http://media.edusites.co.uk/index.php/article/investigating-crime-drama/
AQT (American Quality TV)
AQT is not considered to be ‘regular TV’ as it breaks traditional rules such as not having a narrative closure even at the end of the series. The series The Wire is considered by many commentators to be one of the finest crime series ever made, even in comparision with the more gangster orientated The Sopranos.
Examples of AQT in the crime drama genre include 24, ER, and CSI, and in other genres Lost, Desperate Housewives and The west Wing. Notable characteristics of this form of quality television programming are that it attracts an upmakrket, well educated, urban audience, and works with an ensemble cast. The programmes focus on a group of characters, rather than one protagonist as British crime drama tends to do.
AQT is postmodern. It is self conscious and can use intertextual references to itself and other TV programmes. AQT has literary pretensions in that the programmes are ‘dialogue heavy’, as they are writer based. Scripts strive to be authentic, relevant to a modern ‘aware’ audience, often referencing political ideas and events. Realism is the dominant characteristic with high production values and often elaborate mise-en-scènes with glossy interiors and emphasis on new technologies. AQT utilises viral publicity generated by websites, blogs, chat rooms and social networking sites.
Friday 26 November 2010
http://media.edusites.co.uk/index.php/article/investigating-crime-drama/
Similarities and differences
Exam questions may involve comparing two or more crime dramas both on film and television. One way to do this is to find similarities and differences under headings such as:
•narrative - are there similar story lines, or twists at the end
•characters — describe and contrast the protagonist and the antagonists
•representation — identify stereotypes (social, cultural, racial, gender-related)
•treatment of realism, is there any irony or comedy (Hot Fuzz), nostalgia (Poirot), period detail (The Godfather)
•media language — is ther edocumentary style ‘shaky’ camera work, naturalistic lighting, ‘realistic’ special effects, ‘subtle’ stunt work
•editing — look for changes in the pace of the cutting within the show, and for use of wipes, and dissolves?
•sound — diegetic sound or SFX (sound effects), non- diegetic music, use of silence in an interrogation scene perhaps
•mise-en-scène — sets, costumes, props (cars), locations (London, New York), acting
•ideology and values — are there firm values evident in the films – what are they?
•audience – describe the age and psychographics (usually aspirers and achivers) of the target audience
Similarities and differences
Exam questions may involve comparing two or more crime dramas both on film and television. One way to do this is to find similarities and differences under headings such as:
•narrative - are there similar story lines, or twists at the end
•characters — describe and contrast the protagonist and the antagonists
•representation — identify stereotypes (social, cultural, racial, gender-related)
•treatment of realism, is there any irony or comedy (Hot Fuzz), nostalgia (Poirot), period detail (The Godfather)
•media language — is ther edocumentary style ‘shaky’ camera work, naturalistic lighting, ‘realistic’ special effects, ‘subtle’ stunt work
•editing — look for changes in the pace of the cutting within the show, and for use of wipes, and dissolves?
•sound — diegetic sound or SFX (sound effects), non- diegetic music, use of silence in an interrogation scene perhaps
•mise-en-scène — sets, costumes, props (cars), locations (London, New York), acting
•ideology and values — are there firm values evident in the films – what are they?
•audience – describe the age and psychographics (usually aspirers and achivers) of the target audience
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2009/nov/04/spooks-overblown-nonsense-top-tv
With perhaps a little less fanfare than usual, but no less crash-bang-wallop once the titles roll, Spooks returns to BBC1 tonight, allowing viewers a glimpse of the impossibly good-looking MI5 officers who are apparently single-handedly keeping the country safe from the clutches of evil terrorists.
It's ridiculous stuff of course - the designer clothes, massive bomb plots every week, distinct lack of boring paperwork, and the glossy grid itself (at least I presume Thames House doesn't look like that in real-life, although my invitation to inspect the premises has strangely got lost in the post). Most ludicrous of all, of course, is idea that MI5 has only five members of staff available to counteract the combined forces of world evil. Well, I say five. But they might be down to four given that Harry Pearce has apparently spent the last year wrapped in a bodybag in the boot of a car, while the writers waited for the next series to kick off.
So will Harry survive? Given Spooks's propensity for inflicting horrible deaths on key characters - Helen (Lisa Faulkner) in the deep-fat fryer, Danny executed after being held hostage, Zaf tortured, and Adam blown up in a car bomb - that is by no means certain. And that is also, for me at least, what makes Spooks such consistently good watching. (Best for us to draw a veil over the beyond wrong BBC3 spin-off Spooks Code 9, I think). Despite the at-times cartoonish action sequences, and the fact you pretty much know that Britain is not going to fall into the clutches of whichever evil regime/double-crossing CIA officer is after us this week, there's also the possibility that one of the team might be quite merrily sacrificed.
