No Mean City – Violence and poverty in pre-war Glasgow

The Scottish city of Glasgow has long been synonymous with the title of Alexander McArthur and H. Kingsley Long’s 1935 book No Mean City, a novel that lay bare the violence and poverty of life in the Gorbals, a pre-war Glasgow slum. However, following the successful Glasgow’s Miles Better promotional initiative in 1983, outdated views of the city have regularly been challenged, with perhaps the only noticeable reminder of its uncompromising past to be found in Scottish Television’s (STV) detective series Taggart, a programme launched in the same year as the aforementioned campaign and which has as its theme music a composition named ‘No Mean City’ by Mike Moran. Entering its twenty-sixth year of production, Taggart is the world’s longest running police series and, as STV’s main contribution to networked drama in Britain, plays a pivotal role in the broadcasting industry in Scotland. Thus, it is perhaps of no surprise that recent speculation regarding its imminent demise has ignited a debate not only about the future of Scottish television but also the development of UK national and regional broadcasting in a digital age.

Click here to view the embedded video.

This is a turbulent time for British broadcasters in general due to the ongoing recession and the decline in advertising revenue which has seen ITV in particular (the independent network which commissions and funds Taggart) make a number of cutbacks in drama production. Indeed, while ITV is deciding whether to throw a lifeline to the detective series and the hundred or so people it employs, STV has recently opted out of showing a number of ITV productions in Scotland, citing that viewers would prefer to watch more home-grown programming in prime-time slots.1 Yet, as the commercial broadcaster has since replaced high-profile dramas such as Peter Bowker’s Wuthering Heights with inexpensive repeats, films and imports, many commentators have suggested that the decision appears to be more economic than cultural: ‘STV does not have to pay for network shows it does not show. It means typically that a programme costing between £500,000 and £700,000 an hour would save STV £30,000 to £40,000’.2

Against this backdrop however, a number of commissioning quotas and economic development strategies have been implemented in an attempt to strengthen television broadcasting in the nations and regions. For example, with the BBC committed to sourcing 50% of network programming outside of London by 2016, the corporation has relocated a number of flagship programmes to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in an attempt to establish ‘creative hubs’ around the country. With BBC Wales already successfully producing Doctor Who and its attendant spin-offs, Cardiff is fast becoming a focus for drama while a range of BBC arts and factual programmes, such as Newsnight Review, Question Time and the National Lottery, are to be based in Glasgow. This is in addition to the BBC’s announcement that five of its London-based departments will now be moved to Salford in the North of England where the new MediaCityUK development is underway. As noted by Stuart Cosgrove, Head of Nations and Regions at Channel 4, ‘the politics of economic development’ has become a growing dynamic in the balance of power between London and the major creative cities of the UK as ‘England’s Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and the devolved governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales invest in the creative sectors’.3 Thus, according to the Northwest Regional Development Agency, it is expected that MediaCityUK ‘will not only generate significant economic, social and creative benefits for Greater Manchester’ but will also ‘deliver £1bn in additional net value added to the British economy over five years’.4

The Salford Quays development is one of many similar projects located around the world which aim to establish mixed-use communities in which information, communication and media technologies are woven into the fabric of the built environment. Described as ‘New Century Cities’ by Michael L. Joroff, a leading advisor on such projects who is based at MIT’s School of Architecture, examples include Seoul’s Digital Media City, Arabianranta in Helsinki, Orsted in Copenhagen, One North in Singapore, Milla Digital in Zaragoza, Titanic Quarter in Belfast, and of course MediaCityUK.5 To this collective can now be added Glasgow’s Digital Media Quarter (DMQ) situated within the city’s new Pacific Quay business district on the River Clyde. Home to BBC Scotland, Scottish Television, Film City Glasgow, Galaxy Radio and the Glasgow Science Centre and Imax Cinema, the development is not only part of the wider regeneration of the Clyde Waterfront but it also aims to create a centre of excellence for the digital media industries. With regards to the television sector, this has seen a number of companies establish an office in Glasgow, including Shed Media and Keo Films, while programmes previously filmed in London, such as the aforementioned National Lottery, are able to make use of the many facilities on offer at the same time as drawing on the local talent base.

Yet, for those freelance television workers who are finding it difficult to secure employment due to the lack of regular returning series based in Scotland and the possible cancellation of Taggart, it remains to be seen how the above initiatives will impact on their ability to earn a living within the industry. At a recent meeting of the newly formed Association of Scottish Film and Television (ASFT), problems surrounding ‘flat-pack’ production were raised, in which ‘crews from outside Scotland are parachuted in and few, if any, locals are employed’.6 This may fulfill a Scottish production quota and make use of new facilities, but whether it secures the longevity of the local industry is debatable. Nevertheless, while the future of television in Scotland is problematic, Glasgow’s vision of becoming a ‘New Century City’ relies on tapping into emerging media markets and, as Claire Scally of Scottish Enterprise points out, fostering a collaborative community between indigenous digital media players.7

Moreover, alongside its new architectural developments, the city also benefits from its ‘well-preserved Victorian architecture, grid layout and endless cobbled lanes’, allowing filmmakers to use it as a stand-in for London and New York.8 This occurred most recently when the Glasgow-based production company Black Camel Pictures shot exterior scenes in the city for their upcoming Brooklyn-based feature film Legacy while also building a set at Film City Glasgow, one of the DMQ’s flagship buildings. Interestingly enough, Legacy stars both Idris Elba and Clarke Peters, who fans of The Wire will recognise as Stringer Bell and Lester Freemon respectively, two characters who are no strangers to the ‘mean streets’ of Baltimore. While Taggart is no match for David Simon’s acclaimed depiction of violence and poverty in a post-industrial city, it is significant that just as Glasgow’s own detective series is under threat, there is an attempt to finally lay the ‘no mean city’ image to rest and forge ahead with a ‘new century’ vision.

