Axed - The Paradise

Learning that The Paradise has been axed, I have to say, I wasn't too surprised. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it a lot. I reviewed the first series on here but didn't have time to review the second. The thing is, the second series seemed much less ordered than the first. By the end of it, with Denise (Joanna Vanderham) starting her own business away from the department store, there was a sense of fragmentation. And, also, I'm afraid, of things having progressed a little too quickly with Denise going from shop girl to department head to running her own business with undue haste.

I think the resolution of Miss Audrey's (Sarah Lancashire) storyline in the first two episodes of series two was a real problem for the programme as a whole. However, it was nice to see her ride off into the sunset with Edmund (Peter Wight). Then again, his dithering and returning, obviously giving Denise something of a safety net in her uncle, was a little demeaning to their happily-ever-after. It just accentuated the sense of fragmentation I got throughout the series, along with plots and schemes piled on top of one another. I found the really interesting characters - Clara (Sonya Cassidy), for one - got their screen time but they deserved much more. Equally, I enjoyed Katherine's (Elaine Cassidy) difficult relationship with her new husband and step-daughter but it melted under the conspiracy plot.

When I reviewed the first series it was on a week night and I suggested it was typical Sunday night fare. They did move it for the second series but put it on at 8pm - not exactly what I had in mind. It works for Call the Midwife because that programme has a devoted following but a lot of people watching live just skip over the 8pm slot and tune in later as this household does. Perhaps it was too late to save The Paradise after lacklustre first series figures caused by dodging scheduling. It's a shame but, as I said, not unexpected.

Birds of a Feather Return

Last night saw the return of Birds of a Feather to television screens after an absence of fifteen years. Critics have been mixed - Digital Spy seemed to enjoy it while The Telegraph gave it one star - but a lot of the fans seemed to enjoy it. Personally, I loved it. Took a little bit to get going but once Dorien turned up on the doorstep it was back to its usual self. I was in fits of giggles at the end when 'Shrek' walked though the door.

One thing that intrigues me about the return is the shift from the BBC to ITV. Linda Robson who plays Tracey said that it was because the BBC only offered a half an hour Christmas special whereas ITV were willing to take a punt on a full series. She suggests there's a policy at the BBC not to do retrospective series, something that tallies with some of the irritating decisions of recent years (though you'll note there are still hopes to bring Only Fools and Horses back again and this time unfortunately without the input of John Sullivan). It's hardly a blanket ban on retrospective series, is it? But, even if such a thing existed, it would be excessively stupid, especially in this case. You see, Birds of a Feather proved in 2012 that it could be updated and revitalised as it toured the country in a very popular stage show, which I saw in Sheffield. A 'retrospective series' was a natural continuation of this success. I would've been disappointed if they hadn't given it a shot and thank you to ITV (not often I say that) for giving it a chance.

Of course, the next seven episodes could prove me wrong and the whole idea could be a terrible one but, somehow, I don't think so. It was like stepping into a comfortable pair of slippers last night and this time with social commentary I could actually understand. It'll take the new characters and actors a little time to gel but the chemistry between the main cast is there and always has been. The BBC have shot themselves in the foot with this one.

Television Review: Dancing on the Edge

Dancing on the Edge, written and directed by Steven Poliakoff, tells the story of a black jazz band trying to break through in 1930s London with the help of some aristocratic and rich friends. It boasts a splendid cast including Chiwetel Ejiofor as bandleader Louis Lester, Matthew Goode as his journalistic 'discoverer' Stanley, John Goodman as rich eccentric Mr Masterson, Anthony Head as Mr Donaldson and Janet Montgomery as Louis's love interest Sarah. It also has an excellent supporting cast including Jenna-Louise Coleman, Wunmi Mosaku, Mel Smith, Jacqueline Bisset, Sam Hoare and Caroline Quentin. However, for all the excellent names in the cast list, this failed on several points for me.

