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.

How do we stand now, those of us engaged in making programmes, at the start of the fourth year of the company’s operation as a programme contractor?

Have we lost our originality, our fire? Has complacency taken the place of ingenuity? Are we, as one journalist put it, “playing safe” with our programme pattern?

If one is to believe what some of our Press-men are writing, then in fact ITV is just coasting along picking up its millions of profit with effortless ease.

Let us examine this suggestion, and take a glance at some of the shows we have been “coasting” along with in the past few months.

Take drama for instance.

This company’s contribution to the ITV network in 1958 was forty-one plays – far in excess of any other contractor. Two-thirds of these plays were British in every sense of the word, eighteen of them being adaptations of British stage successes, and eleven of them specially commissioned TV plays by British authors. This is quite apart from the tremendously successful half-hour British series, “Murder Bag”, which has consistently appeared in the top ten ratings. “Television Playhouse” and the “Play of the Week” series have become firmly established and represent a most important and successful contribution to the ITV programme pattern.

We intend to increase our number of British TV plays in the future and encourage more writers to work exclusively for us.

And then light entertainment can claim to have made its contribution towards originality in 1958.

“The Jubilee Show” succeeded in combining music, comedy and nostalgia in a blend of the old and new, regularly rating in the top-ten, and bringing many letters of appreciation from all kinds of people.

“Rush Hour”, “East Side, West Side”, “Free and Easy” and “Hotel Imperial” all stepped out of line and gave us new ways of presentation. “Cool for Cats”, still on the air and gaining in popularity, will continue with us into the New Year. And the two original ITV quiz shows, “Take Your Pick” and “Double Your Money”, are surely the most successful of them all, and remain the most consistently highest rated quizzes. I only mention these few shows because they are company originations, which is all we are concerned with.

How about features?

Dan Farson’s “People in Trouble” scries has brought him to the front rank as a personality interviewer. “This Week”, coming up to its fourth year, is the only programme of its kind on the ITV network and remains the most informative of all programmes with a behind-the-news format. “New Horizon”, “Conquest of Space”, “Undercurrent” – which brought Gerard Fay to the fore as a new TV personality -“Out of Step” and “Keeping in Step”, “Only Yesterday”, “USSR Now” and “America Now” make an impressive line-up of programme effort and achievement. Difficult to detect any lack of fire in this section.

How about the children?

Are we relying on cowboys and Indians for our high ratings? The facts show just the opposite. Currently the most successful live children’s British serial, “The Red Dragon”, written and produced by John Rhodes, recently passed the viewing figures of “Pop-Eye”, “Fury” and “Rin Tin Tin”. Three of our recent serials were specially written by members of A-R children’s team, and in no programme section is there more zeal and dedication to their work. It is in this section that an important new method of animation “Visimotion” has been developed and is proving of great value, as seen recently in the “Alexander the Mouse” and “The Enchanted House” programmes.

Schools programmes, in their second year, have widened their horizons and with the introduction of “The Dordogne River” programme, specially filmed on location, they stepped out of the classroom to bring the reality of the lesson to the individual. The new programmes planned for the spring term are designed to further this conception of TV education. And then, of course, there are the programmes that do not fall into any particular category — the outside broadcasts, 105 of them, in addition to the Wimbledon Tennis coverage; the “Close-Up” and “Spotlight” scries; the rapidly produced tributes to personalities, such as Mike Todd, Robert Donat and Jack Buchanan, usually mounted in a few’ hours.

So perhaps this suggestion of “coasting” is merely Press talk. Why should we expect anything other than severe criticism from a medium which is more and more finding itself in conflict with Independent Television?

We are sure of our brief. Let us keep our sights high and make quite sure that the things we do are done as well as they can be.

Let us surround ourselves with the best possible talent; let us treat every programme we do as a means of finding out how to do it better next time. Good luck to all of you who contribute to the making of our programmes. Look out, 1959, here we come!

