Showing posts with label 1980s. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1980s. Show all posts

Wednesday, 19 February 2025

Pinter at the BBC: What the Censor Sees.

“Two men intimidate another, breaking his glasses and verbally mocking him.” (‘Theatre Night: The Birthday Party’ BBC, 1987)

 This article was first published on the (now defunct) 'Harold Pinter: Histories & Legacies' blog on 28 January 2019:

 The long-awaited BFI DVD collection, Pinter at the BBC, is released today. Over five discs, the anthology includes 10 versions of Pinter plays made by the BBC between 1965-88. As all ten are new to any home video format, the release increases the amount of Pinter UK television material publicly available by 500%. In addition to the plays, the collection also includes a wealth of supplementary material – four of the animated sketches made by Potterton Productions (Pinter People 1969) and documentaries and interviews from both the BBC and BFI archives. Full details for the set are as follows:

 “Truth in drama is forever elusive. You never quite find it, but the search for it is compulsive”
Harold Pinter on receiving the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2005

Harold Pinter (1930-2008) was one of the most important and influential British playwrights of the last century. While best known for his work for the stage, this collection celebrates Pinter’s significant contribution to television. His work for the screen shares many of the qualities of that for the stage, from a fascination with the private roots of power and an abiding preoccupation with memory, to a belief in the agency of women. Featuring 10 previously unavailable plays made for the BBC between 1965 and 1988, and a dazzling array of British acting talent including Michael Gambon, Julie Walters, Leo McKern, Vivien Merchant, John Le Mesurier and Miranda Richardson.

The Plays:

• Tea Party (Charles Jarrott, 1965)
• A Slight Ache (Christopher Morahan, 1967)
• A Night Out (Christopher Morahan, 1967)
• The Basement (Charles Jarrott, 1967)
• Monologue (Christopher Morahan, 1972)
• Old Times (Christopher Morahan, 1975)
• The Hothouse (Harold Pinter, 1982)
• Landscape (Kenneth Ives, 1983)
• The Birthday Party (Kenneth Ives, 1987)
• Mountain Language (Harold Pinter, 1988)

Extras:

• Writers in Conversation: Harold Pinter (1984, 47 mins): an ICA interview with Harold Pinter by Benedict Nightingale;
• Pinter People (1969, 16 mins): a series of four animated films written by Harold Pinter;
• Face to Face: Harold Pinter (1997, 39 mins): Sir Jeremy Isaacs interviews Harold Pinter, who discusses the images and events which have inspired some of his most powerful dramas;
• Harold Pinter Guardian Interview (1996, 73 mins, audio only): an extensive interview recorded at the National Film Theatre;
• Illustrated booklet with new writing by Michael Billington, John Wyver, Billy Smart, Amanda Wrigley, David Rolinson and Lez Cooke, and full credits.

UK | 1965-1988 | black and white, and colour | 628 mins | English language with optional hard-of-hearing subtitles
original aspect ratio 1.33:1 | 5 x DVD9 | PAL | Dolby Digital 2.0 mono audio (192kbps)

© BBC 1965-1988. Distributed under licence from the British Broadcasting Corporation.

 Alongside of the incisive reviews of the set that are starting to appear online is one detailed critique that is likely to remain obscure. The British Board of Film Censors (BBFC) are obliged to publish Insight reports into every film that is commercially released, detailing the reasoning behind each certification decision that they make, and demonstrating that they have considered the potential effect of contentious material in every film. Nine of the ten films have been awarded 12 certificates, with the bloody Mountain Language (Certificate 15) being the exception. As the DVD release is the first time that the productions have ever come under the watch of an official censor, these verdicts are worth circulating further:

TEA PARTY is a drama in which a millionaire experiences health and psychological issues after marrying for the second time.

Sex

There are moderate sex references.

There is also mild bad language (‘bloody’, ‘hell’), dated racial terms (‘negros’), and scenes in which adults smoke cigarettes.

A NIGHT OUT is a British drama, from 1960 [sic], in which a young man’s mild temperament is pushed to breaking point by the people around him.

Language

A woman describes a man as ‘retarded’, although discriminatory language is not condoned. There is also use of mild bad language (‘bloody’).

Sex

It is implied a woman is a prostitute, and she begins to undress in front of a man although no strong nudity is seen. She also complains that other women are “loose”.

A man is accused of inappropriately touching a woman at a party, although no detail is seen. There is infrequent very mild violence as men push and shove in an argument, and as a man’s temper flares he threatens to hit a woman with a clock.

 

A SLIGHT ACHE is a drama in which a couple reluctantly invite an elderly match seller into their home.

Violence

A woman recalls being raped by a poacher. She does not go into explicit detail about the event but describes it as ‘a desperate struggle’. There are no visual references to the rape.

There is mild bad language (‘bloody’, ‘slut’).

 

THE BASEMENT is a British drama, from 1967, in which two friends compete over ownership of a small flat and the love of a younger woman.

Sex

A man watches a woman undress, although no strong nudity is seen on screen. In other scenes men and women are seen kissing and running their hands over each other with implied nudity, but there is no clear sexual activity.

There is brief mild violence, in which two men face off with broken bottles, and a man throws a marble at the head of another man.

 

MONOLOGUE is a 1973 British drama featuring a performance of a Harold Pinter monologue.

Discrimination

A man refers to a black woman using outdated and racist terminology including ‘black as the ace of spades’.

There is mild bad language (‘pissed off’, ‘bloody’, ‘crap’) in addition to infrequent mild sex references.

 

OLD TIMES is a dramatisation of a Harold Pinter play in which the conversations and reminiscences between three friends challenge their understanding of the origin and depth of their relationships.

Sex

Moderate sex references include repeated references to a man looking up a woman’s skirt and a woman stroking her breasts while making sensual noises.

Language

There is moderate bad language (‘bitch’).

 

THE HOTHOUSE is a dramatisation of a Harold Pinter play in which corruption and bureaucratic ineptitude cloud an investigation into murder and sexual assault at a secretive government sanatorium.

Violence

Moderate violence includes a man repeatedly punching another man in the abdomen, as well as references to people being stabbed and others being hanged and strangled during a massacre.

Threat

Moderate threat includes three men pulling bladed weapons on one another and a man clutching his head in pain when a powerful sound is played to him through headphones.

Language

There is moderate bad language (‘bitch’, ‘nigger’).

Sex

Moderate sex references include a man referring to “Men dipping their wicks” and cautioning subordinates to “Never ride barebacked”.

 

LANDSCAPE is a 1983 drama based on the Harold Pinter play.

Language

There is strong language (‘f**k’) as well as uses of ‘shit’, ‘piss’, ‘bloody’, ‘arse’, ‘bullshit’ and ‘bugger’.

Sex

There are moderate sex references when a man speaks about ‘having’ and ‘banging’ his wife.

 

THE BIRTHDAY PARTY is a British drama, from 1987, in which two sinister men arrive at a boarding house looking for a former musician.

Sex

A woman refers to a man using her. In another scene a man is seen trying to put his hand up a woman’s skirt.

Threat

Two men intimidate another, breaking his glasses and verbally mocking him. He is later seen struggling to speak and appears to be paralysed. A man is also caught lying on top of a clothed, semi-conscious woman, implying he may be trying to assault her.

Language is mild (‘bloody’, ‘shite’, ‘bastards’).

 

MOUNTAIN LANGUAGE is a television version of a short play by Harold Pinter, set in an unnamed totalitarian state, in which a mother and a wife make a visit to their respective son and husband who are in prison for dissent.

Language

There is strong language (‘f**k’), as well as milder bad language including uses of ‘bloody’, ‘shit’, ‘arse’ and ‘Jesus Christ’.

