds and spirits. It is essentially suburban. It reflects the average householder’s outlook quite faithfully. It can be corny but it is always comfortable. In fact, it is comfortably corny. It gives you the illusion of being in the swim, but you never feel out of your depth.

There is nothing contemptible about this. The avantgarde is very important, but not all-important. An organization devoted to mass-communications need not be ashamed if it acts as a sort of filter, straining off what is palatable to the average palate. Averageness is a fact of life, as inescapable as straight hair, and as blameless. So long as you remember that practically everyone aspires, and keep on the right side of complacency, I don’t think you will go far wrong.

Maurice Wiggin

The post They Say… Maurice Wiggin appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

An outsider looks at A-R … for a start, that fusion introduction makes me sound like Colin Wilson. So let’s state here and now that I’ve no intention of being horse-whipped. Still that Outsider tag is probably justified, since this article arose out of a lunch date I had with your editor. I was sounding off about A-R in the approved John Osborne AYM manner when he pulled me up.

‘Don’t waste it on an audience of one’, he said, ‘put it on paper and tell the whole company.’ Let’s get one point straight. When you’re an outsider looking in it always seems easy to do the other chap’s job. But let the theorizing end and the practical business begin and the snags queue up. We can all be Stanley Matthews until the ball’s at our feet.

My newspaper work brings me in touch regularly with four ITV companies – each of which is taking on a distinctive personality. To my mind A-R is the least easily identifiable of the Big Four.

Think of ATV and the picture is of show business, variety, gimmicks, professionalism, the big drum, visiting Americans and Val Parnell. Turn to Granada and you sec Sidney Bernstein ruling the roost and hatching out a lot of good ideas and programmes, with here and there a bad egg in the entertainment basket.

ABC conjures up fast-talking Howard Thomas, a mixture of good and indifferent shows, and a general air of slow but steady progress.

Which leaves A-R. How do you sum up the company? It gives no impression of onemanship. Who is the single individual who can be cornered and asked for a quick answer to the 64,000 dollar question? This is important to everybody writing about TV because when key questions are being asked we look for an answer today. Tomorrow or later on is useless. And by answer I don’t mean a diplomatically phrased ‘it could well be that…’ or ‘when the consideration arises A-R will take due notice’ piece of nonsense.

Of course there are times when A-R prefers to play it strong and silent. However, when facts are getting out and questions being asked then let us please have a quick and definite answer. That way A-R will get a better Press than by letting limited information and guesswork produce half a story.

TEAM SPIRIT?

Does the same team spirit and enthusiasm exist inside A-R that is found in your competitors?

This isn’t a matter of individual outlook. Some of the nicest people to be met in TV nestle under A-R’s wing. But collectively does the vitality and urgency which marked those invigorating early days of Channel Nine still exist?

Tell me I’m wrong. Tell me that the spirit is there and kept for private consumption rather than the public gaze. I hope it is so.

For my money you’ve slowed down. Some of the fun seems to have gone from life – which is surprising to an outsider when TV is so obviously one of the most alive-o industries with thousands of lookers-on-and-in only too keen to break into it.

Ignoring the financial side of things A-R snatched the viewing plum when it landed the London Monday-to-Friday contract.

But what unique contribution has the Company made to the service? Whatever your answer, here is a further question – has that contribution been as important as you expected?

I’ve been disappointed. A-R as one of the pioneering companies had to pay the penalty for the many and expected mistakes. It seems you stockpiled too much and these ‘canned’ shows played too big a role in your programme schedules. If you’re loading schedules with film it doesn’t leave much space for the live products of your staff.

So the impression gained from the screen was that A-R was more interested in the ready made product than in do-it-yourself shows. This impression remains. I’d like to sec A-R come out with a lot more live shows devised and mounted by the staff.

They couldn’t all be winners but a fair proportion might ring the bell.

HOLBORN AT EIGHT?

It is in variety that I believe A-R needs a boost. Where is your Palladium show or ‘Chelsea At Eight’? Where are your Maria Callas’s or Bob Hope’s?

From time-to-time you get the celebrity names but usually it is left to ATV or Granada to scoop the pool.

Where’s your comedy rival to ‘The Army Game’? I’m not forgetting those Top Ten quizzes ‘Double Your Money’ and ‘Take Your Pick’. A-R screens them, yet can hardly claim credit for either.

I’d like to see better scripting in variety, better productions, less tclcrccording, more showmanship and, well – glitter.