The post Floor Four says… Keep our sights high appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

At first sight it did not look a very difficult task to find out what people working in TV considered to be good taste in TV, but when I began my tour of TV House, braving the intricacies of PBX, wasting the time of a long-suffering TV Times writer — having a cosy lunch with a member of the Advertising Dept. — maddening (I am sure) harassed secretaries, overworked members of Prg. Correspondence and kindly producers, and being over-awed by a Head of Depts.’ office, well, then I began to realise that I had probably bitten off more than I could chew. For it seems that good taste is almost impossible to define; being a negative quality; nobody watching a good play, dance, or documentary says — “by jove, that was in good taste” — but the moment something offends their personal susceptibility, for taste is after all personal, then they are vocal enough. So it’s bad taste you’re going to read about, and below I give you the opinions of all those I talked to.

I found their thoughts both fascinating and contradictory, one producer put it to me that good taste and good showmanship made uneasy bed-fellows; another, that good taste was too bound up with safety, and the criterion of truly appalling taste was when a programme made you feel uncomfortable, without any sense of guilt, whereas if a programme gave you a sneaking suspicion that your attitude was of the ostrich with head in sand variety, then the subject matter, whether it is homosexuality, prostitution, the H-bomb, or the needling of a politician in the Robin Day manner, is almost certainly permissible bad taste, as it forces you to stop and think about your responsibilities as a citizen, a responsibility it is often more comfortable to ignore.

My friends in PBX objected to some of the dance presentations, which they found too suggestive, and this was as true of ballets as of the modern dances. What interested me particularly was that if they had seen the same thing in a theatre or cinema, they wouldn’t have minded. It was the “intimacy in the home” of TV, which makes this kind of thing offensive. I had the same complaint about the interminable and suggestive apache dances we are subjected to, from the Advertising section.

Back to PBX. Quite a number of comperes come under fire as indulging in orgies of bad taste, being personality pushers with little thought to spare for the programme they compere, and many commit the cardinal sin of talking down to the viewers, something any intelligent person resents.

Quiz programmes also brought a baleful look to the eye of my beholders, on the same grounds of being an insult to the thinking viewer. High on the black list is the spurious type of chumminess of the — What is your name?—Mary Jones.—May I call you Mary? — type of dialogue, and the imbecility of the questions, which would be an insult to the intelligence of a child of six, but by answering them, any adult can win that all-steel kitchen unit, the magnificent chromium plated little family car, with the two spare wheels and extra roomy boot, or that three-piece bedroom suite in light polished oak, picked out with raised facings in darker oak. Who but a Dr. Schweitzer could resist the lure of such glittering rewards for so little brain fag?

Again they object to the often humiliating forfeits competitors are asked to perform, for the supposed amusement of the studio audience and the viewer at home. The sad part is, that they very often do cause immoderate mirth — it is the man slipping on a banana skin mentality which is encouraged in this type of show.

In the Ad-Mag outfit I found a very definite feeling of antipathy towards the Amateur Talent Programmes with their larger-than-life comperes introducing some very amateur amateurs. All those would-be Beverly Sisters [sic] in over-fussy frocks, net nylon mittens and diamanté clips and slides; those raucous Lonnie Donnegans, where only the shirt is similar, the heavy footed Fred Astaires, and those sordid xylophone players whose only talent is to play the damn thing with their feet, can surely only be an embarrassment to their relations and a discomfort to everyone else, even the over-optimistic band leader or hardboiled talent scout — or so think Ad-Mags. By the same token one Head of Dept, felt that a vulgar joke told by an incompetent amateur can only be in the worst of taste, whilst the same joke told by a highly skilled professional will almost surely succeed in being extremely funny.

All those I questioned recoiled visibly when I mentioned the “personal tribute to a living person” epics. All that gooey mass of sugary sentiment, with the well-known personality in well chosen tears, while dear old Nanny Plumwood or dear old Mr. Satherwaite, who taught them to skip, hover above them in badly chosen clothes, produces nothing but a strong feeling of nausea in the stomachs of my viewers.

The mothers among our staff thought it very bad taste to show scenes of viciousness and violence to the young, although one did disagree, saying that it was Robin Hood, Sir Lancelot and the good sheriff of so-and-so city, who caught the imagination of a child and I must admit that among the children I mix with there is always a Robin Hood to pin me to the tree with his mighty bow or a rangy Davy Crockett to shoot me stone dead … come to think of it, excellent as these characters may be, you’re still dead, whether killed by a goody or a baddy! My TV Times writer gave me a long and thoughtful lecture on the evils of the “Top Ten/Twenty Favourites cult”. He explained that the public taste is very malleable and is manipulated quite unscrupulously by the song pluggcrs of Tin Pan Alley, who naturally find it a great deal easier to discover a mass of mediocre songwriters and singers, than it is to discover good ones. So out go the mediocre songs and music, week after week, and down goes public taste.