Image Credits:
1. No Mean City – Violence and poverty in pre-war Glasgow
2. Glasgow’s Digital Media Quarter at Pacific Quay
3. Film City Glasgow – The former B-Listed Govan Town Hall is now Scotland’s newest film, TV and post-production facility

Please feel free to comment.

1. Kate McMahon, ‘STV axes nearly all new ITV drama’ in Broadcast (21/08/2009). URL: http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/broadcasters/stv-axes-nearly-all-new-itv-drama/5004740.article
2. Martin Williams, ‘Ofcom expected to launch inquiry after STV cuts more ITV dramas’ in The Herald (22/08/2009). URL: http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2526834.0.Ofcom_expected_to_launch_inquiry_after_STV_cuts_more_ITV_dramas.php
3. Stuart Cosgrove, ‘No place for Alan Partridge regional snobs in TV today’ in Broadcast (31/07/2009). URL:
   http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/comment/no-place-for-alan-partridge-regional-snobs-in-tv-today/5004134.article
4. ‘MediaCityUK – The Vision’, Northwest Regional Development Agency. URL: http://www.nwda.co.uk/publications/business/mediacity.aspx
5. ‘New century cities emerge around the globe’, MIT Center for Real Estate (01/2005). URL: http://web.mit.edu/cre/research/ncc/press/ncc_050119.html
6. Jasper, Hamill, ‘Has there been a murder?’ in Sunday Herald (26/07/09), pp. 18-19
7. ‘Glasgow’s Pleased to Media’, High-Tech Scotland. URL: http://hi-techscotland.com/article/09-05-27__glasgows-pleased-to-media
8. Brian Pendreigh and Daniel Bach, ‘Wire star’s New York crime thriller . . . but those street scenes ring a bell’ Sunday Herald (13/05/2009) p. 3.

Faced with a severe economic recession, a global swine flu pandemic, the ongoing threat of terrorism and the continuation of moral panics around children, violence and sexuality, it is perhaps no surprise that when it comes to television comedy, British broadcasters have recently been seeking light and upbeat sitcoms in the manner of the refreshingly charming Gavin & Stacey, the tale of an Essex boy and Welsh girl whose whirlwind romance sweeps up their respective friends and family into one big warm embrace. This desire for good-natured laughs is especially true of the BBC, a corporation still recovering from the so-called ‘Sachsgate’ controversy that erupted after the comedians Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand called veteran actor Andrew Sachs (of Fawlty Towers fame) during a BBC radio show and left a message informing him that Brand had slept with his granddaughter. Attracting charges of obscenity from the press and numerous complaints from the public, the incident forced both Brand and Lesley Douglas, Controller of Radio 2, to resign and has since led many to proclaim that tighter controls and self-censorship may result in long-term damage to the type of playful, transgressive comedy that British television and radio has so often sought to cultivate. Set against this background then, it is good to see half of the comedy troupe The League of Gentlemen back on BBC2 with a series that not only pushes the boundaries of taste and decency but also plays with traditional genre conventions resulting in a mystery comic thriller named, appropriately enough, Psychoville.

The League of Gentlemen began life as a comedy quartet in the early 1990s made up of the writers and performers Jeremy Dyson, Mark Gatiss, Steve Pemberton and Reece Shearsmith. Initially garnering success with a live stage show that won the coveted Perrier award at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival in 1997, the group went on to create On the Town for Radio 4 before transferring to television with the eponymous comedy series The League of Gentlemen, broadcast on BBC2 two years later. With Gatiss, Pemberton and Sheersmith playing all sixty of the characters inhabiting the fictional town of Royston Vasey, the show was essentially sketch-based (and provided inspiration for the later Little Britain). However, the conventions of the sketch format were distorted due to the addition of a permanent location and a number of ongoing storylines that borrowed from horror, melodrama and soap opera while possessing a distinctly filmic visual aesthetic. As such, the series used grotesque characters and disturbing scenarios to create a darkly humorous tale of parochial Britain. In addition to Barbara, the transsexual owner of taxi firm Bab’s Cabs, viewers were introduced to shopkeepers Tubbs and Edward, whose preference for ‘local’ people lead them to kidnap and kill strangers, Papa Lazarou, ringmaster of the Pandemonium Carnival, who steals people’s wives, calls them Dave and locks them in a cage, and the Denton’s, a couple who suffer from obsessive compulsive disorder and have a taste for drinking their own urine. With shades of The Wicker Man, Night of the Hunter and Don’t Look Now, The League of Gentleman exhibited a queer sensibility that challenged acceptable boundaries of taste and dared the audience to laugh at things they ought not to find funny; something which I, for one, found strangely satisfying.

Click here to view the embedded video.