There are moments of moderate threat, as well as moderate injury on the hand of a woman who has been bitten by a dog and on the face of a prisoner who has been beaten by a guard, although both incidents occur offscreen. There are also moderate sex references.

 It is entertaining to speculate if it was the same viewer who watched all ten plays. If so, the quality of their description of each play fluctuates a bit. The reading of Disson’s “health and psychological issues” in Tea Party is as comically baffled as the description of Old Times is – for a one line précis – admirably acute.

 It is curiously instructive to read what is technically disturbing about the plays, and to then contrast that with what one personally finds unsettling about them. The distinction between threat and violence is pertinent to Pinter’s work, in which there is much of the one and relatively little of the other. When watching the stage it is generally the prospect of violence that unsettles rather than the actual enactment of violence (which often – for me, anyway – provokes distracting thoughts of ‘how are they doing that without actually hurting each other?). The BBFC monitors are especially primed to look out for violence that could be emulated at home, hence the concern about open blades, broken bottles and men throwing marbles at each other’s heads. Similarly, Pinter’s treatment of sex is largely technically unproblematic, as “no detail/ strong nudity is seen”.

 While it seems highly unlikely that anyone would chose to entertain a primary school age child by encouraging them to watch Pinter at the BBC, the possibility of the effect of watching it upon a minor automatically has to be considered in order to justify the awarding of a certificate, and all of these ten plays are adjudged to include language, actions or inferences that are actively unsuitable for minors.


Sunday, 2 February 2025

Doctor Who: Warriors’ Gate (1981), Jean Cocteau and the realm of videographic fantasy

 

vlcsnap-2013-09-06-19h32m50s20 

 This article was first published on the (now defunct) University of Reading 'Spaces of Television' blog on 06 September 2013:

 (Text of a paper given by Billy Smart at ‘Walking in Eternity’, University of Hertfordshire, 3 September 2013)

 What I’m going to do today is examine the spatial realisation of a fantastical world in the 1981 Doctor Who story, Warriors’ Gate, draw some conclusions as to how the story’s distinctive visual style is inextricable from its narrative form and consider how the drama shows and investigates fantasy itself.

 I’m going to do this in relation to the strong affinities between Warriors’ Gate and Jean Cocteau’s two films Orphee (1950) (a reimagining of the myth of Orpheus, the poet who travels to the underworld in order to rescue his wife Euridice from death) and – especially – La Belle et la Bête (1946), his telling of the beauty and the beast story. Commentary on Warriors’ Gate tends to mention the similarities of mise-en-scene and visual motifs between the films and the programme, but only ever in passing. What I want to do today is consider how these forties cinematic antecedents work in greater depth, and what they mean for the viewers’ understanding of the eighties television story.

 It’s my contention that the use of Cocteau motifs is ingrained in the narrative of Warriors’ Gate, and acts as something more significant towards our understanding of the story than a handful of convenient borrowed visual devices. Instead, the references are integral to the visual and philosophical construction of the world of Warriors’ Gate. Cocteau’s conception of film has been described as “cinematic poetry”. David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson provide a useful definition of this poetic effect, describing Cocteau’s films as:

  [S]elf-consciously “poetic” works, seeking to create a marvelous world sealed off from ordinary reality and to convey imaginative truths through evocative symbols. (…) Cocteau conceived rich images that could be translated into many media, confirming his belief that the poet is not merely a writer but rather someone who creates magic through imaginative means. (2003: 380-1)

 Cocteau himself, a polymath who – as poet, novelist, dramatist, director, designer and artist – created both written and visual art, accepted this poetic conception of his films, finding and layering the rhymes that exist between diffuse images in his cinema, just as he did with words in his verse:

 [F]or me the image-making machine has been a means of saying things in visual terms instead of saying them with ink on paper. (1954)

 Creating a whole work from this approach required a “syntax”, obtained as much through the clash between images as the connection between them. Through adopting this discordant syntax (which lacked the sense of flow that appealed to movie critics) films could become ‘vehicles for thought’:

 My primary concern in a film is to prevent the images from flowing, to oppose them to each other, to anchor them and join them without destroying their relief. (1954)

 ‘Warrior’s Gate’, an exceptionally complex Doctor Who story with a narrative that is difficult to make linear sense of, operates through just such an unsettling syntax. Set in the negative space of E-space, as opposed to the positive universe of N-Space, the story concerns a slave ship, marooned in E-Space by time winds. The ship’s slaves, the Tharils, are a race of lion-people used as navigators by the slavers because of their extrasensory psychic powers.

vlcsnap-2013-09-02-10h51m11s76

 The Tharils lead the crews of the slave ship and TARDIS to a world behind a magical mirror, revealing that the lion-men were once the masters of their own kingdom, when they in turn enslaved humans.

vlcsnap-2013-09-02-10h51m55s15

 It is also the story in which the Doctor’s companion and fellow time lord, Romana, parts company with him, to live amongst the Tharils, taking K-9 with her.

vlcsnap-2013-09-02-10h52m24s56

 Set in a non-world of white empty voids, obviously artificial monochrome gardens, cobwebbed castles and magic portals, Warriors’ Gate is understood by the viewer through imagistic metaphor and associative logic, rather than through concrete and linear narrative.

 The story is structured through “overt poetry, where thematic associations link the very fabric of the world together as much as through scientific reason” (Sandifer, 2012).

  This non-linear storytelling has sometimes attracted hostility –  a typical review reading:

 [‘Warriors’ Gate’] is told in such a complex way that it fails totally to be comprehensible to anyone without a lot of time for the programme and access to a video recording. And there are more of them than there are of us. It may be a brilliant experimental television drama, but is unforgivable in its contempt for the family audience. (…) there’s so much to fathom out that even the Doctor is baffled until the very end.  (Owen, 1997: 21-2)

 Two early eighties TV innovations helped 1981 viewer understanding of the story, particularly amongst younger viewers – the home video recorder, which allowed stories to be immediately re-watched – ideal for finding sense in an allusive narrative – and the rapid growth of promotional music video, most famously David Bowie’s ‘Ashes to Ashes’ (1980, d. David Bowie and David Mallet), bringing abstract videographic landscapes to everyday television, their visual ontology similar to that of Warriors’ Gate.

 The unconventional form of Warriors’ Gate can be in part attributed to the novice status of its production crew. It was 25 year-old Steven Gallagher’s first television script, having previously written science fiction for radio plays and his first novel. Gallagher’s initial script has been described by Script Editor Christopher Bidmead as being “a novel” rather than a work for TV, very long and primarily consisting of passages of description (Arnopp, 2009: 45-6). His aim was to write a strongly horror-based serial, since he disliked the “softer”, comical, approach to Doctor Who of recent years. He approached the task with the assumption that he was writing for three different audience constituencies: action and monsters for the children, mystery and imagination for the teenagers, and intellectual drama for the adults (Wiggins, 2009).

 Director Paul Joyce had previously only directed one television drama, a Play for Today for BBC Birmingham, and his inexperience of directing drama in the TV studio affected both the process of making Warriors’ Gate as well as the style and form of the programme. Joyce hoped to make the serial in a distinctively filmic style, setting up pre-production screenings of several films that he wanted to emulate, including Kiss Me Deadly, Dark Star and Cocteau’s Orphee and Testament d’Orphee. He used the TV Centre studio like a film studio, his working method being to shoot scenes twice and then edit them together in postproduction. This caused great delays and was unpopular with BBC Staff, with Joyce at one stage being sacked from the production, until it became apparent that no one else could comprehend his camera script and he was quickly reinstated. Production was also delayed by a walkout of staff when Joyce insisted on filming the studio lights “off the set”, a safety officer declaring a set unsafe and a strike by BBC carpenters. The drama required extensive work in postproduction (Pixley, 2002, Wiggins, 2009).