Everyone I spoke to disliked watching people in obvious mental distress, whose relations perhaps, had been lost in a spectacular disaster, or who might be connected with a much publicised and very unsavoury happening. In both eases, they felt that apart from the person actually appearing, it might quite well cause infinite and unnecessary suffering to someone the other side of the screen. It is a point of view one can’t ignore. On the other hand we want to hear what these people have to say and it is only a matter of presentation.

Well, there you have it. I wonder what you think. Should we have such impeccable programmes, such self-effacing good taste, that none could possibly take exception? What a ghastly thought. Henry VIII was in shocking bad taste, but what a man, how he lived and how he enjoyed life, high and low, and how many treasures he left for posterity to savour and admire. How sad it is to think that many TV Programmes, however brilliant, will never go down to posterity.

The post What is good TV taste? appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

“A result of the developments in Independent Television since we last met is that this will be our last Annual General Meeting as an independent television programme company. In February of this year the Independent Television Authority invited applications for new programme contracts to take effect after the expiry of the existing contracts on 29th July, 1968. The Authority had decided to make certain changes in the general pattern of the contracts for the three major independent television areas known as the London, Midland and Northern areas, each of which has since the beginning been served by two contractors, one on the five weekdays and one at the weekends. Under the new pattern, only the London area will be served by two contractors, with the weekday contractor’s responsibility ending at 7 p.m. on Fridays, when the weekend contractor will take over.

The London weekday contract has been held by your company and its predecessor, Associated-Rediffusion, since the inception of independent television and we confidently applied for renewal. The Authority decided against us, however, and offered the new contract conditionally to a new programme company to be formed jointly by your company and ABC Television Limited, currently the weekend contractor for the Midland and Northern areas. The Authority’s decision not to renew our contract was a great shock and wholly unexpected. It affected not only you as shareholders but some 1,350 of your employees, whose lives and careers were sadly and cruelly upset.

We had assumed that a statement by the Postmaster General, made when the Television Bill, now embodied in the Television Act, 1964, was being debated in the House of Commons, meant what it said. The Postmaster General’s precise words as recorded in Hansard were as follows: —

‘Meanwhile, I hope that the House will remember that the risk of non-renewal of a contract is very slight unless the company has completely failed to make the grade.’

Your Board took the view that we had not ‘completely failed’ and would not ‘completely fail to make the grade’ and I must add that we had not at any time been given any indication that the Authority took a different view; accordingly we proceeded to prepare for the future by increasing the staff and undertaking large scale capital expenditure commitments to convert our operation for colour and the new 625 line standard. As shareholders, however, you will naturally ask the question ‘have we completely failed to make the grade?’ This question is, I think, best answered, not by an expression of my own opinion, but by facts and by tributes from outside the Company.

The facts may be briefly summarised as follows. Rediffusion, in company with Associated Television and with the valued support of Sir Kenneth Clark, the first Chairman of the I.T.A., and Sir Robert Fraser, the I.T.A. Director-General, was responsible for building up independent television from nothing, through serious initial trials and tribulations, into a first class public service. Rediffusion, in the difficult pioneering days, introduced the first regular television service for schools in this country and has since been the leader in that field. Rediffusion took the initiative in forming the International Television Federation, an association of major television organisations in the English speaking world for the production, exchange and distribution throughout the world of high class documentary programmes on world problems. Rediffusion has always played a leading part in the independent television network, providing the central production services and key staff for state occasions and other national events and its general programme contribution to the network has not been surpassed by any other company. Rediffusion has won over 40 awards in international and national competitions for its programmes and publications in every field of broadcasting activity. The list of ITV Awards in the I.T.A. 1968 Year Book, covering the years 1956 to 1967, records that Rediffusion has won more awards than any other programme company. This surely cannot be a company which has ‘completely failed to make the grade.’

But let me now offer you a selection of tributes from outside on the Company generally and on its programmes, including some from the I.T.A. itself.

From ‘The Observer’ –

‘Rediffusion is the most BBC-like of the companies, full of people who really know and care about TV.’