This has now been followed by Psychoville, a show written and starring only Pemberton and Shearsmith and thus not fully qualifying as a League of Gentlemen production but nevertheless carrying on many of the same traditions. In this instance, the opening titles of the series are inspired by the work of Saul Bass and therefore immediately indicate the duo’s attempt to create what they have referred to as ‘a Hitchcockian comedy’.1 The brief for the title sequence was to be ‘strong and urgent and mysterious all at once – and rather creepy’, and this statement also sums up the overall premise of the series.2 Bringing together five seemingly disparate characters from various parts of England, the opening episode sees them each receive a letter stating ‘I know what you did’ (a nod to another film of course, the Hollywood teen thriller I Know What You Did Last Summer). The following episodes then set out to reveal what links an embittered, hook-handed clown and a telekinetic dwarf to, a blind, Ebay-obsessed millionaire, a misguided midwife who treats her practice doll as a real child and a serial killer fanatic who has a very unhealthy relationship with his mother. Shot using a single camera and with no laugh track to signal to the audience that it’s alright to laugh at storylines that feature murder and allude to incest, the series is a dark, gothic mystery thriller that complicates traditional understandings of both the sketch show and sitcom; more of a sickcom as it were.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Notably, Pemberton and Shearsmith cite American quality dramas such as Lost, Heroes and Dexter as another of the key inspirations for the series as their aim was to draw viewers into a mystery that raised more questions than it answered.3 Instead of the neat circular narrative of the traditional sitcom then, in which characters are returned to their original status at the end of each episode, Psychoville has a sprawling plot that presents a cliffhanger each week and which focuses both on the present lives of the characters as well as their interlinked past as it seeks to catch up with them. Connections are thus revealed through the use of flashback and mysterious video footage in which they are seen performing a song from Joseph and the Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat in what appears to be a psychiatric ward. While this does indeed bring to mind the bizarre happenings that occur in dramas such as Lost, the inventive nature of Psychoville as a comedy is especially significant in a ‘special episode’ that occurs midway through the series. Returning to the influence of Hitchcock, episode four pays tribute to the film Rope and is shot in one continuous take. Opening with mother and son duo Maureen and David putting a body in a trunk (the same action with which Hitchcock’s film begins), the following events are confined to one room and shot in real time using a dolly rather than steadicam. The process, according to Pemberton, resembled a ballet, as two stagehands pushed furniture out of the way as both the actors and the camera moved around the set with the soundman following.4 This method of filmmaking only adds to the tension of the episode as there are surprise revelations about David and Maureen’s family background while an innocent character gets caught up in a real-life murder mystery.

Unlike the multi-camera setup of the traditional sitcom, which is designed to make filming numerous episodes in front of a studio audience as easy as possible, Psychoville has more in common with recent ‘comedy verité’ programming such as The Larry Sanders Show, Curb Your Enthusiasm and The Office.5 However, rather than adopt the look of observational documentary or the docusoap in order to blur the boundaries between reality and fiction and raise questions about the nature of authenticity, Psychoville aims for a camp, gothic and highly performative aesthetic with its costumed characters, grotesque storylines and exaggerated acting. Despite its artifice, the series succeeds in maintaining a dark menace throughout, raising the question of whether it can in fact be considered a comedy if the audience are left feeling anxious and uneasy at the expense of all-out laughs. Yet, the production of humour is indeed its main goal, with the duo not afraid to give their own unique comic treatment to any subject, no matter how tasteless. Whether or not you then find it funny depends on how twisted your own sense of humour is.

Image Credits:

1. Psychoville
2. Cast of the comedy troupe The League of Gentlemen

Please feel free to comment.

1. Stephen Dalton, ‘Psychoville: The new home of horror comedy’ in The Times (15/06/09). URL: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article6487000.ece
   
2. ‘Concrete looks to Saul Bass for inspiration for Psychoville titles’ in Digital Arts Online (15/06/09). URL: http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=12805
   
3. ‘The Story of Psychoville’ (2009) http://www.bbc.co.uk/psychoville/about/.
   
4. ‘Interview: The Special Episode’, ibid.
5. Brett Mills (2004) ‘Comedy Verité: Contemporary Sitcom Form’ in Screen, 45: 1, pp. 63-78.

Click here to view the embedded video.

As we now all know, Susan Boyle dreamed a dream in her audition for Britain’s Got Talent only for it to quickly turn into a nightmare. Becoming a global phenomenon almost overnight and attracting intense media attention, she was in the end beaten to the top spot by dance troupe Diversity before being admitted to a clinic suffering from exhaustion. But SuBo (as she’s been dubbed by the tabloids) and Diversity are not the only winners and losers to have emerged from this latest series of Britain’s Got Talent. Gripping viewers around the world for eight weeks, the show has raised a number of important issues, including our prejudices as an audience in relation to age and appearance, the question of consent in talent shows regarding children and vulnerable contestants in particular, and the relationship between television and the internet, at a time when the former is suffering from an advertising downturn. This article offers a reflection on some of these concerns at the same time considering what exactly it is about the format that has captured the world’s imagination.

Click here to view the embedded video.

With the recent controversy and discussion surrounding Britain’s Got Talent, and indeed American Idol for that matter, it is easy to forget that talent shows have long been a staple of the television schedule, from The Original Amateur Hour and The Gong Show in the States to Opportunity Knocks and New Faces in the UK. In fact, Richard Dyer’s work on the appeal of light entertainment in general still holds up surprisingly well in relation to the way in which the viewing public has engaged with Britain’s Got Talent in particular. Suggesting that such forms of popular culture do not create false needs in the audience but instead offer some sort of response to people’s real needs (albeit an emotional rather than political response), Dyer put forward a model that compared the frustrations created by capitalism -scarcity/uneven distribution of wealth, work as alienation, lack of intensity and lack of trust in public life, as well as fragmentation and isolation – with the utopian feelings offered by light entertainment – abundance and glamour, energy/work and play united, drama and authenticity, and of course a sense of community or collective action.1 It seemed that the Britain’s Got Talent judges themselves could even have had Dyer in mind as they continually praised the dance acts for the hard work exhibited onstage and the sense of community spirit evoked, not to mention the displays of love and affection put forward by the family duos Stavros Flatley and 2 Grand. In a time of economic and political turmoil, these values seemed to especially chime with the wider public, or at least that’s what Piers Morgan kept telling us anyway.

