I.A.M. Musing About…

Recently it was posited that “TV companies with shrinking audiences want to give their viewers something they already know about, but I honestly believe they underestimate the public. People will happily adopt something new if it’s properly produced”. This is absolutely correct, with the stumbling point of ‘economics’ and ‘business sense’ in its way to fruition in what’s sometimes called “the real world“¹

Part of the problem of TV/Movie/Book Production is that there’s a sort of Bourgeois mind set of those responsible for the selection of styles/content that ‘what the Proletariat of Viewers want/need to watch is “more of the same”’ so we get that. If you haven’t seen so much Pride & Prejudice that you’re ready to punch the next person wearing a bonnet, or vicar in a quaint round hat [illustration; below, right], then that’s fine.

However, when the concept of “new” and/or “different” is suggested to anyone with the power to sign a cheque, the terror begins to form in their soul. Those words mean “change” which leads to “brave” which then arrives at “risk”. When trying to make money, “risk” is never a good word. “Safe” is something one wants to use when describing results, as it’s a business that produces TV programmes, films, and books.

Suggest “Horror/Suspense” and the gamble implied may as well have “Lottery Win” and “Roulette” attached to it, and don’t bother to sit down in the lobby when dropping off your proposal; just leave it on the desk and there’s the door. In the UK especially, this genre² is viewed with disdain, mostly due to the arguably crap production quality of the films made by Hammer Films and Amicus Productions. There is also a heavy association with the “slasher film” in North America that does no good for the stories of Edgar Allan Poe, Arthur Conan Doyle, and the un-known authors of the Pahlavi Persian work Hazar Afsan (literally translated as “Thousand Tales”); all of those being creators of works under the umbrella term of ‘horror fiction’.

Pardon me whilst I step around that particular Hobby Horse of Horror of mine, briefly adding only that I was among those who confused “horror” with “blood & gore” (akin to mixing-up ‘sensually stimulating’ with ‘pornography’).

So… where was I?

Ah yes: ‘new’ v ‘guaranteed’.

The question of whether or not something ‘new’ is desired isn’t principally an artistic one, it’s one primarily of economics. When a theatre company’s Artistic Director selects scripts to be staged during a season, they’ve got to balance the shows which are probably not going to draw the walk-up crowds (Chinese folk tales of the 11^th Dynasty adapted to reduce the call for shadow puppets, for instance) and the shows that will attract people wandering by the venue (heart-warming tale of Christmas in a small town where citizens rally around to aide the local who’s always been helpful to them over the years, say). As altruistic as one can be about these things, no matter how well performed and clearly interpreted a show might be, no matter how well-placed the adverts are, no matter the glowing quality of the reviews, people will not automatically show-up to watch great theatre that’s out of the ordinary. Yes, more people will attend if it’s incredible than if it’s not, but you won’t have as much of a block-buster as if you’ve got a well-known title on the marquee.

The same holds true for TV, movies, and books. Agatha Christie, Charles Dickens, and Star Wars³ sell due to ‘brand recognition’ no matter how high the quality of the output might be. As good as all three are, their brilliance is shown through the aspect of their works being both well-crafted as well as popular. That ‘double-whammie’ is what sets them apart, not solely their quality. Fawlty Towers is another, although not really something on the same literary or budgetary level as the others.

There is also the category of things which are inspired in their creation, but either aren’t ‘popular’, bits aren’t too well done technically, and are the object of fanatical devotion by a small group of people; creations with a ‘cult following’. Examples of the ‘genius, if only we could sort out what it means’ material are The Prisoner [title card; below, left], early Doctor Who, and Space: 1999. We recently watched the full set of The Prisoner, as we’d not seen all of it, and certainly not anywhere close to being in order. There’s a plethora of moments to ‘spot the painted backdrop’, ‘spot the wires pulling things along’, and ‘spot the “background actor” having their voice dubbed-in’. Computer Generated Animation and so on were a long way in the future. That said, it was written with skill (frequently by McGoohan himself), and the acting/editing/photography/music were all perfectly suited for each other so its whole is a thing of beauty. At the time of its original presentation, the shows were sufficiently confusing to viewers that the second batch of episodes were cancelled in favour of one Finalé to wrap things up (with warning of only two or three weeks). This, sadly, proves the contention that ‘people mostly want something they already know.

So… how much do you want – no, ‘need’ is better – to make that painting, write that story, stage that play, or film that script? That’s the question. Money isn’t supposed to be part of it, you see.

Which is bollocks.

It’s possible to have both, but it is nowhere close to being as easy as doing something similar to something already being done. Let’s face it, even opting for ‘the familiar’ isn’t a walk in the park. It’s a lot of bloody hard work to produce a TV show/movie/book/play.

Meanwhile the “different” is reduced to the creative territory peopled by those who can best take a risk: those of us who have nothing left to lose.

What’s your passion? What is the thing which you must do to calm the desire in your soul? What must be accomplished in order to fulfil your creative potential?

Now… what are you going to do in order to get the thing done?

Answers on a postcard, please.

1. something one avoids experiencing through a combination of prescription medicine, copious amounts of alcohol, and a small Cuban girl named “Juanita” [BACK]
2. oddly referred to as ‘genre fiction’; no idea how that actually identifies which genre being discussed, yet it does [BACK]
3. the original trilogy, not that rubbish of “Episodes 1 – 3″! Eugh! [BACK]

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 22nd, 2009 at 3:01 pm and is filed under Personal. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.