The BBC Wednesday Play and Post-War British Drama

The BBC television drama anthology The Wednesday Play, broadcast from 1964 to 1970 on the BBC1 channel, was high-profile and often controversial in its time and has since been central to accounts of British television’s ‘golden age.’ This article demonstrates that production technologies and methods were more diverse at that time than is now acknowledged, and that The Wednesday Play dramas drew both approving but also very critical responses from contemporary viewers and professional reviewers. It analyses the ways that the physical spaces of production for different dramas in the series, and the different technologies of shooting and recording that were adopted in these production spaces, are associated with but do not determine aesthetic style. The adoption of single-camera location filming rather than the established production method of multi-camera studio videotaping in some of the dramas in the series has been important to The Wednesday Play’s significance, but each production method was used in different ways. The dramas drew their dramatic forms and aesthetic emphases from both theatre and cinema, as well as connecting with debates about the nature of drama for television. Institutional and regulatory frameworks such as control over staff working away from base, budgetary considerations and union agreements also impacted on decisions about how programmes were made. The article makes use of records from the BBC Written Archives Centre, as well as published scholarship. By placing The Wednesday Play in a range of overlapping historical contexts, its identity can be understood as transitional, differentiated and contested.

Exploring Television Acting, 2018

1970s television drama, using close analysis of the BBC's I, Claudius (1976) to consider the proxemics of performance both in front of and behind the camera. Cantrell and Hogg (2016) differentiate between 'television acting' (actors portraying characters), and 'television performance', that is, 'adjacent performative components within the construction of text' (285). They warn against the danger that 'the particular contributions of the television actor become obscured within the larger technical mechanics of constructing Deleted: s a television performance' (286). This chapter, however, builds on Cantrell and Hogg's distinction of 'acting' and 'performance' to argue that the 'invisible performance' of camera operators can be as important as the 'television acting' of actors, and therefore demands further investigation. As well as furthering critical understandings of onscreen television performance, the chapter draws attention to the off-screen contribution of camera operators in the framing of performance in 1970s television drama. It therefore suggests that there are two categories of performance at work here in the interaction of actors and camera operators: 'visible' onscreen and 'invisible' off-screen performance. Intimate screens and dramatic rooms Assumptions about the limited aesthetic capability of television have meant a neglect of its production processes in favour of considering the writer as the creative figure in television. Academic orthodoxies consider television in general to be a visually impoverished medium (Geraghty 2003), whose multi-camera, vision mixed aesthetic and notan 1 lighting normatively generate only functional images within a tightly constrained frame. Helen Wheatley has pointed out the way in which theorists have privileged the 1960s studio as an innovative and dynamic space but dismissed the 1970s television studio as 'clumsy, dated and inexpressive' (Wheatley 2005: 145) with dialogue-driven close-ups confined to Williams's (1968) 'dramatic room'. However, as Panos and Lacey (2015) comment, studio multi-camera technique merits a critical reassessment: Television scholars are increasingly returning to the electronic studio era and attempting to understand it on its own terms, tracing practical, material and conceptual factors that influenced studio production and drawing out the dramatic and aesthetic consequences of multi-camera recording and the studio as site. (Panos and Lacey 2015: 2) Likewise, performance in television has been little studied. The teleological 'developmental model' assumes 'a broad movement away from the interior world of studio production, as also moving from a theatrical precedent' (Macmurraugh-Kavanagh and Lacey 1999: 60) Deleted: S Deleted: D Deleted: R comprising 'moments of change' in technology and aesthetics (ibid.). The 'developmental model' has implications for screen performance, assuming a move from studio's 'intimate screen' model (Jacobs 2000) of dialogue-driven close-ups to a more naturalistic mode, as well as a tendency towards more 'cinematic' wide shots. However, theorists have struggled to find a critical vocabulary with which to investigate screen performance. As Bignell, Lacey and MacMurraugh-Kavanagh put it, '[c]ritical discourses on British television drama, arising from studies of "Golden Age" drama like the Wednesday Play and Play for Today series, have been constrained. .. by questions of authorship, realism and communicative effects' (2000: 81-2). John Caughie comments that criticism of TV drama seems 'quite tongue-tied' about acting (2000: 207). Framing performance Screen performance is characterized by the interaction of performers within a frame, and therefore, by the interaction of camera and performers. Lury (1996) suggests that television performance is a combination of technique and technology. Tucker (2003) discusses how actors scale performance to the size of the screen: performance is literally framed by the selection of details of bodily gesture and dialogue delivery within a chosen shot size. This is a collaborative process: Cynthia Baron comments that the selection and combination of movements, gestures, and vocal/facial expressions are themselves mutually interactive elements in the performance montage that actors and directors create. When montage is understood as the process of both selection and combination in film, choices about framing, editing, production, and sound design can actually be seen as implicit choices about performance, and acting choices can be seen as implicit choices about other cinematic strategies. (2007: 33) Performance then must be seen as one element in a matrix of creative and technical choices. However, most accounts of this collaborative process focus on the performer in front of the camera, rather than the activities going on behind it. In television studies, critical assumptions Deleted: ' Deleted: ' Deleted: … Deleted: 8 Deleted: P Deleted: s about television's aesthetic limitations have led to an almost total neglect of the role of camera operators in mediating pro-filmic performance. Foucault (1980; 1991) and Bourdieu (1984) suggest that space and action are dialogically related, and this chapter therefore argues for an understanding of television's production spaces as Bourdieuian fields shaping the subjects and texts produced within them. Within this field, subjects position themselves hierarchically according to various forms of symbolic capital-taste, education, skills and so on (Bourdieu 1993; 1998). Camera operators are not passive functionaries, capturing pro-filmic 'theatrical' performance, but instead actively contribute to the generation of the screen within which performance is both figuratively and literally framed. While this research therefore considers the proxemics of the interaction between camera and actors, it also considers the neglected issue of 'embodied' performance on the part of technical crews as making an essential contribution to the poetics of the performed text; thus drawing a distinction between 'visible' and 'invisible' performance in 1970s studio drama. Hierarchies of distinction Even within the industry, 1970s multi-camera operators were dismissed by their peers. Within the mixed production ecology of 1970s television, it is generally the case that studio interiors were on videotape, and location exteriors were shot on 16mm film. A clear distinction (in various meanings of the word) existed between video camera crews and film cameramen. In the multi-camera studio, with a team of four or so camera operators each assigned to separate cameras, directors can select the output of each camera on monitors. The BBC film cameraman A. A. Englander argues that a key difference between studio production and location filming is that in the latter, the director cannot see the viewfinder picture. Englander suggests that the expertise of film cameramen means that they require