From the ‘Television Mail’ –

‘But – though perhaps it’s a bit early for tributes and similar goo – it does seem appropriate at this time just to say how much, in our opinion, A-R, together with the other pioneers, has contributed to this vast industry. It took some courage, in those days, to hang on and keep a brave face while watching all those millions of pounds pouring out of the window; A-R at one stage not only lost nearly £4 million, as well as its original partner. Associated Newspapers. But the original management’s faith in commercial television eventually paid off, and many of the later entrants into ITV were able to take advantage of the spadework -and the risks – undertaken by A-R in the very early days.

And since that time the company’s record has been pretty impressive. It has been associated with Intertel, ‘This Week’, Studio 5 at Wembley, E-Cam, and many other advances in the technical and creative fields. Sure, it’s had its failures, too; but at least it’s been man enough to admit them; last year’s balance sheet includes some thousands of pounds written off in untransmitted programmes (some people would have transmitted them).

On the sales side, too, A-R has done a great deal for the advertising world. At the time of the announcement of the new contracts, it was installing a computer timebooking system; and many initiatives in the time sales field have been taken by the company.’

On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of Rediffusion’s ‘This Week’, the then Chairman of the I.T.A., Lord Hill of Luton, wrote –

‘For a decade ‘This Week’ has been a regular illustration of Independent Television’s determination to provide a well-balanced service. ‘This Week’ has faithfully provided information, educational and not seldom entertaining material about the contemporary world with unfailing skill and imagination. Its ingenious methods of presentation have consistently made sense of complex current issues without distortion, over-simplification or playing down to the audience.’

On the same occasion, the Prime Minister wrote –

‘A pioneer in this field has been ‘This Week’. Its integrity is undoubted, its professionalism obvious. I congratulate its producers and all who play a part in its presentation.’

The Leader of the Opposition wrote –

‘Television has been largely responsible for stimulating the public appetite in this respect. During the past 10 years, ‘This Week’ has played a notable part in providing commentary news headlines.’

I have already referred to our initiative in the formation of The International Television Federation and I think our standing in the principal English-speaking countries overseas is well illustrated by the following extract from a citation recently presented to us by our fellow-members of the Federation. It is as follows:—

‘Intertel, at the eighth annual meeting, accepts with profound regret the resignation of Rediffusion Television Limited and gratefully acknowledges its wise leadership and generous contributions to the common effort.

(Signed) T. S. Duckmanton, The Australian Broadcasting Commission
Eugene S. Hallman, The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
John F. White, National Educational Television (USA)
MALTA, September 30th, 1967.’

May I now give you a few extracts from the I.T.A’s own Year Books about Rediffusion programmes?

1963 ‘If this gradual and intelligible introduction to television on behalf of children could be achieved, no better start could be made than with ‘Small Time’, a short programme appearing from Monday to Friday between 4.45 p.m. and 5 p.m. on most stations of Independent Television.’

‘In the winter of 1960-61, Associated-Rediffusion transmitted a French language series ‘Chez les Dupre’ in the early evening and found an immediate and substantial response among viewers in the London area.’

‘The play should speak to the condition of a television service. In so far as it does so, in the case of Independent Television, it reveals it to be in good heart. Each of the four largest companies (A-R, ATV, Granada and ABC) has made and continues to make, serious contributions to television drama . . .’

1964 ‘Nevertheless, the serials have been very good in recent months . .. ‘Sierra Nine’ and ‘Smuggler’s Cove’ from Associated-Rediffusion, all accurately described as adventure serials, with children taking the major parts.’

‘Melodrama, which may cover all other kinds of fictional series, is entertaining enough to deserve its considerable place in television. Lively who-done-its such as ‘No Hiding Place’ … are the essence of quick-moving, intelligently planned entertainment.’

1965 ‘To take one example alone, the much acclaimed production by Rediffusion of Shakespeare’s ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’ in June, 1964 was seen by almost 4,000,000 viewers.’

‘Rediffusion has launched ‘Towards 2000’ a major series on the development of technology . . .’ ‘These are essentially action stories rather than plays of ideas, and they include some very popular programmes such as ‘No Hiding Place’ and ‘Crane’ (Rediffusion) . . .’

“‘Double Your Money’ and ‘Take Your Pick’ (Rediffusion) have been running as long as Independent Television itself and continue to be enjoyed by vast audiences.’