 Because of this preoccupation with film style, it had been assumed that the use of Coctovian motifs was a directorial decision on the part of Joyce, but Steve Gallagher has emphatically refuted this notion, to the extent of sending copies of his original draft script to writers who suggest this in print (Gallagher, 1994). Bearing this explicit authorial intent in mind, I suggest that the frequent use of Cocteau references in Warriors’ Gate acts as considerably more than as an act of homage, but as a visual code for understanding the story world of the drama. Gallagher uses the visual world of Cocteau as a template for achieving two essential concerns of Doctor Who

 Firstly, to form impossible connections between parallel worlds and realities. This is a recurring feature in Doctor Who, not just the transitional space of the TARDIS itself, but parallel spaces within worlds themselves, that can often be formulated as representing dream or unconscious states for those who cross between them – for example, the virtual reality domain of the matrix (‘The Deadly Assassin’, 1976) or the Continual Event Transmuter machine that stores sections of planets on a series of slides (‘Nightmare of Eden’, 1979). To cross from one world to another requires either a process (e.g. being connected to a machine) or a physical portal (such as crossing into a screen).

 Gallagher took the idea from Orphee that mirrors are gateways into the other world.

O - Death passes through mirror I

 The Princess and other emissaries of Death travel through mirrors –

O - Death passes through mirror II

– as do the Tharils in Warriors’ Gate.

W - Biroc passes through mirror

 The creation of trick effects for the mirror was much more complicated in Cocteau’s film studio, requiring false sets with elaborate carpentry. In contrast, BBC Television Centre Doctor Who production used an identical effect for all journeys through the mirror.

W - Doctor passes through mirror

 Joyce wanted to recreate Cocteau’s most celebrated rippling effect for passing through the mirror, but the use of mercury was vetoed as being too impractical and dangerous.

 The mirror in Orphee is frequently shown to act as much as a barrier as a gateway.

O - The mirror as barrier

 Orphée is eventually enabled to travel through the mirrors in part by putting on gloves (much as the Doctor’s hand becomes changed by the time winds); and in part by blocking out the concerns of our world, much as lead Tharil Biroc urges the Doctor and Romana to “Do nothing” to escape the slave ship. Ability to traverse the mirror in Warriors’ Gate is shown to be a process only allowed to those with telepathic sympathy; Tharils can pass through mirrors like doors, Time Lords and Ladies can learn the gift, but the frustrated slavers lack the wherewithal to pass through, as seen here as the Doctor looks through from the other side of the mirror.

W - The mirror as barrier

 The mirror is not the only means of communication with the underworld that Warriors’ Gate shares with Orphee. Cryptic messages from the realm of death are transmitted by radio in the film –

O - Radio messages from otherworld

– a device used in two settings in Warriors’ Gate. First the time-sensitive Tharils, and then Romana are wired up in the hope that they will receive messages from beyond the gateway, the headphone apparatus drawn from Orphee.

W - Radio messages from underworld: Romana

 And, like Orphee, the Doctor tinkers with cumbersome equipment to receive haltering, stentorian, instructions from the other side through the airwaves.

W - Radio messages from underworld: Doctor

 The second lesson that Gallagher takes from Cocteau in order to create a strong Doctor Who story is the application of the topography of La Belle et la Bête to create an imaginative fantastical world, governed by its own rules and logic. From my own experience, the abiding memory of watching Doctor Who as a child was the powerful, immersive, sense of looking in on a fully realised fantastical world, with access limited to just a fleeting 25 minutes on Saturday afternoons in the autumn and winter. Popular memory tends to concentrate upon the fear felt by the infant viewer of Doctor Who, but there was also an equally strong aspect of fascination to childhood engagement with the programme.

 The various landscapes that Warriors’ Gate adopts from Belle et la Bête feel like a more fully-realised world than a collection of stages. The Doctor’s initial arrival at the castle acts as both a quotation from – and a discourse with – the moment in the film when Belle’s father arrives in the mansion of the beast. The BBC scene repeats the same apparatus and composition used by Cocteau –

B - entering the castle

– with the Doctor also responding to the room – with its candelabra, seemingly deserted table, and empty chair – from the same position, evoking a similar mood of exploration and unease.

W - entering the castle

 The beast’s castle is not, however, deserted, but populated by living statues!

B - faces in wall

 Similarly long-dormant, but still living, suits of armour populate the Tharil castle, Gallagher deriving child-pleasing monsters (the Gundun Warriors) and suspense from Cocteau’s imagery.

 W - faces in wall

 In both scenes, the protagonist’s response to their alarming new surroundings is given an action through the prop of a goblet. In the film, the father takes a drink from a disembodied hand, considers, and then drinks from it.

B - the goblet

 While the Doctor arights an upended goblet, an object that the (very attentive) viewer will eventually learn that he himself upset centuries before.

vlcsnap-2013-09-02-06h46m28s179

 While the castle room is a finely-realised interior set, ‘Warrior’s Gate’, like la Bête, presents the viewer with an impressive sense of the expansive topography of the beast’s magnificent home –

 B - magical gardens I

– surrounded by magical gardens

 B - Magical gardens II

– an effect achieved by using detailed still photographs taken in the grounds of Powis Castle.

W - Magical gardens statue

 The monochrome photography elevates the onscreen garden from a potentially flat green screen special effect into an otherworldly magical location

 W - Magical gardens

– where visitors lose their individual agency and can only follow the beast through warrens and mazes.

W - Magical gardens Hedge

 The monochrome artificial effect is also used for the corridors of the Tharil kingdom, reconstituting Cocteau’s grand corridors –

B - Magnificent corridor

– and allowing characters the space to move between foreground and background in magnificent rooms

W - Magnificent corridor

 Sometimes Warriors’ Gate replicates the shot sequence of particular scenes from la Bête, the point of view shot through which the prone Belle first sees the beast –

B - POV introduciing the beast

– is also experienced by Romana and the viewer

W - POV introducing the beast

– as, in turn,  is the beast’s point of view

 B - Beast POV

 W - Beast POV

 Perhaps the most significant visual quotation ‘Warrior’s Gate’ takes from la Bête is the hand-in-paw conjoining between Belle and the beast –

B - Hand in paw

– being an action recreated by Time Lady and Tharil, signifying a point of tactile connection between two worlds of the story.

W - Hand in paw

 It is when presented with this touching image of union between Noble Princess and Beast, that the fantastical fairy tale source of Warriors’ Gate is most apparent, but wholly consistent with the depiction of the Tharil kingdom throughout the story. Gallagher’s imaginative use of Cocteau’s imagery – and Joyce’s application of it – are consistent with Cocteau’s own rationale for telling fantastical stories on film, which calls for great precision and craft:

 [It is up to me] to avoid those impossibilities which are even more of a jolt in the midst of the improbable than in the midst of reality. For fantasy has its own laws which are like those of perspective. You may not bring what is distant into the foreground, or render fuzzily what is near. (1949)

 Cocteau’s introductory prologue to La Belle et la Bete can serve as well as a justification of the form and style ‘Warriors’ Gate’:

 The characters of this film obey the rule of fairy stories. Nothing surprises them in a world to which matters are admitted as normal of which the most insignificant would upset the mechanics of our world. (1946)      

 As much as any Doctor Who story, Warriors’ Gate works through paradoxes and confusions within and between space and time. As in Cocteau’s films, the unconventional visual aesthetic of the story means that it achieves this through poetic means. “Typically when we use the word “poetic” we really mean “lyrical,” that is, essentially working according to a non-narrative structure. Lyric poetry, contrasted with the narrative form of epic poetry, is a poetry based on the expression of emotions” (Sandifer, 2012). This lyrical storytelling acts as a boon to Warriors’ Gate, a story made during a particularly cerebral period of the show when, under the script editorship of Bidmead, it was reluctant to dramatize the emotional journeys of characters.