First, let's start with the positive aspects. The production was sumptuous, the colour and decadence of the Imperial Hotel, where the band first makes a splash, contrasts wonderfully with the organised squalor of Stanley's office and other locations associated with the band before their big break. Visually, Dancing on the Edge is nothing short of beautiful. Alongside the locations there are some gorgeous clothes on view and the series does a relatively good job of bringing 1930s London to life. In addition, there are some excellent characters in this piece, whose intentions you're never quite sure of over the five episodes. Most of these are handled well but a few feel incomplete.

The central problem of this series is a murder which Louis Lester finds himself involved in. He has to work out who his friends are while searching for the truth. However, the viewer is pretty much in on the secret - if you've been paying attention - and the question is always 'how' will it come to a head rather than 'who' or 'why'. This dilutes some tension. Equally, the change in singer Jessie Taylor's (Angel Coulby) from star to diva has no depth to it and rather undermines the scenes that follow it. Much more believable is her back-up singer Carla (Mosaku) who is forced to the fore and copes with it admirably.

There were other issues too. Lady Cremone's (Bisset) arc felt strangely unfulfilled and, as one of the more intriguing characters, I was disappointed by that. The romance between Stanley and Pamela (Joanna Vanderham) seemed artificial and I couldn't buy into it, though they were good characters separately. I was more on board with Louis and Sarah's relationship, though I don't think the racial aspects of that were explored half as much as they could have been, considering the era. That, too, was left on a note that didn't exactly reward the viewer for their commitment. It wasn't the type of ending I had a problem with, but their final few scenes together. Perhaps one of my main gripes, though, was the band itself: I don't think their loyalty to Louis, so integral to the finale, was demonstrated at all sufficiently. Yes, Louis was the leader but the rest of the band were woefully left out of most proceedings. This missed both the opportunity to show their relationship to Louis but, also, to show the band's rise from the perspective of someone a little lower down the food chain. They became almost obsolete through the middle episodes and that was sad in my opinion.

Ultimately, I don't think the ending rewarded viewers for their perseverance. It flicked too quickly from the climax to the aftermath. I would've liked the see the reactions of certain characters as they heard the full story but, instead, it was just shown on the pages of a magazine. We don't even know how much of the story came out, an insult to viewers if ever there was one. Dancing on the Edge was artistically beautiful, yes, but I think it sacrificed a lot in character and plot to get there. However, this wasn't the case for all characters: Chiwetel Ejiofor and Matthew Goode were given the opportunity to shine and took it. They, for me, were most certainly the highlights of this series.

Lip Service Axed

Despite my open criticisms of Lip Service series two (see here and here) I'm disappointed to learn that it hasn't been renewed for a third series by BBC3. As I've mentioned previously, the second series became too fragmented for my liking, getting rid of three major characters in the space of two episodes and diluting the group aspect of the show. It could've been the stories that prompted the axe or it could've been the shift from Tuesday nights for S1 to Friday nights for S2. So far creator and executive producer Harriet Braun says she hasn't been given a proper reason by the BBC. However, I would say that if you muck around with things too much (I mean both the content and the time slot) then you have to be prepared for failure.

Still, I'm sad about the cancellation and there's one main reason for that - the character of Tess (Fiona Button). Unlucky in love, bit catastrophe-prone and extremely adorable, she became my reason for watching series two. How about a spin off - the incredible adventures of Tess on tour? Start in Scotland then buzz around the country. With all those audiences she would definitely find a woman...wouldn't she? It's something to think about.

Ultimately, whatever the justification for the cancellation, it's going to be a loss. I would've liked to have seen it return to the glory of the first series but, really, I'm not sure if that was possible. I don't suppose it's anyone's fault when actors need to leave to pursue their careers but I can't help thinking that swift exits were what set Lip Service down this road. Bye, bye, Tess. I'll miss you.