1966 ‘A notable programme seen throughout the country was ‘The Music Man’ (Rediffusion) . . .’

1967 ‘Although it was first felt that television’s chief contribution would be to the work of the secondary school, its potential value to primary schools was recognised as early as 1959 when Rediffusion produced ‘The World Around Us’.’

Finally, a selection of press comments on individual programmes:—

‘Laudes Evangelii’ (two quotes from the American press)

‘A magnificent harbinger of the many productions on religious themes that this season of the year will be bringing to our television screens. Some may be as good as this one but I hardly see how any could be better.’

‘Leonide Massine’s Laudes Evangelii surely will stand as one of television’s lasting accomplishments, a work of breathtaking reverence and beauty that has enriched the home screen as much as any single programme in recent years.’

‘Design for Living’

‘. . . beautifully simple, it revives one’s faith in the use of television.’

‘This Week’

‘. . . report on South Vietnam and the round-up of the modern Israeli Army were both prize-winning pieces of TV journalism.’

‘Children of Revolution’

‘. . . television at its best.’

‘No Hiding Place’ – ‘A Bottle Full of Sixpences’

‘Lord Hill of ITA must be plaintively asking himself why the rest of the boys can’t make programmes as wholesome and morally sound as the sentimental homily we got last night in London.’

‘One In Every Hundred’

‘A compulsive and socially valuable use of the television screen.’

‘Dare I Weep, Dare I Mourn’

‘It is clearly obvious that ITV is capable of producing such first-class material as Rediffusion’s James Mason Film ‘Dare I Weep, Dare I Mourn.’

‘Seven Deadly Virtues’ – ‘The Good and Faithful Servant’

‘This was a play that put some life back into my loss of faith in ITV drama.’

‘This Week’ – ‘The World of Nigel Hunt’

‘This kind of television, lightening superstitious corners of human prejudice, is high among TV’s most worthwhile achievements.’

It is common knowledge that not all comments about the Company and its programmes have been in the same vein as those I have quoted to you. But whatever adverse comment there may have been, such comments as I have quoted surely could not apply to a company which had ‘completely failed to make the grade.’

Small wonder is it, therefore, that your directors, management and staff are at a loss to understand the Authority’s decision. Even that decision cannot destroy our pride in our achievements over the past 12 years.

The Authority did, however, offer us an opportunity, on the conditions that we completely sacrifice our identity and any control over the development of independent television, to acquire a 50 per cent financial stake, but no effective say, in a new company, to be formed in partnership with ABC Television, to serve the population of the London area for a little over four days a week instead of the five days for which we shall alone have been responsible for the 13 years up to 29th July, 1968.

You will have seen from the Directors’ Report that arrangements for the formation of a new company have been agreed between the Company and ABC Television and approved by the Authority. The establishment of a joint company in such circumstances is a very complex matter; when all the necessary matters of detail have been settled, you will be informed of the overall position.

We shall in future have a 50 per cent stake (but a minority of the voting shares) in an operation covering four days plus part of a day in place of our present exclusive five day operation. In effect, we shall have been reduced from five day operation to marginally more than two day operation. Nevertheless, we have always had the most friendly relations with ABC Television and we shall certainly do everything we can, as I am sure will ABC Television also, to make the new company an outstanding success.

Whatever reasons Lord Hill of Luton (whose appointment to the Chairmanship of our competitors, the B.B.C., had, according to press reports, been decided months earlier) and his part-time colleagues of the I.T.A. may have had for crossing our name off the list of effective contributors to independent television, I and my colleagues on the Board will remain forever grateful to the men and women who built up Rediffusion Television with so much devoted skill, energy and enthusiasm. We believe they have done a magnificent job of work. Although the Company is under sentence of death, every valiant effort is being made, in spite of the obvious difficulties, to keep our flag flying right up to the end.”

The post Sentenced to death appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

THAT was a decade that was. That was a decade that was…

Oh, put the emphasis where you like. The fact remains that all of us who were there on the night when Rediffusion and ITV first flickered on to the screen are now 10 – no, 11 – years older.

I’ve changed. How about you?

Rediffusion has certainly altered. For a start it is no longer ‘Associated’.

Incidentally, dear editor, it would be interesting to find out just how many people at present on the pay-roll were with the company on Night One (still known to some as the night they invented champagne).