You’ve had your successes with offbeat shows like ‘Fred’, ‘Son of Fred’, etc. – but they are no longer around. More’s the pity.

Drama has hit the heights. I remember Pete Murray in ‘The Last Enemy’ … some of the Ted Willis plays. Lately, the impact has seemed less strong.

I don’t put that forward as a necessarily correct view. However, it’s mine. I realize that A-R’s drama maintains a good standard and it’s not easy finding unusual stories popular with the mass.

In documentaries and features A-R has been seen at its best. Here you have had intelligent, first-class programmes which other companies must have envied and which assaulted the BBC where it thought itself unchallengeable.

You found an outstanding interviewer-reporter in Michael Ingrams, screened two talked about and enjoyed ‘Look Out’ and ‘Look In’ series and promptly forgot about him.

I’m not forgetting those major documentaries of Russia and America – both highly praised but using him once every six months or so seems a waste.

I’d also like to mention Caryl Doncaster, Dan Farson and Nick Barker. They’ve all added to A-R’s reputation.

Do you recall the documentary that the Company did on fan fever? I still remember it and I’d like to know why A-R hasn’t turned out many more like it.

Can I pay a well-earned tribute next to weatherman Laurie West? It’s not the easiest of jobs telling viewers why it was wet yesterday, was wet today and it’s going to be wet tomorrow.

I like Mr West’s friendly personality, his commonsense and understandable explanations about deep depressions and the like, and I’m sure the majority of viewers prefer his performance to that of the BBC’s weather team.

But let’s take a look at the programmes which follow him in a typical week this summer. On Mondays the London viewer gets two Granada shows and one from ATV.

A-R’s contribution? The ‘My Wife and I’ series, the American originated ‘Wagon Train’, ‘Murder Bag’ and ‘Undercurrent’ – I’m leaving out advertising magazines. That’s a reasonable bunch. Three live shows and one film.

Tuesdays it’s not so good a story. Two live shows from Granada and two more from ATV. A-R chips in with youth-club show ‘Who Knows?’, Bob Cummings and Late, very Late Extra.

Better on Wednesdays – two from Granada and three from A-R. A play, a quiz and musical variety.

Thursdays? Equally good. Two from Granada and the rest from A-R. These are ‘Cool for Cats’, ‘San Francisco Beat’, ‘This Week’, a ‘Jack Hylton Half-hour’ and ‘Palais Party’. Finally, Friday. Three from ATV, one from Granada, and ‘Gun Law’, ‘Turnabout’ and a Jack Hylton show out of the home stable.

Where is the highlight to the A-R week? Where are the shows that are adding something lasting to the development of TV?

Maybe I’m being too critical? A-R is pleasing millions of viewers with the existing schedules. I believe it could please many more and give fresh incentive to the staff by working on new shows and ideas.

However, until you strike your own path and present many more live programmes I don’t think A-R will increase its stature.

Jogging along in the middle of the road with a passable but not exceptional collection of shows makes for an easy life.

Personally, I’d like to see the resources of writers, designers, directors and the rest tapped much more frequently.

Does it matter that some ideas might fall by the wayside? Much more likely is that half-a-dozen shows will emerge which are worth staying home for.

Do I qualify for that horsewhipping?

The post They Say… James Green appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

Q. – Kindly state your name and occupation.

A. – Peter Black, television critic Daily Mail. Began journalism on Letchworth Citizen, 1937-39. Film and theatre critic, Brighton Evening Argus 1946-9. Theatre critic Brighton Herald 1949-52.

Q. – If you had to describe your opinion of Associated Rediffusion in one word, what would it be?

A. – Wellmeaning.

Q. – Perhaps you’d better take some more words.

A. – None of the programme companies has better intentions. But with A-R there is a damaging tendency to mistake the intention for the deed. My impression is that programmes are mounted in a quick rush of enthusiasm, before the difficulties and weaknesses have been cured. Too many go off at half-cock, and contain obvious misjudgments that should have been spotted earlier. My impression is of too many executives shouting brisk decisions down dictaphones. But I know it is a false one.

Q. – How do you account for it, then?

A. – Probably it’s the nature of A-R’s organization. When you think of the other companies you think of one man in each: Sidney Bernstein, Val Parnell, Howard Thomas. When you think of the BBC you think of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the MCC, the Foreign Office and the Polytechnic. When you think of A-R you think of a Board of businessmen directors.

Q. – Is that bad?

A. – Of course not. But it could lead to some oddities.

Q. – Name some.

A. – Light entertainment, for one. It seems to me an extraordinary decision to buy most of it from an outside organization.