 Because Warriors’ Gate was not conceived as a standalone viewing experience, but as four 25-minute episodes of an on-going series watched on Saturday afternoons. As a segment of a continuing viewing experience, the story would always be best remembered for the departure of Romana. It is through the appropriation of Cocteau’s world that Romana’s story works on an associative level. As in La Belle et la Bête, a lion man takes a princess into his world. For all of the sophistication and elegance of the piece its most elemental narrative fascination is achieved through fairy tale. Although the verbal storytelling of Warriors’ Gate is opaque, the essential story is told through visual means.

 The celebrated words of the Princess to Orphee apply just as well to the viewer of Warriors’ Gate: “The point is not to understand, but to believe.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Arnopp, Jason, ‘Science Friction’, Doctor Who Magazine 407, 29 April 2009, pp. 42-7.

Bordwell, David & Thompson, Kristin: Film History: An Introduction (Second Edition): New York, McGraw Hill, 2003.

Cocteau, Jean, Beauty and the Beast: Diary of a Film: New York, Dover Publications Inc, [1949] 1986.

Cocteau, Jean, Cocteau and the Film: London, D.Dobson, 1954.

Gallagher, Steve, ‘Scripting ‘Warriors’ Gate’ – so what actually happened?’, In-Vision 54, November 1994.

Owen, David, ‘Doctor Who: The E-Space Trilogy’, Doctor Who Magazine 257, 22 October 1997, pp. 21-2.

Pixley, Andrew,  ‘Archive: Warriors’ Gate’, Doctor Who Magazine 315, 3rd April 2002.

Sandifer, Philip, ‘Going To Be Alone Again (Warrior’s Gate)’: http://www.philipsandifer.com/2012/02/going-to-be-alone-again-warriors-gate.html , 2012.

Wiggins, Martin, ‘Production Information’, Doctor Who: Warriors’ Gate: BBC DVD, 2009.

Darrol Blake Interview Part III: Thirty Years Of Directing Soap Operas

 

'Crossroads': Episode 2674 (ITV, ATV, 20 January 1977) "David and Rosemary ponder on whether they should re-marry."

‘Crossroads’: Episode 2674 (ITV, ATV, 20 January 1977) “David and Rosemary ponder on whether they should re-marry.” Directed by Darrol Blake.

 This article was first published on the (now defunct) University of Reading 'Spaces of Television' blog on 08 June 2013:

 In July 2011 Leah Panos and myself had the good fortune to interview veteran television director Darrol Blake in his Barnes Bridge home. In a career that spans fifty years, Darrol started as a Design Assistant at the BBC in the 1950s, going on to become a Production Designer and then direct for the BBC, before becoming a freelance director for both the BBC and a range of ITV companies from the 1970s onwards. In Part One of our interview Darrol talked about working as a designer at the BBC in the 1950s and 1960s, working on a diverse range of programmes made in several different studios. In Part Two he discussed his experiences as a director for the BBC and at Thames Television. In the final part of our interview he discusses his experiences as director of hundreds of episodes of all the major British soap operas between the 1970s and the turn of the century.

BS. You may be unique in having directed all five of the major British soap operas.

DB. Oh, I doubt it, but yes I did, I directed Eastenders, Coronation Street, Brookside, Emmerdale and Crossroads. And others you won’t know about – I did Family Affairs. I did Triangle, although that was a finite thing where we did seasons rather than it being continuous. Another one of those finite series was The Cedar Tree, which I loved, an afternoon thing in the 1970s, which ATV did up at Elstree, and that was very posh. It was one of the first productions I worked on where we had a permanent set, i.e. they didn’t knock it down and set it up again next week, it took over a stage and it had the set on it. What I mostly remember about that was we all used to rehearse quite quickly and then dash next door and watch the Muppets being recorded. The Cedar Tree was set in the 1930s, a rather gracious period thing about a moneyed family.

LP. That’s unusual for daytime television.

DB. It was. Alfred Shaugnessy who did Upstairs, Downstairs, devised it. I only did one week. Somebody got double-booked so I was whisked in to do what was in fact the end of recording for the first series. But when I got the scripts, and it was all quite a quickly made show – get up and do it – I was surprised to see in the script that the characters were saying things to each other that they must have known, “You are my cousin and you will always” type of dialogue. So I said to myself, “What’s this?” I knew it was the last of the recording block. So when I got up there, the first thing that you did with the cast in those days was to sit down and have a read through. There was a murmur going around the table as we were reading. I’d worked with Cyril Luckham before, he was in it and he’d put the word around that I was acceptable, I gathered.  Both the originator and the producer were away because they thought that it was the end of the series, but what they had actually done was that these scripts were the opening episodes of the next block for the next series, so they had committed all those actors to being in the next series. They were furious! So those characters were commissioned to reappear in the next series – there’d been no negotiation as to whether they were available or to be paid – so that was what this murmur was, and that explained why they were all saying things to each other that they should have known. Needless to say, being a paranoid person, when that murmur went round the table I was thinking, “Why are they about to hang me?”

 And when I went for Crossroads, it was – God! That was recorded but… it took great courage for me to actually stop the tape and ask for a retake, because you then only had even less time being in a commercial company to actually record what you had to. I had a private rule that there had to be three fluffs before I would actually stop the tape. Somebody dropped something but didn’t break pace, somebody fluffed something, and if there was a third mistake, then I’d stop. But you had to go back to the top, that was the awful thing. And the scenes were so long, each programme had a recording break in the middle, so you had to do either Part One or Part Two again. But the scenery never wobbled – all this business about the scenery wobbling and people not knowing their lines is rubbish! But millions watched it.

BS. Its true, I’ve watched all of the surviving Crossroads episodes up to 1979 and the myth of things like microphones in shot actually happened a lot more in Coronation Street and BBC productions.

DB. Yes, absolutely. But there was a weird sort of confidence thing. I remember that there was a marvelous girl called Sue Hanson in it who played Miss Diane, and she said, “Darrol, I was watching Coronation Street last night and, do you know what, they know that they’re in a success” And Crossroads was endlessly battered and endlessly criticized and of course everybody employed by ATV hated working on it because it was slated all the time. They would much rather have been working on the posh plays and the filmed dramas, or the big variety shows that ATV used to do. Ditto Emmerdale when I did that for Yorkshire, it was very much the poor relation. It brought in the money and it brought in the advertising and they the commercial companies had to do them, but the people who actually worked in the studios didn’t really enjoy it. Unless there was no big film or play going on and then they would say, “Oh well, better go and do Emmerdale”, you know.

LP. What did you like about working in soap? Because it feels as though you found a home there.

DB. Yes, because I’d been born and brought up in the studio it was my home. And I knew how to do it swiftly and efficiently and leave people standing at the end of it, on budget and on time. And I knew how to do it in such a way that I was relaxed about all that and I could take care of the actors and actually coax something out of them that perhaps they didn’t know that they did. I got hired again and again and again because of that – ‘The actors like him’, you know? So I enjoyed it. Having got into television at sixteen at Lime Grove that was where I was alive and where it was all happening.

LP. So you always preferred to work in the studio?

DB. Yes, I quite enjoyed working on location, though. Although of course more and more, the soaps were made on location. Triangle was made entirely on location on the ship. I took people there, and they’d talk about an actor or a storyline or something, and they’d say, “But when you got into the studio”, and I’d think, ‘but I just told you, it was all done on location on a ship!”