Click here to view the embedded video.

However, in addition to all of these utopian feelings generated by the show, there are also the more uncomfortable aspects of the format. The prejudices exhibited by the judges and the audience when Susan Boyle walked on stage with the audacity to declare she aspired to be the next Elaine Paige. The subsequent vilification of the teenage audience member who became ‘Girl at 1.24’ on Facebook after rolling her eyes at Boyle’s statement (despite the fact that she wasn’t the only one to react in that manner and the entire segment was edited in such a way as to make it surprising that Boyle could actually sing). And, of course, the child performers who made it through to the live finals only to break down and cry due to nerves and failing to progress further in the competition (ten-year-olds Hollie Steele and Natalie Okri respectively).2 With Boyle’s added vulnerability due to the learning difficulties imposed on her by the press and the level of scrutiny she has come under, the grand finale of the show made for an uneasy rather than satisfying viewing experience.

Click here to view the embedded video.

By chance, I happened to be at a conference on Lifestyle TV the same weekend as the Britain’s Got Talent final where Lesley Blaker from the University of Salford delivered a very timely paper on the risks associated with ‘ordinary’ people participating in television programming.3 Drawing on an earlier study carried out by the Stirling Media Research Institute, Blaker discussed the problems surrounding ‘informed consent’ and the guidelines set out to protect programme contributors.4 Of course, as noted by Su Holmes in her analysis of quiz shows, the ‘ordinary’ people who appear on lifestyle, reality and light entertainment programming tend to be chosen precisely because they are ‘extraordinary’ in some way, a tension that is all too apparent in Britain’s Got Talent.5 There is also a tension at the heart of the concept of ‘informed consent’, in which participants are required to have knowledge of ‘(a) a progamme’s format, aims and objectives, (b) how their contribution will be used and (c) the potential consequences for them or for third parties of their taking part’.6 While this was no doubt difficult to secure in the pre-internet age, I would argue that the advent of 24-hour news, social networking sites and YouTube has made it almost impossible to have an understanding of the potential consequences that may occur following an appearance on a show (both as a contestant and even as an onlooker, as Susan Boyle and ‘Girl at 1.24’ have now found out). Moreover, this becomes even more problematic when children are involved, as highlighted in the 2001 report Consenting Children? by Messenger Davies and Mosdell.7 (Although again, this has always been a concern, as anyone familiar with the success and subsequent tragedy of another Scottish chanteuse, the ten-year-old Lena Zavaroni who appeared on Opportunity Knocks in the 1970s, will be all too aware.) While academics and the press debate the level of psychological assessment and support that television production companies should offer contestants, Hesmondhalgh and Baker have also pointed out the additional pressures placed on members of the production team as a result of the emotional labour involved in such programming.8 This should not be forgotten, especially when considered in relation to the levels of risk and precariousness already inherent in freelance television work.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I want to conclude with a quick consideration of the fate of ITV, the commercial broadcaster of Britain’s Got Talent. Faced with the worst advertising downturn in its history and the continuing problem of trying to fulfil the public service obligations placed on it, ITV has been experiencing a number of difficulties. Posting a pre-tax loss of £2.73bn last year, the broadcaster has axed 1,600 jobs since September and is cutting its £1bn programme budget by a quarter over the next two years.9 It would seem then that the global success of Britain’s Got Talent couldn’t have come at a better time. After all, with Susan Boyle’s audition clip being viewed over 100 million times on YouTube, James DuBern of Current TV describes it as ‘a TV marketer’s dream’.10 Yet, this is difficult to monetise, especially since ITV has failed to reach an agreement with the online video site over ad-sharing revenue. This refusal to agree to terms has been attributed to Michael Grade, the executive chairman of ITV and a man so steeped in British television tradition that he is unwilling or unable to embrace emerging new-media markets. Indeed, Grade has since stepped down from his position, leaving many within the industry to proclaim that ‘ITV need someone with vision [to replace him] and preferably not someone from traditional media’.11 This suggests that, in terms of its business focus, ITV must now make a paradigm shift if it is to succeed in the current media environment and capitalise on lucrative event programming such as Britain’s Got Talent. Otherwise, the only winner to emerge over the last eight weeks will, as ever, be Simon Cowell himself. The man now charged with making Susan Boyle’s dream finally become reality.

Image Credits:
1. Front Page Image

Please feel free to comment.

1. Richard Dyer, Light Entertainment (London: BFI, 1973); see also David Lusted, ‘The Popular Culture Debate and Light Entertainment on Television’ in Christine Geraghty and David Lusted (eds.) The Television Studies Book (London: Arnold, 1998), pp. 175-190.
2. A number of youngsters took part in the live finals however and dealt with the experience admirably, including members of Diversity, Stavros Flatley and 2 Grand, as well as singer Shaheen Jafargholi and my own personal favourite, body popper Aidan Davis.
3. Lesley Blaker, ‘Fame can be bad for you: Who looks after ‘ordinary’ contributors before, during and after taking part in lifestyle television programmes’ at The Big Reveal II: Lifestyle TV Conference, University of Brighton (30/05/09).
4. The Stirling Media Research Institute, Consenting Adults? (2000).
5. Su Holmes, The Quiz Show (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2008) p. 124.
6. Consenting Adults?, p. 7.
7. Máire Messenger Davies and Nick Mosdell, Consenting Children?: The use of children in non-fiction television programmes (Cardiff University: 2001).
8. David Hesmondhalgh and Sarah Baker, ‘Creative Work and Emotional Labour in the Television Industry’ in Theory, Culture & Society (Vol. 25, Issue 7-8, 2008) pp. 97-118.
9. Mark Sweney, ‘ITV held talks with BSkyB about moving digital channels to subscription’ in The Guardian (01/06/09). URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/01/itv-bskyb-pay-tv.
10. Robin Parker and Robert Shepherd, ‘Switching on the YouTube viewers’ in Broadcast (22/04/09). URL: http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/switching-on-the-youtube-viewers/2021268.article.
11. Ingrid Silver, Denton Wilde Sapte media partner, cited in Kate McMahon, ‘ITV has golden opportunity, says industry’ in Broadcast (24/04/09). URL: http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/multi-platform/news/itv-has-golden-opportunity-says-industry/2021692.article.