Television Review: The Paradise

Although this series was based on a book by Zola, I'm treating it as an isolated drama series since I haven't read the book for comparison. The Paradise tells the story of a country girl who joins the staff of a prestigious department store. Denise (Joanna Vanderham) has come to work for her uncle, Edmund (Peter Wight) but finds his shop across the street from the department store desolate and unable to support her. Starting work in Ladieswear under the withering gaze of Miss Audrey (Sarah Lancashire) she faces animosity from colleague, Clara (Sonya Cassidy), but Denise is full of ideas, some of which capture the attention of owner, John Moray (Emun Elliott). There is a spark between them but Moray is in the process of wooing Katherine Glendenning (Elaine Cassidy), the daughter of Lord Glendenning (Patrick Malahide), although the spectre of his late wife troubles him on a daily basis.

In all honesty, I found the first episode a little disjointed and difficult to watch. That's a sticking point with many dramas and the introduction of Denise to the world of the department store was much less effective than her immersion in it in later episodes. Characters who seemed like cardboard cut-outs in the first episode are fleshed out much more as the series progresses, notably Miss Audrey and the impassive clerk, Jonas (David Hayman). There is enough in the later episodes for me to recommend persevering with this - if you're a fan of period drama, of course.

The sets and costumes seemed perfect, most of the dialogue was in keeping with the period. Denise's accent was a little all over the place at first and, given the fluctuations, I never managed to accurately pinpoint where she was supposed to be from. One of the most enjoyable aspects of this series was perhaps the use of some excellent younger actors who are going to be in many, many things to come. Some of them were already familiar to me - Emun Elliott (Lip Service), Elaine Cassidy and Stephen Wight as Sam (both Fingersmith), Matthew McNulty (The Syndicate) - but Joanna Vanderham and Ruby Bentall as Pauline were both new faces to me.

As the series progresses there are some surprises and some predictable twists, enough of the former to make the latter bearable. I particularly enjoyed the finale, but primarily for the resolution of Miss Audrey's own storyline as much as anything else. The series was left open enough for the BBC to renew it and I hope they do, although I remain a little puzzled by their scheduling. The Paradise was not a midweek offering - it's typical Sunday night entertainment which would've fared better in that slot than I suspect it did on Tuesday nights. While I realise that the schedulers were probably trying to avoid a Downton Abbey clash, pushing The Paradise back until perhaps next year would've ensured it got the audience it deserved. If it returns, I'd like to see it on a Sunday evening where it belongs.

The Syndicate - Thoughts (Spoilers)

This isn't so much a review as me musing aloud. I enjoyed The Syndicate, the BBC drama about five winners of the lottery who find the money changes their lives in ways they never expected. When I heard it had been renewed I was happy - then I read the fine print. The second series will focus on a new set of characters.

In all honesty, I understand why but I'm still very disappointed. It took me until the second episode and the portrayal of Denise (Lorraine Bruce) in-depth to actually come to like the programme. The first episode really didn't chime with me much at all but I stuck with it, primarily because I'm always complaining that channels don't give shows enough time to prove themselves before axing them. I was rewarded by excellent characterisation in Denise, Leanne (Joanna Page) and, when he grew a backbone, Stuart (Matthew McNulty). The truth is, I spent five hours with these characters and I'm not sure I'm happy leaving them where we did. Okay, Jamie (Matthew Lewis) is dead but will we never learn what happens to Leanne and her daughter and whether Stuart will chase after a relationship with Leanne when/if his legal issues are sorted out? It feels like a terrible place to deliberately leave a set of characters.

For that reason alone, I don't think I'll watch the second series. I don't want to invest time in characters when I know their storylines are likely to be left as unresolved as Stuart and company. It's different when a show is axed or characters are forced to leave for, say, actor commitments (see Lip Service!). That's beyond the control of the programme creators. However, a rejuvenation of a show with fresh characters is very much the choice of the creators. And that irritates me in this instance.