 Talking about that sort of incomprehension, when I was up doing Emmerdale in 1981, they retransmitted Episode 1 of Coronation Street to mark Granada’s 25th anniversary and Derek Bennett, the director of episode one, was actually at Yorkshire Television with me doing some play or other. So I saw him in the bar the night after the repeat and I said to him, “Nice little show last night. Do you think it will run?” or some fatuous remark like that. And he said, “Darrol, I have to tell you, my entire team said, ‘Why didn’t you retake that bit where she stood in front of him?’” and he said, “It was live”, and they said “Yes, yes, but why didn’t you retake?” No comprehension!

 When I got to Emmerdale in 1977, it was established by then that you put up the pub set or the farm set and knocked off scenes for six episodes at a time. Most scenes were put in the farm kitchen so the cast ate huge meals. They’d have six breakfasts or six dinners and then break for lunch!

LP. I’ve noticed that in Emmerdale the kitchen seems to work as a replacement for the living room in other soaps.

DB. Oh yes, Sheila’s kitchen, it was. They were so hamstrung by the unions at YTV. I had two strikes in one day once – it was a nightmare. The electricians just ruled the place there in the seventies; nobody would do anything because they were frightened that the ETU would strike. Finally they became responsible for safety in the studios, which meant that they could stop production. You know – ‘That’s a slippery floor, stop production!’ Finally the YTV management talked to ETU headquarters and said that eventually they were going to have to stop production entirely, and they were told, well, fire them! ETU headquarters said fire them so they did. They then went on to rehire them all, but they got the message. Then when Thatcher appeared, the unions disintegrated, really. It was a nasty situation with the unions there.

 Of course, in most soaps the central location is the pub, and when Phil Redmond started Brookside there was no pub in the show. Later on there was a nightclub, but there was no emphasis on people drinking at all.

BS. Have you ever read Dorothy Hobson’s book about the making of Crossroads? It’s the best description that I’ve read of the work of a director at that time. Because she went and stayed in ATV for a year, 1981, and she writes about exactly what directors, floor managers, the writing team, production and the cast all do, so you get a real sense of the timetable and pressures of working on the series. 1981/2 was the period when ATV became Central, because that’s when they sacked Noele Gordon. You get the strong impression that Central wanted to make high-profile, exportable ‘quality’ series like Inspector Morse, so they were continually annoyed that Crossroads remained so popular when it was an unwelcome inheritance from ATV. She talks about the problem of finding good directors for Crossroads. There were some safe pairs of hands such as yourself, but the problem was that they either got young tyro directors who wanted to make too much of an impression with the show which was counterproductive when it came to getting the show made on time and on budget, or they got old lags who were on the way down.

DB. When I did it dear Jack Barton, the producer, had three alternating directors. Two of those were staff directors and he had a third post in which he was allowed to hire freelance directors and I came in ever and anon in that position. And the cast, it was Sue Hanson who said to me that every third week we get directed. Because the staff directors would just go, ‘that’s alright’, you know. So when Ed Lawton’s farm came into it dear Kathy Staff and Sue had to come to this farm where Benny was living. When we were in the rehearsal room I said, “It’s muddy out there, it’s freezing cold” and Sue said,  “Ooh! I haven’t been spoken to like that for years!

 Since I’d been a designer, all the sets were made with four walls, but they only ever used the three and shot them straight on. I discovered this and I would do the studio plan and use all four walls and have the whole corridor in the motel so that you could act it from reception to the hairdressing salon and so on. And people at ATV would turn out to see it. And Meg’s drawing room that was also her office with a big desk in it had four walls but no one had ever seen them, so I decided to use all four walls but slightly set apart so you could shoot in various positions. Alan Gifford, a Canadian actor, was guesting in it as some involvement for Meg at this point, so I explained what I was doing and Nolly who was very sweet was smiling and nodding and she looked at him and she looked at me and she said, “We’ll do it and you shoot it. Don’t bother us and whatever you do we’ll do”

 One thing I remember about that lot. There was one scene that was written as a blazing row between David Hunter and Meg – Janet Hargreaves, Rosemary Hunter, was also involved – and in rehearsal, even in the dress rehearsal in the studio, they went at it like hammer and tongs and it was very good, the vision mixer had to work as fast as he could to switch from shot to shot. Come the take, they were all smiles. They didn’t do it! You can’t stop a take, but finally when it was all over I rushed down and said, “What?” And Ronnie Allen said, “Oh, they don’t switch on to see people being unkind to each other. They have far too much of that at home, you see. They want to see us being nice to each other.”

vlcsnap-2013-06-08-17h39m50s17vlcsnap-2013-06-08-17h41m50s205vlcsnap-2013-06-08-17h43m02s156

BS. There’s some truth in that. Dorothy Hobson does this work with audiences, where she suggests that the value of Crossroads isn’t so much dramatic but provides a service of showing viewers a world that they’d like to visit.

DB. Oh yes. I always used to say that soaps had taken the place of the lace curtains, because in generations gone by she always watched what went on at 24 and her at 48’s got that sailor in again. They don’t do that in the present day, its given to them in the soaps.

LP. There’s a bit of that in Brookside because of the set-up of the close being the main setting, there’s more awareness between characters of movements and goings-on.

DB. Yes, I’d watched Brookside before I got there in 1987, and the thing that I noticed, because I’d been a designer and I was fairly experienced by then. The first thing that I do when I watch something is that my brain prints out the layout of the situation or the set, and if somebody comes from the wrong angle I know that they’ve come from the wrong angle, because the bedroom door’s over there or whatever. Before I went up there watching Brookside as it was transmitted, I couldn’t work out the relationship of the houses. And once you’re there, of course it’s terribly easy; you know that there are two there, two there, two there and those two, where nobody ever asked what those houses were for.

LP. Yes, they never spoke to the neighbours that lived in those houses…

DB. One house was the canteen, the other was wardrobe and make-up and the other one at the far end was the technical block with the editing suite and all of the rest of it in, and the one on the corner was Phil’s office with admin downstairs. And of course, the other thing was that all of the rooms were pretty small, so you had to take one camera – except for special occasions – and you had to take all of the furniture out in order to do close-ups.

LP. Brookside started using the steadicam very early on, and I wonder if you had any thoughts about that. Had you worked with it before?

DB. I’m pretty sure not, though I had worked with handheld cameras. There was a lightweight camera that had come in on Emmerdale. When I first came to Emmerdale in the late seventies they still had what I called the gas cameras, these bloody great things, and huge vans for OB, and the first thing that you did when you were looking for a location was find a car park to put all your stuff in, it was just ridiculous. Then later this lightweight camera came in, and I took it down a mine, and all sorts of places. But you used handheld for atmosphere really, for a fight or something that was supposed to be a bit jazzy, but that was a great advance for us at YTV.

 Phil is a brilliant producer and writer and everything else. I had employed him prior to that because one of the things that I did after Triangle finished was a couple of series of Tucker’s Luck. Literally on the last dubbing session for Triangle I went into the gents and there was Edward Barnes, who had been the studio director on Blue Peter all those years ago, who was by then Head of Children’s Programmes, and he said, ‘We’re looking for someone to produce the next series of Tucker’s Luck’ so I said, “Ah ha! I’m available” Of course, Phil Redmond, because of Grange Hill, was the creator of Tucker. It was the BBC’s idea because they’d got such a response to Tucker, the character had left school of course. The BBC on Phil’s side didn’t think that there was going to be any more mileage in him, but they got such a massive amount of “Bring Tucker back” mail and they couldn’t bring him back to Grange Hill, obviously. At that time unemployed teenagers were much in the press, they were all coming out of school and there were millions and millions with no work. So, the BBC thought that there would be something there for a series with Tucker and his two mates. We got a rather good director for the first series, and then the BBC decided that they wanted it to go on and on. It was organized that somebody else would do the storylines and the scripts, so I came into a fait accompli, but I went to meet Phil, because I needed to know about Tucker, who he was and what his creator thought ought to happen to him even though the storylines and scripts by somebody else were already there. So the assistant head of children’s programmes and I flew up to Liverpool and were given lunch by Phil and Barbara, his secretary from Phil Redmond Enterprises… Finally I got a word in and I said, “Tell me about Tucker – Who are his heroes?” “He doesn’t have heroes, he is a hero” and that was about all I got out of that meeting.