Together with my colleague Dr. Raymond Boyle, I have recently begun working on a two-year project researching representations of business and entrepreneurship on British television and, given the current economic climate, it seems very timely. With the fifth series of The Apprentice back on British screens (and The Celebrity Apprentice showing in the US), questions have been raised about the appropriateness of the show and its slogan ‘You’re Fired!’ during a period in which large numbers of people are struggling to keep their jobs in the real world.1 Even more problematic is the type of culture it celebrates; the cutthroat, ruthlessly competitive, ‘Winner Takes It All’ mentality that sees the BBC trailer for the series drawing on the Abba song of the same name and which has led journalist Polly Toynbee to suggest that it was exactly this type of behaviour ‘that got us into this mess in the first place’.2 Yet, the first episode of Series Five attracted record viewing figures (8.1 million viewers tuned in, securing a third of the available audience) and the rhetoric surrounding the series has focused on how it aims to reflect the credit crunch by freezing its production budget and going back to business basics. This means that rather than travelling abroad for one episode, to the exotic climes of France or Morocco, the candidates’ skills will instead be put to the test in the seaside town of Margate where they will be charged with reinvigorating the town as an attractive holiday destination.

It will be interesting to see whether this current wave of public opinion will result in a sea change in the types of representations of businesspeople and entrepreneurs found on our TV screens. After all, as recently as the 1980s, British attitudes to wealth creation and big business were mostly negative, and businessmen (as they did tend to invariably be men) were depicted primarily in drama and comedy programming as either suspect and untrustworthy or mere figures of fun.3 While British examples of this include Arthur Daley in Minder and Del Boy from Only Fools and Horses, one of the most globally recognisable from this era is, of course, J.R. Ewing from the American prime-time soap Dallas, suggesting that American attitudes were similar. Indeed, in a study by Lichter et al. analysing the portrayal of American culture in prime-time television from the 1950s to the 1980s, the authors’ found that businessmen were ‘three times more likely to be criminals than [ ] members of other occupations’ and that their crimes tended to be ‘either violent or sleazy’.4 With the dawn of the 1990s however, public attitudes to business, entrepreneurship, and wealth creation began to change, as did their respective representations on television. Although there is no room to discuss this in detail here, advances in communications technology and the dotcom boom led to a sense that anyone could start their own business (even if this was not always acted upon) and the emergence of social and creative entrepreneurship meant that ethics and profits were no longer regarded as being mutually exclusive. While news and current affairs has always engaged with the world of business, entertainment-driven television also began to understand the benefits of this area. Providing risk, jeopardy, and, more crucially, stories that viewers could relate to about the everyday decisions and pressures involved in running a business, the rise of the business entertainment format soon took hold.

In Britain at least, this can be traced to the successful series of programmes produced in the early 1990s by Robert Thirkell at the BBC Business Unit. Troubleshooter, Trouble at the Top, Blood on the Carpet, and Back to the Floor each took a particular focus on businesses and the people who run them. While the latter (in which bosses returned to the shop floor to experience the problems besetting their workers first hand) drew on the docu-soap aesthetic that was popular at the time, it was perhaps the first of these, Troubleshooter, that has been of most influence within the industry, as shows such as Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares and Mary Queen of Shops follow the format of sending an expert (from the restaurant and retail trades respectively) into failing or underperforming businesses with the aim of turning them around. Yet, the business entertainment format has also diversified to quite an extent in the last decade or so. Not only has lifestyle programming been merged with business, in the manner of Property Ladder, but numerous programmes about entrepreneurship have also arisen, including Risking it All, Make Me a Million, and The Secret Millionaire. Two of the most original formats to have been developed are The Apprentice and Dragons’ Den, with the former introducing a competitive game element to the interview process and the latter involving pitching to a panel of ‘dragons’ for capital investment.

It remains to be seen how The Apprentice will fare in this economic climate, as although the backbiting and rampant individualism of the contestants appears to be out of step with the times, the show can also be considered primarily in entertainment terms, in which viewers are encouraged to laugh at the constant ineptitude on display (there is also perhaps a cathartic element to this in that the series reflects the kinds of inadequacies exhibited by the city bankers who Toynbee blames for getting us to where we are today and who have since, in some instances, experienced the words ‘You’re Fired!’ first hand). The focus on helping small businesses in Dragons’ Den on the other hand, is in keeping with the notion that it is innovative entrepreneurs who will help lead us out of the economic crisis. With the show’s production team descending on a support exhibition for start-up companies in Glasgow in the hope of finding potential entrepreneurs seeking investment, Ceri Rogers from New Start Scotland highlights how ‘75% of Scottish new starts have been refused funding from the banks over the past 12 months so investors like the Dragons are crucial in helping SMEs struggling to survive the economic downturn’.5 While the rhetoric surrounding the series emphasises the fact that the Den may be one of the few places left to go for funding, the logistics are that of the thousands seen at the regional auditions, only a small minority will make it onto the show and even less will secure the investment they require. Nevertheless, Dragons’ Den has the chance to offer a more positive spin on its engagement with the recession than its counterpart The Apprentice.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I want to end by briefly noting that a new area of business programming seems set to flourish in the current climate and it is that which revolves around philanthropy. Only a few short months ago in an article for Flow, I questioned the impact that the Channel 4 series The Secret Millionaire could have on society due to its focus on the eponymous millionaires rather than the ordinary people carrying out admirable work within their communities or living in poverty. While I still think the show is problematic, the latest series to be broadcast on British television appears to have come at just the right time. With news reports focusing on protestors smashing the windows of Sir Fred Goodwin’s house, due to the former Chief Executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland’s refusal to part with any of his £16 million pension (despite presiding over the bank’s collapse),6 the sight of wealthy individuals giving something back in The Secret Millionaire provides a welcome antidote to the narratives of greed dominating the press. Perhaps the last word then should go to the multi-millionaire businessman and former boss of Rover, Kevin Morley, who described the prospect of giving away a quarter of a million pounds on the show as ‘the most exciting day of my life so far’.