Q. – Why?

A. – Because you lose at once full control over it. You have to take what you’re given. And you’re given shows like ‘The Lady Ratlings’.

Q. – Would it surprise you to know that ‘The Lady Ratlings’ figure in the Top Ten?

A. – No.

Q. – Continue.

A. – Because your own output is small you have nothing to replace shows that ought to be taken off. Do you remember ‘Highland Fling’?

Q. – Yes…

A. – And the department’s authority suffers. The last Lyon series, in my opinion, was frankly not good enough, and they should have been told so. Yet when A-R’s own men back shows, they have done some fine things. They gave Peter Sellers and Spike Milligan their chance and TV comedy received an entirely new twist.

Q. – How about being constructive – what would you do?

A. – Look for a man who would forget about the spectaculars, the running-about dancing, the acrobats and conjurors, and find something that would extend the range of light entertainment. His job would be to create programmes that were recognizably an A-R contribution, just as ‘Chelsea at Eight’ carries Bernstein’s bold signature.

Q. – You’re saying, in effect, that the more responsibility a department has, the better it functions?

A. – Of course. Look at A-R’s programmes for schools. Here a sense of responsibility is at its keenest. The result is that these programmes are the best thing A-R does.

Q. – Don’t forget that it’s easier for schools TV. The audience is around the same age, and at that age differences in taste are negligible.

A. – I was just going to say that. We must remember, too, that television is at its most interesting when it is frankly teaching. Only fools think that it mustn’t teach. The new term’s series on music is one of the best things of its kind that I’ve seen. I wish we were lucky enough to have it in the evening schedules.

Q. – Say something about drama.

A. – All TV drama has had a stroke of luck. It’s now been proved that audiences will take almost any subject, no matter how serious, if it’s in play form – unless it’s in poetry, fancy dress, introduces ghosts or plays tricks with time. All the drama departments are fruitfully exploiting this popularity, and none more than Norman Marshall and his team. There is a steady trickle of good, new writing coming out of A-R.

Q. – What do you call good writing?

A. – Plays that are about our own people in our own time. But I don’t mean comedies in which lazy writers try to catch atmosphere by sticking a bottle of tomato sauce on the table and talking about a ‘caff’. Jack Pulham’s ‘You Can’t Have Everything’ was an example. It was topical, grown-up drama, full of suspense though nobody got shot; and the actors and production fell on it like hungry men on a good meal.

Q. – What about features?

A. – I’m glad you asked that. All ITV features have suffered to a varied extent from ratings fever, a malady caused by too much exposure to the graphs supplied by TAM. Symptoms are, in the beginning, a rush of words to the head, a preference for the close-up and a tendency to talk loudly and to confuse fidgety cutting with speed. During the crisis the sufferer has the obsession that if a features programme slows down for a split second an executive will jump in and kill it.

Q. – The cure?

A. – Two. The short-term remedy is to move features away from peak time periods. This gives devisers, producers and performers a better target to aim at, allays their morbid fear of an inferior TAM rating, and restores their self-confidence. Hence programmes like Bronowski’s ‘New Horizons’, Wolf Mankowitz’s ‘Conflict’, and Dan Farson’s ‘People in Trouble’, all of them outstanding current affairs series.

Q. – And the other? How about ‘This Week’, for example?

A. – ‘This Week’ found the long-term cure. For months it gave you the impression of trying not to break into a run, like a man hurrying down a dark alley who sees behind him the shadow of the upraised cosh. Then, about six months ago, it seemed to acquire confidence in itself. It was as though it had realized that its position, as ITV’s only weekly serious feature to get a peak time, was more secure than it had thought. This sense of feeling necessary is of great value. Because of it ‘This Week’ is not only a key programme, it behaves like one.

Q. – How do you see the future of ITV, and A-R’s share in it?

A. – There is no doubt whatever but that ITV will become less frivolous. For one thing it can afford to – the undertaking is enormously profitable. For another, the market will change. Advertising and programming follow each other, and in ITV’s first two years we had cheap, mass-selling commodities being advertised around mass-market entertainment. Advertisers will now want to catch the smaller, particular markets, and programmes will match them. They’ve wooed the Smiths: now they’ll go after the Smythes.

This will suit A-R down to the ground. I suspect that its heart has never really been in ‘The Lady Ratlings’.