The answer is 252 – Editor.

From my own memory book I recall Sally Sutherland, Red Lyle, Dennis Atherton, Richard Hawkins, and the late Hugh Finlay – all part of the Press Office over the years.

Where the nostalgia really hit me was at the ITA’s white-tie Guildhall banquet when 10 glorious years and all that were celebrated.

It might have been the wine and brandy but sitting there under the stony stare of Gog and Magog I suddenly realised that 10 years (and part of a hair line) had vanished since I was in almost the same seat for ITV’s curtain-up.

The instant reaction was to check for ‘old familiar faces’ along the tables around me. Of 40 or so TV ‘professionals’ within range only four, perhaps five, had been there back in ’55.

Now I know how Greybeard felt. If my memory is right was Lord Hill, now ITA chairman, at that September 22, 1955, dinner as Postmaster-General?

And at that time didn’t ABC TV consist of just Howard Thomas and a secretary?

Before quitting that particular celebration I wonder if the champagne would have flowed so freely had it been known that within one year Rediffusion would be over £3 million down?

By the way, hasn’t that been perhaps the most important change of all – turning those colossal losses of the early years into a profit?

As a privileged spectator seeing much of the game from close quarters it seems to me that Rediffusion’s development has been in three stages.

The first, naturally, was that somewhat daffy unreal period when the newly recruited army worked excitedly to get the company on the air and keep it there.

Forgive me if there is an overlap for so many shows have been crammed into the decade, but those were the days of Gordon Harker and ‘Sixpenny Corner’. Of Ralph Reader’s ‘Chance Of A Lifetime’.

The weekly sports magazine. The Granville Melodramas. And of Sgt ‘I Only Want The Facts, Mam’ Webb and ‘Dragnet’.

Wasn’t there a freakish series called ‘You’ve Never Seen This’? Book reviews in the morning. Sheila Matthews as Friday’s Girl. Wasn’t this, too, the Jack Hylton variety era… the names which occur being Arthur Askey, Tony Hancock (he once did a one-man show in an emergency), Rosalina Neri, Bryan Michie, Ivor Emmanuel, the Crazy Gang and the Water Rats?

Roland Gillett was the programme controller, Lloyd Williams was on the production staff, and the whole period was like the froth on top of a pint.

The second stage was marked by the appointment of Paul Adorian as managing director and John McMillan as programme controller.

Now the workaday face and output of the company was being established. On went the old originals in ‘Take Your Pick’ and ‘Double Your Money’.

But morning TV disappeared. Much of the early pioneering excitement went with it. And the staff settled down to a more orderly existence.

Schools programmes started – remember Enid Love? Was it in this spell or even earlier that we had those Michael Ingrams’ series? How about those Goonish shows like ‘A Show Called Fred’, ‘Son of Fred’, and ‘Idiots’ Weekly’? Not only Sellers, but Milligan, too.

The work of putting in the foundations went on continuously.

‘Cool For Cats’ caught popular fancy and brought Joan Kemp-Welch’s name to the forefront. ‘This Week’ was going strong. Somewhere around this point Cyril Bennett and Elkan Allan began contributing to the company’s fortunes.

Peter Cotes is one more name I associate with this sector of Rediffusion’s fortune. And was I alone in liking America’s ‘Johnny Staccato’ jazz-thriller series?

I went down the Thames on one Rediffusion birthday party – and across to Paris for another. That was the day that George Sanders, then working on a special programme called ‘Women In Love’, helped to play host. Although only a voyage down the Seine, Captain Tom Brownrigg was also on hand.

So we had ‘No Hiding Place’ and ‘Intertel’, ‘Wagon Train’ and ‘Rawhide’. But where was Tig Roe? Whither Alan Morris? Goodbye Kingsway Corner.

Out went advertising magazines. Out went ‘Jim’s Inn’ – after setting the standard for all shows of this type. But in came the many successful Pinter plays.

The most successful, of course, being ‘The Lover’, with Alan Badel and Vivien Merchant. It must have won almost every award possible… actor, actress, author and director. Surely Rediffusion’s most successful production in all those 11 years?

Just as the TV scene was growing contentedly sedate on came ‘Ready, Steady, Go!’ to give half the nation convulsions and the other half blood pressure.