Image Credits:

1. Donald Trump on The Apprentice
2. Del Boy embarks on another money-making scheme in Only Fools and Horses
3. The villainous J.R. Ewing in Dallas
4. Front Page Image

Please feel free to comment.  

1. It has also recently been revealed that an Endemol series called Someone’s Gotta Go is in production for the Fox network in the US, although no details have been released as to when it will be screened. The premise of the show is that each week the focus is on a small business that is faced with making someone redundant due to the current economic downturn. With company bosses revealing how much each person earns, employees will then have to vote on who should be added to the rising unemployment figures. ‘Someone’s Gotta Go: Reality Show to Lay Off Employees’ in The Huffington Post (08/04/09) URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/someones-gotta-go-reality_n_184668.html
2. Newsnight, BBC2 (25/03/09).
3. Jack Williams, Entertaining the Nation: A Social History of British Television (Stroud: Sutton Publishing 2004), p. 61.
4. S. Robert Lichter, Linda S. Lichter, and Stanley Rothman, Prime-Time: How TV Portrays American Culture (Washington D.C.: Regenery 1994), p. 211.
5. Ceri Rogers, New Start Scotland (23/03/09) URL: http://www.newstartscotland.com/newstart/index.php?action=view&id=202&module=newsmodule&src=%40random46c1ce833e604
6. Lindsay McIntosh and Martin Waller, ‘Sir Fred Goodwin’s £3m home attacked by vandals’ in Times Online (25/03/09) URL: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5972737.ece

As 2008 drew to a close, I read with interest that the 37-year-old TV presenter and fashion stylist Nicky Hambleton-Jones was being replaced as the host of 10 Years Younger, a Channel 4 makeover show that she had fronted for five years. Stepping into her designer shoes, as it were, would be Myleene Klass, a former reality show contestant who has not only become ubiquitous on British TV screens over the past year or so, partly due to her obvious good looks and seemingly warm personality, but who is also, at the tender age of thirty, seven years younger than Hambleton-Jones herself. As was reported in the British press at the time, this decision appeared to echo the sentiment of the overall series, which is that youthful good looks are of utmost importance in today’s society.

For those not familiar with the programme, each episode of 10 Years Younger follows a team of experts (made up of the aforementioned fashion stylist, along with a cosmetic dentist, hairdresser, make-up artist, and surgeon if necessary) as they set out to take ten years off the perceived age of the chosen participants. While the reveal at the end of each show focuses on how the women who take part (and the occasional man) now feel more confident in the way they look, there is an underlying assumption that both their personal and professional lives will be more fulfilling and successful as a result of their revamped outward appearance. This is something that Laurie Ouellette and James Hay have discussed in their study of reality TV and its relationship to the neoliberal rationality of privatization, volunteerism, entrepreneurialism, and personal responsibility. Examining the proliferation of makeover shows such as this in which an emphasis is placed on ‘self-fashioning as a form of self-enterprising,’1 Ouellette and Hay suggest that the ‘impetus to signify youth is a cultural dimension of the current stage of “flexible capitalism.”’2 Drawing on the work of Richard Sennett, amongst others, they explain how in a employment market in which jobs for life are no longer available, youth is prized because it is associated with workers who have flexible mind-sets, are open to change, and who are willing to continually take risks. Ultimately, then, the suggestion is that by acquiring a younger-looking face and fashionable clothes, it is more likely that women, in particular, will get ahead not only in their love lives but also within their chosen field of work (although it will be interesting to see if these qualities continue to be desired if the current economic situation persists).

What this means, however, with regards to the decision to replace Hambleton-Jones with a younger presenter on the show that she fronted from its inception, is that while reality TV programming advocates self-fashioning as a way to success and happiness for female viewers, the television industry itself does not buy into this. Rather than being given the same opportunity as the programme’s participants to revamp her own personal look or indeed the format of the series (and I am dismissing for the moment the problematic nature of this approach), Hambleton-Jones was simply replaced by a younger model; and indeed one that does not possess similar experience within the fashion and beauty industry, except as the face of several advertising campaigns. As the presenter herself has stated “It does seem to me like a classic case of replacing any woman over 35, regardless of how suitable she is for the role, with a younger face.”3

This, of course, is nothing new. Within British news and current affairs programming in particular, there are several sixty-something men still commanding a position of authority on screen while their female counterparts have long disappeared to be replaced by younger women. In the most recent example, the respected broadcaster Selina Scott, aged 57, was being lined up as maternity replacement for Five’s news anchor Natasha Kaplinsky only to be subsequently overlooked in favour of a presenter almost thirty years her junior. She went on to successfully sue the broadcaster for age discrimination, a move that will perhaps make television executives think twice about making similar decisions in future, although this does seem to be extremely unlikely. As Anna Ford, another ‘mature’ newsreader, has pointed out, not only has her attractiveness constantly been referred to throughout her career, in a way that would not be the case for men, but she was also routinely passed over for jobs until she eventually felt as though she had no choice but to leave the industry.4 Thus, it seems that women in television are still judged primarily according to their age and appearance.