 So in a sense I had actually already employed him before I went up there, and we got on like a house on fire up there. He liked what I did and he was pleased that I managed to get performances out of the people in a short space of time, so I went on being employed up there two or three times a year for fifteen years. Towards the end it was just awful, though. There were assistant producers, associate producers – all running scared of the channel, because they were threatening to withdraw the money every year: ‘Pull your socks up. Put in some middle-class people. Do this, do that’, and they’d all run round jumping to please the channel. The last three visits I did up there in 2001 and 2002 were just awful, because all these people were telling the director how to do it. I thought, “I’ve been a director for forty years, I don’t need this” So after the third one I came back and I said to my agent, no more soap, and the phone didn’t ring for a year. That last visit to Brookside was the end of my directorial career. They reshot a lot of those scenes because they didn’t like them, and they reshot them badly although they still put them out under my name. The day before I was due to start shooting, i.e. my camera script was all done, Phil Redmond called us all together and said that Brookside was going to be relaunched and that the camera had to be moving all the time and various other things – Cut! Cut! Cut! I thought, well, you’re going to lose your core audience for a start. I find that just irritating, when you’ve got two people in a room sitting down or stationary, and the camera’s pretending to be handheld for no apparent reason, so I didn’t do it. The editor was absolutely apoplectic, he said, “Phil will hate this – where’s all the other material?” “I did it in one take, in one shot”

LP. That was his initial aspiration for Brookside, to have an invisible style realized in a flowing way in as few shots as possible.

DB. Well, that’s what I was still doing! But it wasn’t the fashion of that week.

LP. How did working on Brookside compare to Eastenders? Because there are some similarities in the set-up of both series, although Eastenders obviously used a lot of studio shots.

DB. Eastenders is just a conventional BBC production, almost a sitcom. I thought that their sets were brilliant – that exterior set of Albert Square is just wonderful. I think it looks best in the rain and grey weather, while Emmerdale looks best in the sun. I always thought that the guy who designed that should have got the BAFTA – I cut out a BAFTA and gave it to him when I worked on Eastenders twenty years ago, because he was still around then.

 I was not hired for Eastenders until after Julia Smith had left as producer. It’s the sort of thing that people remember: I certainly remember about people who have let me down in that context.

BS. I’ve heard that she was quite fierce –

DB. Oh yes! Apparently, if things were going along smoothly she would go and do something to upset the applecart on Eastenders to wake everybody up, weird things like that, quite a strange woman.

LP. On Brookside, the design was quite clear, because they built real houses. It has that coldness that new closes do have.

DB. They had terrible problems with the sound, because the minute that you take all of the furniture out in order to take a close-up of somebody it echoes, so they had to use these mattresses to absorb the sound, then they got rid of those and treated the ceilings with acoustic tiles so you could shoot in there.

LP. Was the light a problem as well? The programme had a very cold sort of daylight.

DB. No, because they used a particular sort of light switch that can merge with daylight, and you’d always use another great arc light coming through the window. Some of the lighting guys were better than others; some would do it in a flash while others would make a great agony of it all. Even before I got there Phil had licked them into shape; the camera crews, the lighting guys and the props – they all worked beautifully and really knew what they were doing. It was quite interesting watching how they would react to different directors, because when I was first there Phil was taking punts on quite tricky people – people who’d never directed actors before and people who had never directed television before. They all overran. There was one girl, [Ms. X], who was a beautiful actress who I was a great fan of – as an actress. She’d directed in the theatre, so she came onto Brookside, she must have done a course somewhere. She just had no idea whether it was Sunday or Christmas. The directors’ office at Brookside itself was as small as a corner of a room and was meant for the six of us, but fortunately at any one time you had one writing, one preparing, one shooting, one working at home and one editing and so on, so you were never really working in there together. I remember her being in there and she came in and sat down and said, “Darrol?… He comes out of the house… and I’ve got…” She couldn’t complete a sentence. She was just totally, totally stunned. I said, “Is it the location shoot?” “Yes” “What have you got to do? Have you got to get him from a car, into the house? What’s happening?” “Oh thank you… thank you…” I don’t know what I said, but I presumably got the cogs working in some way or another. I watched her first episode – God, it was sinister, it was so slow! It was bonfire night in the Close with a big bonfire, and there were several conversations, some of which had the bonfire in the background, some didn’t because it had obviously gone out by then, and it was so slow that you thought that a bomb was going to explode at any moment, there was so much tension. But it wasn’t, it should have been swift, light-hearted banter around the bonfire in the Close – I would have done it in one shot. She’d broken it down into what she’d thought was manageable bits… and then she just ran out into the night and left before the second shoot. So, guess who was asked to take over? So, when I was first up there, there were a lot of people coming in. Some could actually cut it and were okay, but others just overran, so whoever was following them in would have to pick up their scenes as well as doing their own.

Saturday, 1 February 2025

Beyond the Fourth Wall: Experiments in TV Drama: David Bowie in Baal (BBC, 1982)

 

 

 This article was first published on the (now defunct) University of Reading 'Spaces of Television' blog on 02 November 2012:

 Alan Clarke’s television production of Bertolt Brecht’s play Baal (BBC1, 2 March 1982) is being screened as part of the ‘Beyond the Fourth Wall: Experiments in TV Drama’ season at BFI Southbank on Friday 30 November. Booking details can be found here. Billy Smart, author of ‘Brechtian Television: Theatricality and Adaptation of the Stage Play’, considers the unique style and qualities of this production:

The play

 Baal was Brecht’s earliest play, written in 1918 as a student diatribe against Hanns Johst’s expressionist piece The Lonely One. Satirising Johst’s tale of an unacknowledged artist who redeems his dissolute lifestyle and dies at peace with the world, Brecht created in Baal a monster of sensuality and self-gratification, a ribald, drunken strolling player named after a bestial pagan deity. Despite his repulsive appearance and egocentric amorality Baal is irresistible to women, which makes him envied, admired and despised by men. He seduces every girl who comes his way before abandoning them to pregnancy or suicide, and finally murders his best friend, goes on the run and dies alone in a woodcutter’s cottage.

 (Pegg, 2002, pp. 461-2)

The 1982 production

 Because it was made in 1981, the technical opportunities and mode of production available for Baal’s director, Alan Clarke, were more flexible than those used by previous directors of Brecht’s plays for the BBC, Rudolph Cartier (World Theatre: Mother Courage and her Children, 1959) and Charles Jarrott (Festival: The Life of Galileo, 1964). Clarke had the opportunity to re-edit the piece extensively in post-production, as had become customary in the production of studio television drama (Jacobs, 2000, p. 24), an innovation that might encourage the creation of the “Brechtian television” that had been called for by John McGrath, Ken Loach and others in the 1960s. Clarke’s production achieves its Brechtian distancing effect through montage and editing in places, but is also committed to the perceived virtues of ‘as live’ recording, featuring long scenes of continuous performance unfolding. However these long scenes are shot in a completely different way to Charles Jarrott’s intimate directorial style in Galileo, and show how the ‘as live’ studio mode of production could be used to create a mood of objectivity and detachment on the part of the viewer, instead of being used to create empathy.