2022

This document describes a research project that was funded by the Arts & Humanities Research Council (grant RG/14351) and ran from September 2002 until June 2005. It combined analytical and archival study of British TV drama programmes with generic, institutional and cultural study of the professional context of British TV drama output. Research addressed the theoretical and methodological questions arising from the study of 'popular' television drama forms and established how distinctions between 'popular' British TV drama and flagship 'serious' drama were dependent on institutional forces and conflicts within and between television institutions, including the regional organisation of TV production, changes in policy and regulation, and the detail of production practices. In the course of this work, the project team analysed how a body of canonical texts and received histories have been established in previous studies of British Television Drama, evaluating this process and questioning its methods, theoretical assumptions, and inclusions and exclusions. Results of the research were disseminated by means of publication for academic audiences in the form of journal articles, book chapters, monographs and an edited collection of essays. In addition, four one-day symposia were held at which members of the project team, academic speakers and television producers and directors presented new academic research and (in the case of TV professionals) reflected on their working practices and experience in the television industry.

This paper addresses Samuel Beckett’s five original television dramas broadcast in Britain, in relation to Television Studies, and to the historical conditions of television production in which the plays were made from the 1960s to the 1980s.

2016

This article considers possible futures for television (TV) studies, imagining how the discipline might evolve more productively over the next 10 years and what practical steps are necessary to move towards those outcomes. Conducted as a round-table discussion between leading figures in television history and archives, the debate focuses on the critical issue of archives, considering and responding to questions of access/inaccessibility, texts/ contexts, commercial/symbolic value, impact and relevance. These questions reflect recurrent concerns when selecting case studies for historical TV research projects: how difficult is it to access the material (when it survives)? What obstacles might be faced (copyright, costs, etc.) when disseminating findings to a wider public? The relationship between the roles of 'researcher' and 'archivist' appears closer and more mutually supportive in TV studies than in other academic disciplines, with many people in practice straddling the traditional divide between the two roles, combining specialisms that serve to further scholarship and learning as well as the preservation of, and broad public engagements with, collections. The Research Excellence Framework's imperative for academic researchers to achieve 'impact' in broader society encourages active and creative collaboration with those based in public organizations, such as the British Film Institute (BFI), who have a remit to reach a wider public. The discussion identifies various problems and successes experienced in collaboration between the academic, public and commercial sectors in the course of recent and ongoing research projects in TV studies.

European Journal of Communication, 2006

What makes eleven essays by eleven different authors cohere in a way that makes sense to present them together as a book? Whatever that is, I do not quite find it in this collection. The editors assert that the various contributions function as an organic whole and indeed they strive arduously to make connections in a general introduction, section introductions and an afterword. Nevertheless, I am left with a sense of irreducible bittiness.