Upstairs Downstairs Axed

As many people will have heard, Upstairs Downstairs has been axed by the BBC after only two series of the 'new' version (link Daily Mail, don't click if you hate it!). The second series apparently opened with 6.5m viewers but lost a couple of million as the series went on. However, using the final episode figures of 4.45m as justification seems mighty underhand - the last episode clashed with the first episode of Titanic on ITV1. Nor was this the only time Upstairs Downstairs was played around with in the schedules - one week it was pushed back to 9:30 to fit in with an extra Coronation Street episode on another channel (yes, the logic irritates me too). The point is, schedulers generally know what they're going to be up against. The key is to keep it consistent and try to respect your viewers by not pitting popular drama against popular drama. And you know what else? Take into account that people are as likely to record programmes and catch up later on iPlayer as they are to watch it live. Viewing figures are no longer what they seem.

Oh, I know Upstairs Downstairs wasn't perfect. I only actually watched the second series (but fully intended going back to watch S1 at some point) and it had its fair share of sensational stories and incredible situations. But, then again, so does Downton Abbey and we don't complain so much about that. There were some characters who were more three-dimensional than others but I don't think there was too much wrong with it that couldn't have been fixed. That, though, is the BBC's problem - they wield the axe so quickly that no one sees it coming. 6.5m viewers are not to be scoffed at and programmes are easily capable of appealing to new audiences as they go on. Drama on 'proper' television these days is so limited that it needs clinging onto when it arrives. Especially when it isn't a detective show. Don't get me wrong, I like Vera & Scott & Bailey (yes, both ITV1) but occasionally you want to see something else apart from death and misery.

The BBC will no doubt argue that Upstairs Downstairs was too expensive to make. I notice they still have money to buy in expensive reality television shows and copious amounts of sport. Despite being a tennis fan, I can't help but wish they'd pay more attention (and money) to drama and less to sport. And don't leave a house just at the break-out of WWII and never return to it. That isn't fair on your viewers. You could've at least commissioned one more tie-up episode you stingy sods.

Using Profanities - Pure Laziness?

Caroline Thompson, a senior BBC executive, said recently that swearing in comedies was all right now because there is an "enormous intergenerational difference about what is acceptable". This got me thinking about things I've seen, read and written lately and how they used language which could be deemed offensive.

I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of any current comedies. In my view they just can't match the class of previous decades. This may have something to do with the dependence on cheap laughs, partly stemming from bad language and partly from a buffoonery I just don't find endearing. But, as the article above says, classic comedies such as Porridge and Dad's Army didn't resort to swearing to get laughs. Yes, they sailed close to the wind sometimes but the laughs came out of what they nearly said as opposed to what they actually said. Modern British comedy has lost that to some extent.

But what of other genres? Well, I watch a lot of crime drama and hearing swearing on those feels acceptable to me because of the subject matter involved. I'm never going to get my knickers in a twist about the odd bit of swearing in a programme. My objections come from the fact that many writers (whether directed by broadcasters or not) seem to use coarse language as a crutch and as a substitute for meaningful dialogue. It's certainly easier to have a character swearing at a situation than figuring out a truly funny response to the events.  

I've seen a fair few plays this year. One thing that struck me was how the modern ones relied so much on swearing. It was something noticed by others as well as me - I had several conversations about it later, including with people who swear as often as they breathe in their day-to-day lives. One comedic play had a situation uncovered and two characters panicking about it. Instead of proper dialogue they literally just walked around the stage saying 'f**k, f**k, f**k' for at least a minute. As an audience member, I felt cheated. The word lost its resonance somewhat by the repetition and did nothing to further the plot or the characters. It was a substitute for what I'd deem 'proper writing' (as controversial as that term may be).

When I write I almost always keep to acceptable dialogue - until the situation calls for something else. I've sworn in most of my drafts to date but never just to fill space or to get a quick laugh. Profanity has to stem from both situation and character. It might be funny to have a grandmother spewing out a load of expletives but, unless you've got a reason for it, my patience wears thin.

All this may make me sound straight-laced and boring. I'm not (I hope!). I just want to see writers challenging themselves. How else are they supposed to challenge their audiences or, for that matter, entertain them?