I do feel, however, that there is also something else going on here with regards to women’s routes into the broadcasting industry and the proliferation of lifestyle and reality programming. While not to be so naive as to think that it is purely so-called ‘expert’ knowledge that sees women such as Hambleton-Jones appear on our screens telling us how to eat, dress, and behave correctly (after all, presenters, experts, and judges also have to be in possession of a certain television presence in order to be successful), it is becoming increasingly the case that the only knowledge or experience that is required in the lifestyle/light entertainment arena is that of appearing on television itself. For example, despite the achievements of Sharon Osbourne as a music manager and promoter, it was only after the success of her family’s MTV reality show, The Osbournes, that she was asked by Simon Cowell to become a judge on The X Factor. After reportedly having a fraught relationship with new, younger judge Dannii Minogue, who joined the series in 2007, Osbourne left to be replaced by the pop singer Cheryl Cole, herself only 25 years old and no stranger to reality talent contests, having won Popstars: The Rivals in 2002.5 Similarly, Myleene Klass is another graduate of the Popstars series who also went on to take part in I’m a Celebrity . . . Get Me Out of Here! in 2006, eventually finishing in second place. It was this second appearance on a reality show that secured Klass’s position within the television industry, leading to her presenting numerous programmes over the last few years (from Last Choir Standing and Miss Naked Beauty to, of course, the upcoming new series of 10 Years Younger).

What these women have achieved, then, is not necessarily expert knowledge in a particular field (although Klass is herself a classically trained pianist), but the goodwill and support of the television viewing public who have consistently tuned in to watch or vote for them appearing as ‘themselves’ on a variety of reality programming; not to mention also submitting themselves to a series of ‘tests,’ such as demonstrating the ability to dance in order to become part of a pop group or the capacity to eat insects and grubs in the Australian jungle while wearing a bikini. The television industry seems to need this vindication from the public before placing women (young or old, although increasingly on the youthful side) in high-profile television roles. This leaves us with two questions then. First is whether there is a real possibility that women over a certain age will disappear from our screens altogether (except when in dramatic character) to be replaced by younger, shinier, and more polished versions, and second, which reality show will Nicky Hambleton-Jones sign up for first. After all, if she wants to retain her television career, then it looks like she’ll have to prove her worth in the Big Brother house sometime soon.

Image Credits:

1. Melanie Smith’s before and after in the fifth season of 10 Years Younger

2. Nicky Hambleton-Jones, former host of 10 Years Younger

3. Myleene Klass, new host of 10 Years Younger

4. Selina Scott successfully sued Channel Five for age discrimination

5. Anna Ford felt compelled to leave the television industry

6. Dannii Minogue, Sharon Osbourne, and Cheryl Cole fight it out on The X Factor

Please feel free to comment.

1. Laurie Ouellette and James Hay, Better Living Through Reality TV: Television and post-welfare citizenship (Malden, Mass. and Oxford: Blackwell, 2008), p. 101.
2. Ibid., p. 107.
3. It should be noted here that the producers of the 10 Years Younger insist that Hambleton-Jones decided to leave the show to ‘pursue other interests’ (The Telegraph 11/05.2008). URL: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/3384437/Myleene-Klass-replaces-Nicky-Hambleton-Jones-to-present-10-Years-Younger.html
   The presenter has since been quoted as saying, however, that being replaced by Klass was a ‘slap in the face’ (Mail Online 12/02/2008). URL: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1091173/Being-replaced-younger-model-Myleene-slap-face-says-37-year-old-Nicky-Hambleton-Jones.html
   
4. Time Adams, ‘The Interview: Anna Ford’ in The Observer (12/07/2008) URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/dec/07/women-equality-anna-ford-feminism.
5. The treatment of men in relation to age appears to be different within popular entertainment programming. For example, after replacing Louis Walsh as a judge on The X Factor with the much-younger choreographer Brian Friedman, Simon Cowell quickly decided the new set-up did not work and asked Walsh to rejoin the show. In this instance, Friedman’s age and attractiveness did not appear to be enough to keep him in front of the camera.

As a television academic and fan, I have tended to be drawn to the world of fiction, consuming and analysing as many quality dramas and well-scripted sitcoms as possible. However, recently I have been surprised to find myself watching more and more popular factual entertainment, a genre that has previously failed to ignite my sustained excitement. While it may not be difficult to understand the appeal of The Apprentice (with its fascinating insight into the competitive nature of business) or America’s Next Top Model (a wonderful guilty pleasure), my viewing tastes have expanded to include amongst others, Who Do You Think You Are?, the BBC’s genealogy series in which celebrities trace their family history, and The Secret Millionaire, a Channel 4 show that follows self-made millionaires as they volunteer in deprived areas of the country before donating money to those that they believe to be most in need.1 Perhaps my tastes are simply maturing (along with my age), thus explaining my new found interest in history and class-related programmes. But I suspect that it is has more to do with the way these programmes are presented or rather the fact that they tend to elicit an emotional response from me that even the most gripping drama does not. In short, they reduce me to tears.