 The role of Baal required a charismatic performer who could sing, and who was prepared to play an unattractive character. Clarke’s initial preference for the role was Steven Berkoff, but he was persuaded out of the choice because Berkoff would present too unambiguous a sense of social origin for Baal (Kelly, 1998, p. 138). Instead, David Bowie was chosen, whose singing, background in mime[1] and ability to adopt the role of outlandish and outsider characters made him well qualified to fulfil these criteria. Having a major international star in the production undoubtedly changed the circumstances of its marketing and reception, the play being billed as David Bowie in ‘Baal’. This promotion of star over play[2] led to questioning of the BBC’s values in several quarters (Sunday Times review 7 March 1982, quoted in Pegg, 2002 p.463, Gardner and Wyver, 1983, p. 126). Bowie also capitalised on the production by releasing an EP of re-recordings of the five songs featured[3]

 The inclusion of David Bowie altered perceptions of the play, and probably helped to militate against it being seen as a mainstream television production. Although David Bowie was a hugely famous performer by 1981, he was still largely perceived as a cult figure, rather than as a popular entertainer[4] or as a conventional actor, his two major roles previously having been as an extraterrestrial in The Man Who Fell To Earth (dir. Nick Roeg, 1975) and as the deformed Elephant Man on Broadway (1980). This meant that unlike Mother Courage (with Flora Robson) or Galileo (Leo McKern), Baal was a production whose casting worked differently for two different sets of viewers; a pop audience, and a general one.

 Bowie’s participation in the production was due as much to the status of Alan Clarke as to that of the play, Bowie having seen Clarke’s 1979 film version of Scum and responded with enthusiasm (Fenwick, 1982, p. 7). Clarke occupied a difficult position within the hierarchy of the BBC by 1981, as being one of the most prestigious and talented directors working for the Corporation, but also one of the most contentious, this difficult relationship between director and institution having reached a critical point with the decision of Alistair Milne, the BBC’s director General, not to screen Clarke’s original television film of Scum in 1977, ostensibly on the grounds of excessive violence and presenting an exaggerated picture of the failings of the borstal system (Kelly, 1998, 103-5). After this incident, Clarke’s work for television became more uncompromising and nihilistic, culminating in the exceptionally violent and bleak television films of Elephant (BBC2, 1988) and The Firm (BBC2, 1989)

 Clarke’s production can be seen as the second part of a pair of complementary works, following on from his 1978 Play Of The Month BBC1 production of Georg Buchner’s 1835 early modernist play Danton’s Death. Both plays share a similarity of style and theme; written by very young authors, they present a bitter view of human existence as being a struggle to preserve the life force, in Buchner in the dialectic of revolutionary principle that results in Robespierre staying alive at the expense of Danton, and in Brecht, through Baal’s amoral use of others for his own gratification, particularly women. The depiction of this struggle can give both plays a harsh, cold, feel for the viewer, and the two plays are possibly the most scabrous, bleak and cruel theatrical adaptations ever transmitted on BBC1[5].

 Clarke’s production of Danton’s Death accentuates this mood by using the studio of Television Centre One in a way unlike almost any other drama, using design, groupings and camera technique to emphasize its artifice and great scale. The production was shot on long lenses, in a way common in film but rarely used in television, breaking away from the familiar visual grammar of “zoom lenses and it’s all close-ups, mid-shots, one-shots” (Stuart Walker, the production’s designer, in Kelly (ed.), 1998, p. 110). With the use of narrow lenses, the cameras were never closer to the actors than fifteen yards away, changing the nature of performance, and the extent to which it was mediated by the director, with actors less aware of which camera they were performing to, and crew on the studio floor uncertain as to what Clarke was shooting unless they were looking at monitors (Kelly, 1998, p.110). The play’s producer, David Jones, described the effect of this process as achieving “a cool, detached feel” (Kelly, 1998, p. 110)

 This sense of detachment was augmented by the production’s design, which attempted to give definition to the large-scale scenes enacted by the use of bright chiaroscuro lighting, concentrating on whites, greys and blacks, with very little primary colour (often used for tricolour flags), which created a sense of defined and shaded outlines for both performers and sets that recreated the effect of eighteenth century engravings (Kelly, 1998, p. 110). For his production of Baal, Clarke continued to use the methods of direction and design that he had innovated in Danton’s Death.

Play of the Month: Danton’s Death (BBC, 1978)

 The source play Baal has as much dissimilarity of form and structure with Mother Courage and Galileo as it shares with them, especially in the 1918 first draft version (unpublished in English translation[6]) that Clarke chose to use. The play contains a multiplicity of scenes of varying length (unlike the 12 scenes of Mother Courage or the 15 of Galileo). The nineteen year old Brecht created a world which is more defined by a sense of non-realism than his later works, where, although scenes may be parodic or melodramatic in register, they are based around realistic situations of human power relationships (for example, Mother Courage’s bartering or the aged Galileo’s feigning of senility may require levels of theatricality that would be improbable if applied in real life, but the intention of Mother Courage and Galileo in acting in such a manner is established to the audience as being real).

 The story of Baal operates on a much more mythic level than those of Mother Courage and Galileo. While their journeys are defined by the need for money, patronage or safety, Baal’s actions are defined by a more abstract life-spirit. Speirs (1987, p. 18) suggests that the play should be seen as a realisation of the struggle between Eros (life) and Thanatos (death) through the actions and figure of Baal. Baal is much closer to the bardic tradition of epic theatre than Brecht’s later plays in realising this struggle through poetic language that contains a complex series of codes dramatised through imagery, not incident; Baal continually talks of either trees (functioning as symbols of life), rivers (which function as symbols of life’s transience and the force of death) and, especially, the sky (the changing colours of which indicate the ever-changing fortunes and circumstances of life) (Speirs, 1987, p.18, Pegg, 2002, p. 462).

 To realise this poetic sense of life-essence, Baal is a play which is realised through an expressionist realisation of the stage, which is intended to function not as a realistic representation of the world, but as a spiritual or intellectual space, reflecting Baal’s own thoughts and reflections. The play’s rapid sequence of short scenes required a sparse and flexible stage layout, realised in its 1923 Leipzig premiere through the use of a cyclorama (curved backdrop), a design used again by Brecht for Mother Courage. Where the two plays differ is that Mother Courage is a play entirely set in exteriors (battlefields and camps), while Baal is largely set in interiors (dining rooms, attics and inns), leading towards scenes of Baal’s flight and death in the forest. While a theatrical audience are aware of the representative space of the stage, a television audience are more familiar with naturalistic staging, from the great majority of television drama.

 Clarke staged the play by using very large, representative sets shot through narrow lenses for the interior scenes, with entirely non-representative tunnels of gauze for the countryside (Kelly, 1998, p. 138). The juxtaposition between these two settings is less jarring than might be expected, due to the blurred sense of reality in the interior scenes. Speirs suggests that a Baal’s essence is communicated through the imagaristic language of Baal “making the surface of social relationships transparent, revealing the mythical conflict underlying it” (1987, p.18). Clarke’s use of the television studio, and design aesthetic, accentuates this sense of non-realism. The large sets are detailed, highlighting shade and shadow, and convincing, but are also disconcertingly expansive. Baal’s attic is first shown to the viewer[7] in an extensive wide shot that shows it to be on the scale of a warehouse, rather than a garret.

 While this view allows the viewer to take in the scale of detail of such a large space, it also serves to alienate them from the human situation of the characters, dwarfed by their surroundings. Clarke’s long lens shooting of interiors also works to highlight the story’s mythic properties in the first scene, where Baal disrupts a bourgeois party held in his honour by a rich patron, Mech, by seducing his wife. The scale of the dining room allows the viewer to observe the full figurative movements of both Baal and Emilie, and to give the figure of Emilie a great symbolic weight in the composition of the entire scene, by making her pale dress the only point of light in a dingy room.

 The lighting is also made deliberately artificial and theatrical at points in the production, noticeably when  a curtain is opened and the studio lights bounce up, quite deliberately, a second later, or when Baal switches the stage lights off to sing.