Recluses

I was listening to a short interview with Doris Day on BBC Radio 4 yesterday. She's doing a little promotion for her new collection of songs which will be released in September. I'm looking forward to it immensely and I'm loving the renewed attention Doris is getting as a result of this release. Beautiful voice, wonderful actress, altogether adorable woman. Watch her performance in Love Me Or Leave Me if you think she's only a singing star. Anyway, that isn't the point of this post.

In the interview, Doris said something that I think relates to me. She was asked whether her reputation for being a recluse was all it seemed. This was her response: "The town is so crowded now, you know, we have so many people. And I don't really like to get in crowds, that's just not for me." That sums up my feelings almost entirely.

I don't hate socialisation; I just dislike the pressures of it. I like people; I just have a hard time communicating with them face to face. I think a lot of writers have this in them. It happens that I'm a more articulate writer than speaker and my strength lies in my ability to put words on a page - possibly with the intention of then having them spoken by someone else. Other people may get fed up with my reticence to meet (and I get fed up with my own reticence) but I battle down my insecurities and do it more than I'm comfortable with. While I accept that life is not supposed to be easy, I don't accept that I constantly have to put myself in situations which increase my stress levels in order to 'prove' I'm normal. Sometimes, you know, you're allowed to be selfish to the point that if you want to stay in and hide behind a computer screen, you're perfectly within your rights to.

Of course, I do get out of the house. I have a select few friends who command my attention every now and then (and I love them for it). I have a boyfriend who insists on 'taking me out of my comfort zone'. I have a family who drag me to smelly monkey houses in order to give the kids a day out. I like all that. Perhaps what I don't like are the stressful meetings with my PhD supervisors, or the interactions in the doctor's surgery, or the prospect of going to see my little play performed in a few weeks.

How I'll cope with that one is yet to be seen. But at least Doris has made me feel a little better about myself this week. I'm allowed to want to stay away from crowds of people. I'm allowed to put it into practice. However, due to my own exacting standards, I'm not allowed to hide from people indefinitely.

The Cull of Male Detectives

I've just read this article about the BBC. In a nutshell, it says that BBC One controller, Danny Cohen, aims to limit the number of male detectives on television and, possibly, the number of crime dramas full-stop. Zen (something I admit I haven't watched) was axed due to this new policy. Apparently there are enough male detectives on television already.

I'm all for female-led drama. I covet it. I think it's true to say that I would be more inclined to give a programme a shot if it had a prominent female character BUT if I hear good things about something I don't avoid it simply because it has a male lead. There are so few good returning dramas around these days that I cling on to a good script or an innovative idea like a child clutching a prized toy. Zen attracted 5.7 million viewers on average for its three-episode run. In the current climate that is pretty damn good. Why should it be axed merely for some political correctness stunt which the BBC should be above?

Their remit is to be a public service. Yes, they have a duty to offer equal opportunities and to portray as many sides to our society as possible. But to axe a popular programme because it's another show with a man in it? Can you imagine if that was the other way round? David Cameron's 'calm down, dear' would be lost in the amount of mud Westminster would be slinging at the BBC.

Of course we need more female-led programmes on television. But, as with most things, if you try and force something into a box it just doesn't work. I don't know if the BBC are running around telling scriptwriters they must work on female characters but, if they are, they're shooting themselves in the foot. I hate television by numbers. I hate the inclusion of a token gay character or a disabled character or anything that reeks of people wanting to tick a box. As soon as you start doing that you lose the organic element of a narrative, the thing that popped into your head the moment you started playing 'what if'. I can tell you something; if a character pops into your head and he's fully formed with a family you can identify, flaws you can exploit and a firm story you can tell, it's not just a case of swirling him around, popping a bra on him and having the character be a woman instead. That works the other way too: characters cannot and should not be manipulated for the sake of political correctness.

So, my wish for the BBC? I'd like to see the main channels take a gamble on some of those fantastic programmes relegated to BBC3 and 4 where you have to be clairvoyant to find them. I'd like to see better scripts, tighter drama and riveting television. I'd like see fantastically-acted characters, male AND female. I don't want to see apparently good dramas tossed into the rubbish bin because they don't fit a perceived image.

That's what I want.