These tears are not just restricted to the viewers at home but also flow on screen as well, as celebrities break down on hearing the fates of their ancestors or deserving participants express their shock at receiving a cheque from someone they thought was a kind-hearted volunteer. This emphasis on emotion can be problematic however, as it often overshadows the more important issues raised within such programming. For example, I recently screened an episode of Who Do You Think You Are? to a group of students at the University of Glasgow, only to be surprised by their cynical response. Featuring the broadcaster Jeremy Paxman, who is known for his tough and abrasive interviewing style on the BBC current affairs programme Newsnight, I chose this particular episode because it follows the resolutely English and middle-class Paxman on his journey to Glasgow where he discovers information about the poverty stricken lifestyle of his maternal great-grandmother in the city’s east end. While my intention had been to discuss the use of location and the issues of class and gender that were raised in the programme, the majority of students chose to focus on the moment when the camera zooms in on Paxman as he begins to cry on learning of his great-grandmother’s tragic circumstances. For the students, this was seen as a manipulative act by the producers of the show and resulted in them being sceptical about the other information presented within the episode.

This is unfortunate because for me Who Do You Think You Are? is that rare example of popular factual entertainment featuring celebrities that nevertheless teaches us something valuable about social history, family ancestry and, of course, human emotion. Viewing it within the wider media landscape however, I realised that the display of emotion, and specifically tears, is becoming increasingly common in programming featuring real people.2 While tears and tantrums have become a staple of reality TV such as Big Brother and I’m a Celebrity . . . Get Me Out Of Here!, even talent shows such as X Factor now require contestants to possess some sort of ‘sob story’ in addition to singing ability in order to go further in the competition. With emotion being so commonplace on television, it appeared to be something of a turn off for the young students in my seminar group.

And yet, it is precisely this combination of learning and emotion that the BBC in particular appears to be aiming for with its factual entertainment output. Discussing BBC2 under the control of Jane Root from 1999 to 2004, Raymond Boyle notes the way in which the brand identity of the channel ‘was to be built around programmes that were entertaining but also had an educational dimension, a strategy that began to reformulate what public service broadcasting would look like in a digital age.’3 According to Root herself, the notion of education has changed over the years in relation to television:

“These days television isn’t a very good place for getting your facts, because you can get facts anyway. Television is a medium that is primarily good at communicating emotion, and what’s interesting is to link emotion to ideas. My favourite programmes on BBC2 are always emotion with ideas.”4

On relating this to Who Do You Think You Are?, there is certainly a wealth of ideas and information to be garnered from each episode on historical events and issues, but the programme is essentially presented as a ‘personal’ journey for the celebrity and thus places an emphasis on the display of emotion. Nevertheless, I would suggest that the series does offer a further ‘learning’ aspect in that viewers are encouraged to become actively involved in tracing their own family history by either visiting the BBC’s Family History website or by purchasing the series DVD or Family Tree Maker software. This effective use of other platforms demonstrates the way in which, in the digital age, public service broadcasting need not only be confined to a television programme but can also operate via a variety of formats.

In contrast, Channel 4’s attempt to address current (rather than historical) issues in The Secret Millionaire is more problematic. In this instance, I believe it is easier to be cynical about the series because as each person relates their troubled background to the camera or is shown carrying out the good work they do for the community, the audience is aware that they will undoubtedly be rewarded by the end of the episode (at times a ‘ker-ching’ wouldn’t seem out of place on the soundtrack). Yet, I personally never fail to be moved to tears in those final moments when the deserving participants are presented with a cheque. The problem with The Secret Millionaire is that although it admirably displays a side of society that is rarely shown on television (due to the medium’s obsession with apsirational lifestyles), it is difficult for the programme to have a wider impact. The show’s website encourages people to ‘get volunteering’ but this merely pays lip service to the problem of poverty and underfunded services in today’s society. The rest of the website focuses exclusively on the lives of the millionaires involved rather than those living on the poverty line. With regards to the programme itself, the audience undoubtedly learns something about how difficult people’s lives can be but in the end they are asked to identify with the millionaire philanthropist and their sudden appreciation for the comfortable lifestyle they lead as the camera follows them on their journey home. It is perhaps no surprise then that when the follow-up programme The Secret Millionaire Changed My Life was broadcast, the moral of the story was that the experience had changed the lives of the eponymous participants of the series just as much, if not more, than those of the unwitting recipients.

Click here to view the embedded video.

It is important, therefore, to ask who these programmes are aimed at and who our tears are being shed for. While Who Do You Think You Are? teaches us that we are not that far removed from one another and that our own personal ancestry is inextricably bound up with social history, I would suggest that The Secret Millionaire allows a middle-class audience to voyeuristically experience the lives of the unsung heroes in society (those working in care homes, looking after the disabled, or fostering troubled teenagers) through the eyes of the privileged few. Viewed in this context, the tears generated by the latter become questionable.

Image Credits:
1. Who Do You Think You Are? Family Tree Maker Software
2. Jeremy Paxman Crying on Who Do You Think You Are?
3. Paxman’s Great Greandmother, Mary McKay

4. Front Page Image

Please feel free to comment.

1. Who Do You Think You Are? is a format that has already been sold to Canada and Australia, and more recently to the American television network NBC. The U.S. version of The Secret Millionaire is scheduled to air on Fox in December 2008.
2. This includes programmes featuring ‘ordinary’ people on television as Frances Bonner describes them or celebrities eschewing their public personas to appear as ‘themselves’ on screen. See Frances Bonner, Ordinary Television: Analyzing Popular TV (London: Sage, 2003).
3. Raymond Boyle, ‘From Troubleshooter to The Apprentice: the changing face of business on British television’ in Media, Culture & Society (Vol. 30, Issue 3, 2008) p. 420.
4. Simon Kirk, Interview with Jane Root (2004) URL (consulted October 2008): http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/alumni/notable_alumni/interviews/Root_interview.html.