 The distancing effect of the near-continual use of long shot is well illustrated by the climax of the scene[8] backstage at ‘The Night Cloud’, the club where Baal has scandalised and excited his audience by performing a salacious song[9] on stage with his lover Sophie. The chaotic and confused reaction to this performance is shown through the room becoming crowded with various nightclub figures (dwarfs, showgirls, drinkers, the club owner, a drug addict) each responding volubly to the event in a series of monologues that express their own concerns. Clarke’s decision to show this scene in long shot discourages the viewer from forming any understanding of the individual motivations of these characters, but to follow the chain of events in the room instead.[10]

 The structure of Baal operates around a more confused chronology than that of Mother Courage or Galileo. Whilst the scenes of Baal’s life are presented chronologically they are broken and framed by the narration of Baal himself, each scene being heralded by a chorus of ‘Baal’s Hymn’, in which Baal refers to himself in the third person, singing in the past tense about the events which the viewer is about to see. This device confuses notions of past and present and their understanding of Baal as a character for the viewer, emphasizing both the intensity of his experiences that are enacted, and his detachment from them as a poet. Each scene is also given a title through a caption (such as “Baal abandons the mother of his unborn child”).

 Advances in studio technology meant that Clarke had opportunities to realise this narrative that would not have been available before the introduction of sophisticated post-production. Few of the songs in Rudolph Cartier’s 1959 production of Mother Courage are used because they would have to be separately recorded and orchestrated in a sound studio and then mimed in an ‘as live’ production, an effect liable to be unconvincing (the two songs which are used being shot in filmed inserts, where shots could be pieced together in the cutting studio). Clarke could record all of the verses of ‘Baal’s Hymn’ in one session, and then interpolate them into the recording of the play. These scenes were recorded of David Bowie against a red background, addressing the viewer directly by looking into camera (the only times that Baal does this in the production), accompanying himself on banjo[11]. Whenever the song is sung, the screen is split into two halves, the other half displaying a picture of the sky or a forest, sometimes overlaid with a caption.

 The split screen effect becomes more prevalent in the later, exterior scenes of the play. With the studio representing a forest through tunnels of gauze, a sense of location is provided only through the dialogue in the live action half on the right of the screen and the symbol on the left. The effect is not dissimilar to the picture behind a newsreader during a bulletin, acting as an aide-memoir to the viewer of where the action is taking place, but the repetition of the same unremarkable pictures means that the poetic imagery in the dialogue has to do most of the work in engaging the viewer’s imaginative powers. A similar effect is achieved during the only other song of the five in the production to be sung by Bowie separately to camera, rather than performed as part of the diegetic action of a scene, ‘The Drowned Girl’, where the right hand side of the screen is filled with a freeze-frame of the face of Johanna (Tracy Childs) underwater.

 The boldest use of postproduction technology occurs in the scenes in the forest, where Baal’s dialogues with his friend Ekhart (Jonathan Kent) are conducted entirely on the march, with the two men performing their dialogue while “repeatedly walking towards the camera, cutting back to the start of an identical shot each time they reach it” (Pegg, 2002, p. 463).

 The effect of this is to concentrate the viewer’s understanding of space and time, making how and where the dialogue is supposed to follow uncertain, and to accentuate the physicality of the act of marching and how the two men respond to each other. This is a form of montage, but one specific to the conditions of a television studio draped with gauze. In a filmic location treatment of the same idea, the background and lighting would be liable to have changed from shot to shot, giving an idea of the men’s progress through the forest space.

 Clarke’s production had the misfortune to be scheduled against another high-profile stage adaptation on ITV, John Mortimer’s A Voyage Round My Father (Thames, 1982), starring Laurence Olivier and Alan Bates. The aesthetic of this production[12] is almost a parallel opposite of Baal, being shot on location on film, telling a linear story through the familiar convention of voice-over, and being reliant upon the star personae and charm of the leads to create a sense of empathy on the part of the viewer. Critics made unfavourable comparisons between the two productions, most emphatically Hilary Kingsley in the Daily Mirror:

 It seems daft to say we had a contest between Lord Olivier, our greatest living actor, and David Bowie, professional weirdo, rock idol and actor on TV last night. (…) Baal was a total flop. I cannot believe even the most besotted of David Bowie’s fans could have tolerated more than a few moments of it. The hero, a tramp-poet haunting German society in 1912, was rotten in every sense – a drunk, a slob, a know-all, a seducer, a murderer, who apparently decomposed before our eyes. That the BBC could spend a small fortune on this repulsive and rightly ignored tableau is a cause for top level concern

(Kingsley, Daily Mirror, 3 March 1982, quoted in Pegg, 2002, p. 463)

 Clarke’s use of the studio and casting had proved effective in creating an alienating and objective understanding of Baal on the part of the viewer, though this uncompromising, highly stylised reading also resulted in a sense of hostility and bafflement towards the play on the part of some viewers and critics.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bowie, David, Baal’s Hymn (EP), RCA (RCA BOW 11), 1982.

Brecht, Bertolt, Plays I, London: Methuen, 1970.

Brunsdon, Charlotte, ‘Problems with Quality’, Screen, 31/1, 1990, pp 67-90.

Fenwick, Henry, ‘The man who fell for Brecht’, Radio Times, 27 February 1982, pp 6-7.

Gardner, C. & Wyver, John, ‘The Single Play: An Afterword’, Screen, 24/4-5, 1983, pp. 125-30.

Kelly, Richard (ed.), Alan Clarke, London: Faber, 1998.

Pegg, Nicholas, The Complete David Bowie, London: Reynolds & Hearn, 2002

Speirs, Ronald, Bertolt Brecht, London: Macmillan, 1987.


[1] He had recently completed a six month Broadway run of The Elephant Man. Clarke’s preference for long shots and crowded groupings suited a performer with a background in physical theatre.

[2] See, for example, the Radio Times publicity for the play, with Bowie on the cover and accompanying feature ‘The man who fell for Brecht’ (Fenwick, 1982) concentrating on Bowie’s domestic life.

[3] The unmelodic nature of the music meant that this was only a minor hit, reaching number 29 in the singles chart.

[4] This perception changes in 1983, with Bowie’s album Let’s Dance and its attendant singles, which were not associated with the creation of an outlandish persona as previous stages of Bowie’s career had been, and which formed the most commercially successful period of his pop career, attracting a wider audience than previously. Also in 1983, the film Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence (dir. Nagisa Oshima, 1983) presented Bowie for the first time in a leading role in a comparatively conventional film.

[5] See BBC WAC R9/152 (VR/78/209) for viewers’ complaints about the coarse and depressing nature of Danton’s Death.

[6] Because of this, where I have referred to scenes, they are taken from Peter Tegel’s translation of the 1922 production (in Brecht, 1970)

[7] In Scene 4(i) of the 1922 version (Brecht, 1970, p. 17)

[8] Scene 7 in the 1922 version (Brecht, 1970, pp 27-9)

[9] Called ‘The Dirty Song’ on the Baal’s Hymn EP (Bowie, 1982)

[10] For an example of adverse viewer reaction to this technique, Joan Bakewell’s review of Danton’s Death in the Times (24 April 1978) suggests that having to watch multiple groupings in shadowy lighting is confusing and hard to follow.

[11] The onscreen music for ‘Baal’s Hymn’ is extremely rudimentary, as Bowie could not play the instrument (Kelly, 1998, p. 138)

[12] A Voyage Round My Father fulfils all of Charlotte Brunsdon’s (1990) signifiers of quality; a literary source, “the best of British acting”, money spent and a clear sense of Englishness that could be exported. Baal fulfils only some of these criteria, and less overtly.