The post They Say… Peter Black appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

At the start it is necessary, I think, to say this: there are TV critics whose sole job is criticism from off the screen; there are others whose work incorporates in addition the duties of “TV Correspondent”. The latter types, of whom I am one, inevitably bring to their viewing a great deal of inside knowledge about the organisations and people behind the programmes. As with most circumstances in life this can be an advantage or not. It can breed prejudices in criticism; or it can rear understanding of what is involved in TV programming.

But because of this, when I am asked what I think of A-R I cannot honestly attempt an assessment based on screen output alone. I know a great deal more about A-R than meets the viewer’s eye. You inside can lament this, or be glad about it. It’s just a fact nobody can now change. Hence inevitably I recall those first impressions gained when A-R opened its doors to the newspapermen. I think most of us, reared on the BBC beat, expected the commercialism of independent TV to avoid the development of glossy offices occupied by legions of suave and arty young men and luscious young women, all chattering intellectual snobbism about “the medium”. But not a bit of it; A-R handed us this same story all over again!

The old stock BBC jokes about admin types running the decks, with the able-bodied producers and creative types battened down in the hold, all came up again. A-R looked more precious than it was. It could never have survived if it had lived up to its original chi-chi attitudes.

Even discounting these things as weaknesses of human organisation, the Fleet Street hunch that a lot of people had been appointed for no precise programme jobs inevitably sharpened the screen critic’s teeth. Unfortunately, the screen output to start with did nothing to remove this hunch.

But much which caused our early amusement with A-R has been sensibly and efficiently cleaned up. It is rapidly putting away childish things. But as it grows up there is one thing I keep seeking in A-R but still do not find. This is its own distinctive flavour; its one, main, undeniable contribution to TV. I think it undeniable that the other companies of the first four in ITV have developed a kind of “brand” quality. A-R’s screen output inevitably ranges through all and no degrees of quality and achievement. It has done some very fine programmes; some atrociously bad ones; and kept up a middling standard of competent TV entertainment and interest bravely. But what has it developed as nobody else has developed? Where is its major impact?

It is my belief that A-R has so far missed the one big opportunity in commercial TV which all other companies have missed, but which A-R is peculiarly suited to taking and using well. This is the extension beyond what the BBC has done in documentary programming, using outside broadcasting as well as studio and film.

The next leap-forward in TV documentary has got to tailor outside broadcasting techniques into the others. I know the BBC is aware of this, and is making steps; but A-R could have gone ahead by now, and got a lead. You can be justly proud of Dan Farson’s programmes. “This Week” is painfully erratic, always raising hopes of out-doing “Panorama” but taking so long to find the way.

But all these ventures, often stirring and good, arc set in too narrow a vision of TV documentary. The tools of the game arc not being used; the field of programme subjects is not really being extended. It is here, I think, that A-R could really make a major and lasting contribution. “USSR Now” was a peak—but one which by its nature must stand alone as an occasional triumph.

On the light entertainment side it seems to me that A-R has at times touched the exciting verge of new uses of TV in comedy work. The Tommy Cooper series promised this; the Alfred Marks series has established a good, solid and worthwhile new-kind melange of light entertainment. But where is the new A-R comedy-writing team?

A great deal of publicity was originally devoted to creating glamour stars for A-R. Two or three young actresses were treated to the build-up works. Where are they now? With my most gallant regrets to them, I have to say that their names do not today electrify the populace.

Of course the “TV star” business has been overdone. Indeed I believe “TV stardom” as such to be possible only by absolute exclusivity to one programme company. To-day the most popular TV performers swap channels regularly; and there is a free market for bookers. This is a good thing. But if A-R wants to breed “stars” of its very own, it can only be done by keeping its pets strictly to itself; the public will then know that it must shop at A-R to see its idols. Personally, I don’t think this is worth the trouble—and probably A-R has come to the same conclusion.

I have left to last the programme department which has received most of the glossy publicity, and let’s admit it, most of the chi-chi talk—drama. I happen to believe that TV plays are over-publicised and surrounded by a great deal of window dressing which matters not at all. All viewers like a good story. A competent play will always be popular. Drama experiment is worthy and useful, but Joe Public rarely recognises it.

A-R’s plays seem to me to oscillate between the very fine and the competent time-passers every bit as much as do the BBC’s. In fact, in TV, whoever is producing it, I doubt whether drama can ever be anything more than this.

There is always the chance that some TV company will find a new play with a new actor or actress in it, which will not merely cause us TV critics to rave, but will set the whole world of drama afire. That will be the day — and some day it will happen.

Kenneth Bailey

The post They Say… Kenneth Bailey appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.