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.

When I was a boy, balance was a quality required in a gymnasium; when I was a young man it was required on the dance floor; since then I have been warned to take a balanced view in politics and even in war. But now Balance has taken on a new meaning and become a very important consideration in my work, for the Television Act 1954 lays down in Section 3(1) (b)

‘the programmes (broadcast by the ITA) should maintain a proper balance in their subject-matter.’

There are nearly as many interpretations of this section as there are readers. There is one school of thought which seems to think that a proper balance is necessarily achieved by including serious programmes dealing with social problems or politics – something akin to the public service programmes included in American television. Another school of thought considers that the term ‘proper balance’ is a way of defining the sort of programmes which are broadcast by the BBC on sound on the Third: these people include ballet, opera, art, literature and the more high-brow drama and music within their definition. There is a further body of opinion that considers that a ‘proper balance’ is only another way of saying that the programmes should instruct and inform as well as entertain: this view springs from the BBC’s objective which is to ‘entertain, inform and instruct’. People who hold this view think that some 70 to 80 per cent of our programmes should aim to entertain, whilst the remainder should aim to instruct and inform: the latter being spread evenly throughout transmission.

Personally I have formed a different view after reading and re-reading the whole of the Act many times. In my opinion the Act is intended to ensure that the programmes are not solely directed and planned to attract majority audiences to the exclusion of the sort of programmes which attract and are interesting to minority audiences. My definition of a balanced programme is therefore ‘a programme entertaining and interesting to a minority as opposed to a majority audience’.

A-R and other programme companies have naturally carried out a lot of research to find out the tastes of our viewers. We have found out that there is a fair size minority audience for the following subjects among others:

Racing and Show Jumping – Jazz – Ballroom Dancing – Pop Music (Disc and Rock-’n-roll) – Classical Drama – Film and Stage Gossip – Exhibitions and Displays (Air Display, Royal Tournament, Chelsea Flower Show, etc.) – Athletics and Swimming – Classical Music – Science – Art – Minority Sports (Tennis, Billiards, Bowls, Darts) – Motor Racing – Social Problems – Politics, particularly foreign politics

And there are, of course, smaller minority audiences for nearly every subject under the sun.

You will note that I have left out of my list three most important subjects: Religion, News, and Education. Religion – thinking about things of the spirit – is clearly essential to a balanced life and therefore also to a balanced programme. The News is traditionally an important facet of broadcasting and one which viewers expect to have as of right. School Broadcasts, on the other hand, are a new feature in television but one which A-R thinks will be a great influence for good in education.

These three types of programmes do not fit my definition of commanding enthusiastic minority audiences: they are of interest and use to all of us, but the term enthusiastic is inappropriate for their audiences.

People with whom I discuss this subject – or more accurately, who discuss it with me – frequently say, ‘Yes, it’s true that your programmes as a whole are properly balanced, but you banish your good programmes – by which they mean the serious programmes they like – to off-peak periods’. This line of thought springs from the false assumption that our objective is to educate the public – the BBC’s ‘instruct and inform’ formula. There is no mention in the Act of educating the public. We are required to maintain ‘a proper balance in subject-matter’ and a ‘high general standard of quality’. In my opinion that means that we should provide entertaining and interesting programmes of good quality for minority as well as majority audiences. A majority has its rights however, and one of them, I feel, is that a majority programme should be transmitted when the majority are viewing. Enthusiastic minorities must give way to the majority and adjust their viewing hours accordingly.

I represent the Company on the Weekday Programme Network Committee and on the Standing Consultative Committee – the joint committee on which the ITA and all contractors are represented. I take the following general line in the discussions in these committees:

Between 7.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. the programmes should in the main be designed to entertain the majority of our viewers, since this is the time when the majority are ready and willing to view. Supper finished and not yet time for bed.

After 10.30 p.m. programmes of interest to minority audiences should be included. Note that a programme of special interest to a minority is not an automatic switch-off to the majority who may find their interest caught.

Before 7.30 p.m. at least one hour and possibly more should be aimed specifically at a children’s audience.

The remainder of the afternoon and early evening should have programmes aimed at minority audiences (‘Racing at Lingfield,’ ‘Roving Report’, ‘Answers Please’, are examples).

There is another Section of the Act which is not easily interpreted: though not normally considered as affecting the balance of the programmes, I think it is very relevant.

I refer to Section 3 (i)(d) which says:

‘Proper proportions of recorded and other matter included in the programmes should be of British origin and British performance.’

I believe that the object of this section is also to obtain balance. Clearly it would be wrong if our programmes expounded nothing but a foreign philosophy and showed nothing but a foreign way of life. It would equally be wrong if it was too exclusively British – too insular: no one would suggest excluding Mozart, Dumas, Danny Kaye or the Milan football team because they are of foreign origin. In Art, Music and the Theatre, giving them their capital letters, we are international and try to obtain the best that the world has to offer. Similarly in Television we should try to obtain the best that the world can give us: if it is a good programme we should try to get it, irrespective of origin.

Many people comment on the number of American half-hour programmes which we broadcast. The fact is that there are many excellent American programmes greatly liked by majority audiences, whilst similar British programmes are nearly unobtainable. A-R has been trying to find a good British series for months but with the exception of‘Robin Hood’, the British film series have not been very successful.

It may be of interest that I make the amount of programme of foreign origin and performance which we have shown since 1955 as less than 7 per cent of our transmission time: statisticians on the staff may like to check that figure. Again the critic will say, ‘True enough, but you show all the American stuff in peak hours’. To which I will reply ‘Majorities have their rights and the majority like “Gun Law”, “San Francisco Beat” and “Wagon Train” very much.’ Where the majority do not like a programme, for example, “Inner Sanctum” or “Patti Page”, then it is moved either to off-peak or off-the-schedules’ (the latter costs money as programmes are paid for even if not shown).

Summing up my view: The Company’s object is to entertain and interest their audience. The programmes which the majority like should be shown at the times when the majority view. Minorities are entitled to be given programmes on which they are enthusiastic but must accept the disadvantage of less convenient viewing times. Religion, News and School Broadcasts must be included in our programme schedules as essential to a sane, balanced life. British Television, whilst being international in searching for the best from all over the world, should not propagate a foreign philosophy or outlook.

The post Floor Four says… Balance appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.