Why does it matter whether some dickhead at the BBC imports
a kid from the telly to give The Archers a bit of a kicking? After all the Archers is (are?) 64 years old
and it’s about time they (it) was pensioned off. It’s only a sort of soap opera about people
who live in the country and therefore a bit of a joke. And it’s only listened to by OAPs like me so
why don’t I just shut up and F... off whinging?
Old people can’t hear the radio because they’re all deaf anyway.
I’m as old as the Archers.
It’s been there in the background throughout my life. I don’t listen all the time and sometimes I
don’t hear it for months at a stretch.
Things happen in Ambridge in the same way they used to do in my village
- people die falling off roofs, people have affairs in tents, kids drown in
slurry pits. These things happen
occasionally. Sometimes they are quickly
forgotten and sometimes they have long reaching after effects. The point is that these events are not the
focus of village life. It is the people,
the characters, how their lives are altered by events, in small ways or
fundamentally and how they react to these changes that makes life
fascinating. In other words, stuff
happens but life carries on.
We’ll come to the bit about me later but let’s just consider
what the Archers is or was until the ignoranti got at it. For a start, it’s not a soap. A soap is structured around events. The difference between a soap and what is
called in the trade “a continuing drama”is that soaps are event driven. They were, after all, invented for the
purpose of selling soap powder and their purpose was to pique the listeners
interest and hold it for a few minutes until the next commercial break. They had to be fast snappy and without any
substance that required more than a moment’s thought. The instruction given to writers was that
there should be at least incidence of violence per episode. Continuing Drama has a longer scope. It is designed around a character or group of
characters with the intention of keeping the listeners attention over weeks,
months or years. The Archers belonged to
this genre. The Bill Matter for the programme was for many years “An everyday
story of country folk”. It may have been melodramatic and creaky at times but
at heart It was a continuing drama in which a number of characters are followed
over a period of time with any events observed
through their reactions. This character
based sort of drama comes about because the characters are given long enough to
develop and grow and change according to the unfolding events around them. In this the Archers was unique. It had 64 years of character
development. It was different from any
other programme on the radio or television.
In its way it was a Stradivarius which writers, editors and actors had
played with loving care. Once a Strad is
reduced to matchwood nothing can be played on it all.
Now the issue of it being set in a predominantly rural
environment. True. And all the better for that. In England 40% of the population lives
outside cities and yet there is no programming which reflects their views or
issues.The Archers used to have an agricultural story editor who used to make
sure the current metropolitan misrepresentation of rural life was largely
avoided. The Archers was never
particularly realistic but it did from time to time make hearts lurch when it
touched upon real situations with characters we knew from childhood.
Right, let’s get to this age thing and what makes me so
cross. The BBC management have this
continuing hysteria about the need to attract young audiences particularly on
the radio. Something must be seen to be
done or, they reason, their licence fee will be reduced. However, I have followed The Archers since I
was a baby and have grown old with it.
The age thing has never bothered me as it spoke to me at all ages and it
did speak to me until a few months ago when it became unbearably silly. And now
I am in another disadvantaged group - I am an old person and therefore should
have as many programmes aimed at me as at the twelve year olds.
But let’s think of the target audience a little more
closely. Let’s say the BBC want to
attract listeners from the thiry something group. This is the age when people stop going out to
clubs and spending their money getting pissed every night. Now they are settling down with mortgages and
could be captured by a radio programme.
But these people are not so stupid as the BBC management will allow
them. A young Mum at home with the kids
needs something a bit more interesting than the mind numbing stuff on the
telly. Give her something to think
about. Something to aspire to. Attract that thirty something audience and
they will stay till they are my age now.
Thirty years of a guaranteed listenereship. But, wait a bit, I’m
thinking of living another thirty years myself and providing you don’t f...
about with the programme as you have been doing you have a bit more of a
demographic spread and an assured listenership.
Follow current policy and you lose both.
One of the great things about programmes like the Archers is
that they engender a loyal listenership. They will stick with it through thick and
thin. Sometimes they are not able to
listen for weeks or months at a time.
But in the end they will return and pick things up where they left
them. They will marvel at the odd things
that have happened in their absence but will be glad that the characters are as
they left them. It is this loyal listenership that has suffered most over the
past six months. They feel that they
have some rights to a programme that they have supported throughout the years
and they feel humiliated and insulted by the nonsense that is being served up
to them. The implicit metropolitan
scathing ageism leaves a nasty taste. The current editor will leave in a short
while. He will have made his mark as the
man gave those country bumpkins a bit of a shock and his career (Back in telly,
of course) will be assured. But for the
listeners, the magic has gone. Even if The
Stradivarius can be glued back together it will never be played as sweetly as it
once was.
4 comments:
Yes. Nothing more. Except, perhaps, the offer of a gargantuan amount of glue?
Excellent, and well-written. I would only quibble with one thing. I am fifty-nine and still spend my money on getting pissed every night.
Agreed. Another (adult) life-long Archers listener - I've been listening, off and on, since before Pat and Tony married. What I always liked was its integrity - the characters changed over time and scriptwriters, but remained psychologically credible. And whilst there were highs and dramas, most programmes were about as dramatic as my local paper. But that was fine, because it was about people, and the scandals and disasters, as in life, mattered in relation to how people responded and reacted. Generations of scriptwriters have understood this, and did their homework so that the long shadows of events played out in lives, as they do in life. Real people don't conveniently forget about will conditions and family feuds. They don't just up and sell the family farm their parents and grandparents spent their lives to bequeath them. But then, neither do planning committees meet in secret and disclose their decisions to random corporate staffers. If the characters lose their credibility the series will lose its long-term listeners - and I currently see little that is likely to engage and sustain an alternative audience. Scriptwriters, you are not just cutting off noses to spite faces, you are disfiguring and fatally maiming. This is not going to look pretty on your CV.
The Archers has always had a cult following in Universities. My son listened as a student, and now works in a University, and tells me that this is still the case. Lots of young listeners, methinks.
Post a Comment