2005

What makes eleven essays by eleven different authors cohere in a way that makes sense to present them together as a book? Whatever that is, I do not quite find it in this collection. The editors assert that the various contributions function as an organic whole and indeed they strive arduously to make connections in a general introduction, section introductions and an afterword. Nevertheless, I am left with a sense of irreducible bittiness. There is a section on situation comedy, which includes Barry Langford on The Office and Robin Nelson on Dad's Army. There are several essays on children's programmes, such as Maire Messenger Davies on The Demon Headmaster and Jonathan Bignell on Doctor Who. Another section deals with programmes considered somehow 'other', for example, Mark Bould on The Prisoner and Peter Billingham on Queer as Folk.

Highlights in Anglo- American Drama, 2015

HIGHLIGHTS IN ANGLO-AMERICAN DRAMA: VIEWPOINTS FROM SOUTH-EAST EUROPE: AN INTRODUCTION RADMILA NASTIĆ AND VESNA BRATIĆ The present volume represents viewpoints on some of the aspects of modern Anglo-American drama and dramatists written by scholars from ex-Yugoslav republics, resulting from long years of common interest and cooperation in the field between the corresponding English Departments in the region. The trigger which led us to embark on this project was the Word Across Cultures Conference organised by the Institute of Foreign Languages, University of Montenegro in Podgorica, Montenegro in July 2014. The scholars who participated in the conference’s literature section were able to witness that most of the papers presented focused on (post)modern Anglo-American drama which led us to conclude that Anglo-American drama is a growing field of interest among regional literature scholars; this gave us the inspiration to work towards creating a book on the topic. What ensued were extensive discussions between the participants and a wide network of drama scholars as to the content and title of the prospective book. Finally, we settled on the title HIGHLIGHTS IN ANGLO-AMERICAN DRAMA: VIEWPOINTS FROM SOUTH-EAST EUROPE which, we believe, best reflects the joint interests and efforts of our contributors, who range from experienced scholars of international standing, to mid-career specialists, and young scholars with remarkable international references. We would like to think that this book will appeal both to an academic and non-academic readership. The academic readership will, certainly, benefit from this book since English and, especially, American drama is not appropriately represented by the number of book titles it deserves world-wide. Some authors even go so far as to call American drama (and, mutatis mutandis, the drama scholarship) “a bastard child”, “an illegitimate offspring” of literature (and literature scholarship). While working on our doctoral theses, even the youngest among us had to cope with a noticeable shortage of books or volumes of essays on Anglo-American drama and we had to resort to individual papers spread across diverse journals. Each drama scholar knows how difficult and time consuming it is to search through a variety of journals on mostly general topics in order to find useful drama-based papers, which is why searching for a drama-specific book feels somewhat like hunting for pearls. This is why we believe the book makes a genuine contribution to drama scholarship, not only by the very value of its content but as a source of ideas for prospective young researchers. The volume can also be used by undergraduate and Masters students to help with seminar and Masters papers, especially bearing in mind the number of students represented by the English departments from which the contributors come, some of which having drama courses as part of their syllabi. The South-East European perspective on Anglo-American drama also represents a valuable addition to the existing drama scholarship, since all the contributors are from the ex-Yugoslav republics and they write from a standpoint of multiple othernesses. The book might also be of interest to theatre and film scholars and general non-academic readership, notably among theatre and film enthusiasts, because of the variety of approaches adopted in the papers. The first chapter, as an appropriate introduction to the volume, centres on one of the founders of modern English drama, W. B. Yeats and the perfomative aspect of drama, while the remaining chapters explore a variety of postmodern British and American plays and playwrights. The second chapter dwells on social criticism in Harold Pinter and David Hare and the third on Pinter’s American “counterpart” Mamet and the phenomenon of “(retro)active revenge of the other” explored in his recent plays. The fourth chapter continues in the same vein, exploring how American society is re-created in the tales “told” in the plays of Sam Shepard, where both the norm and the Other are equally elusive in the Mexican dreamland landscape. In the fifth chapter we are back in the UK, exploring the overtly postmodernist plays by Ravenhill and Kane. The chapter centres on Wim Wenders’ film Wings of Desire and follows logically from the previous chapter, as Sam Shepard and Wenders shared postmodern(ist) artistic interests, made apparent in their collaboration on Paris, Texas. The sixth chapter ventures on a journey through the sinister fairy-tale land of McDonagh’s Ireland, commenting on contemporary violence, while the seventh employs a sociological and anthropological approach to marriage and relationships in Anglo-American drama. The eighth chapter opens up the entirely new question of the reception and theatrical publication of Anglo-American plays in the region. It deals with the (non)presence of the scholarly discourse on American drama in Bosnia and Herzegovina, while the ninth and the tenth focus on the reception of Harold Pinter’s works in Slovenia and Croatia respectively. The ninth considers a production of The Birthday Party as an intriguing blend of both play and film and the tenth embarks on a venture of further examining of how Harold Pinter’s work is received in Croatia.

in Reinsch P., Whitfield B., Weiner R. (eds), PYTHON BEYOND PYTHON. Palgrave Studies in Comedy. Palgrave 2017. 153-170.