Visiting the ‘RSG’ studio at TV House brought back all the din of 1955 and that drilling year when Adastral House was being converted.

By now Rediffusion was part of life. Dan Farson, always prominent in company affairs on the screen (his ‘Time Gentlemen, Please’ show was not only entered at Montreux but must have been responsible for the introduction of ‘Stars and Garters’), was a notable departure.

But phase two was drawing to a close too. On went John McMillan to general manager and in came Cyril Bennett as the new programme controller.

This is now part of the latest story… come in David Frost, Stella Richman, Benny Green, ‘Three After Six’, ‘The Rat Catchers’, and David Jacobs.

Pausing only to nod a farewell to Buddy Bregman and a friendly greeting to Europe’s favourite TV ‘uncle’ Eric Maschwitz, it scarcely seems credible that Monica Rose was hardly walking when ‘Double Your Money’ was first televised.

Yes, you’ve changed all right. Some more memory jogs… Stuart Hood, that ‘Arabian Nights’ opening for Wembley Studios, ‘Hippodrome’ in colour, the American deal with David Susskind, ‘Dial M For Music’, ‘Alfred Marks Time’, Keith Fordyce, Groucho Marx, Dickie Henderson, and on, and on.

It’s been a long time. Perhaps after all it should be that was a decade that was? What’s more Gog and Magog are still waiting.

The post That was the decade that was appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.

The political fight that surrounded the introduction of commercial television in the mid-fifties left the early contractors with a dilemma. It was essential to prove wrong the opponents of the new scheme by transmitting programmes that would appeal to all tastes and all social classes. The need to recoup initial investment, however, required a lowest common denominator approach to attract mass audiences and stem the inevitable early losses.

It was also necessary to persuade advertisers of the value of the new medium. Satisfying politicians, advertisers and two very different social classes of viewer was a daunting challenge.

The startling division then apparent in British society between what we now call ‘highbrow’ and ‘lowbrow’ viewers is easily forgotten in today’s more classless society. Associated-Rediffusion found a novel way to reconcile these opposing forces.

After an initial year during which the scheduling was an unscientific jumble, they settled into a subtle viewing apartheid whereby the 8.55pm news from ITN would mark a sudden boundary between populist viewing in the early evening and more intellectually-demanding documentary and drama in the later hours. This set a trend that would continue to be followed by Rediffusion, London after the change of name, as shown by the examples on this page from 1964.

Associated-Rediffusion is now often unfairly pilloried by historians for over-reliance on quiz shows and entertainment for those of a less sophisticated palate. The truth is more complex than that, however. These early evening programmes raked in the cash that cleared the debts, underpinned the company’s success and funded a greater quantity of documentaries and heavy dramas than even the ITA required.

Television House, the headquarters of A-R in Holborn, Kingsway, was famed for its military ethos. The company, though dominated by businessmen, achieved a remarkable balance between the needs of commerce and those of show-business. The tension between these two broadcasting disciplines was never an issue at this company, whereas it was the very issue to almost ruin London Weekend some years later.

Associated-Rediffusion probably succeeded in satisfying the demands of the media elite, the politicians, and the middle-classes with their post-“watershed” schedules. Plays by Harold Pinter, the Angry Young Men of London’s West End, more commissioned programmes about Westminster from ITN than the regions took, and endless documentaries about heavyweight subjects demonstrated that A-R was indeed “the BBC with adverts”.

When the Pilkington report grumbled about the likes of ‘Double Your Money’ and ‘Take Your Pick’ dominating ITV’s weekday early evenings, A-R could only warn that this income was the source of the documentaries and plays that gave ITV its public service reputation.

And yet, A-R found itself consistently under attack in the press, in parliament and in the corridors of its regulator, the ITA.

This is happenstance – while ATV London was no better than the chattering classes of the time thought it would be, A-R was better and paid the price demanded by the British when something they create becomes the envy of the world – demanding better of it all the time.

As ever, this type of criticism is of a “don’t like the cut of his jib” style – unsubstantiated but loud.

A-R could not win. A-R drama was too highbrow, A-R popular entertainment was too lowbrow. The chattering classes demanded a constant supply of material that would please all of the people all of the time.

They got it – but never realised until it was gone.

The post Beyond the watershed appeared first on THIS IS REDIFFUSION from Transdiffusion.