The never-ending supply of new officers - Harry's team are basically the MI5 equivalent of the Sugababes, only with added death/new lives in hiding – also helps to keep the series fresh, of course, which is presumably how we've managed to reach the giddy heights of series eight. That and the short series - eight episodes mean things move along at a fair old lick, rather than limping through 20+ episodes at a snail's pace (I'm thinking of you here, FlashForward).
So do you think the suits/grid/forever saving the world shtick has had its day? Or are you excited and planning an evening on the edge of your sofa as we find out what happened to Harry? Those in the latter camp might like to check back this evening for our episode-by-episode Spooks blog. Those in the former camp … unleash your hatred below.
With perhaps a little less fanfare than usual, but no less crash-bang-wallop once the titles roll, Spooks returns to BBC1 tonight, allowing viewers a glimpse of the impossibly good-looking MI5 officers who are apparently single-handedly keeping the country safe from the clutches of evil terrorists.
It's ridiculous stuff of course - the designer clothes, massive bomb plots every week, distinct lack of boring paperwork, and the glossy grid itself (at least I presume Thames House doesn't look like that in real-life, although my invitation to inspect the premises has strangely got lost in the post). Most ludicrous of all, of course, is idea that MI5 has only five members of staff available to counteract the combined forces of world evil. Well, I say five. But they might be down to four given that Harry Pearce has apparently spent the last year wrapped in a bodybag in the boot of a car, while the writers waited for the next series to kick off.
So will Harry survive? Given Spooks's propensity for inflicting horrible deaths on key characters - Helen (Lisa Faulkner) in the deep-fat fryer, Danny executed after being held hostage, Zaf tortured, and Adam blown up in a car bomb - that is by no means certain. And that is also, for me at least, what makes Spooks such consistently good watching. (Best for us to draw a veil over the beyond wrong BBC3 spin-off Spooks Code 9, I think). Despite the at-times cartoonish action sequences, and the fact you pretty much know that Britain is not going to fall into the clutches of whichever evil regime/double-crossing CIA officer is after us this week, there's also the possibility that one of the team might be quite merrily sacrificed.
The never-ending supply of new officers - Harry's team are basically the MI5 equivalent of the Sugababes, only with added death/new lives in hiding – also helps to keep the series fresh, of course, which is presumably how we've managed to reach the giddy heights of series eight. That and the short series - eight episodes mean things move along at a fair old lick, rather than limping through 20+ episodes at a snail's pace (I'm thinking of you here, FlashForward).
So do you think the suits/grid/forever saving the world shtick has had its day? Or are you excited and planning an evening on the edge of your sofa as we find out what happened to Harry? Those in the latter camp might like to check back this evening for our episode-by-episode Spooks blog. Those in the former camp … unleash your hatred below.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/tvandradioblog/2007/oct/16/spookycoincidencewhocares
Is it me or is Spooks unintentionally very funny? I say this as a fan - I'm as entertained by the gung-ho antics of MI5's section D as everyone else. I want to believe in a world where the offices of public servants are full of Apple Macs, mood lighting and uncompromising men and women of action. Unlike so much British drama, it's slickly directed and looks great - and not just when Rupert Penry-Jones wears a Hugo Boss suit.
The sixth series, which starts tonight, will follow one continuous arc, a format familiar from US shows. But if it mimics the devices as well as the glossy production values of a series like 24, Spooks really needs an ideas polish. There are enough signature clichés, lapses in logic and script howlers to make it a kind of action-comedy. For example, why aren't the writers credited on the DVDs? Do they want plausible deniability?
Whatever 24's flaws, it has a certain ruthless efficiency. Spooks' operatives are half superhero, half stumblebum. Among my favourite moments in the last run was when resident hotshot and yes, "loose cannon" Adam Carter (Penry-Jones) took out members of Mossad in a pitch-dark building, left them with their night vision goggles and started blundering around complaining to base control he couldn't see a thing.
In the middle of another security crisis, Carter once barked to his underlings about the urgent need to stay hydrated, and ordered sandwiches. (If Jack Bauer's stomach thinks his throat's been cut, it's probably because it has been.)
A lot of the dialogue suffers from the George Lucas problem: easy to type, harder to say. Recruiting Miranda Raison after a chance meeting posing as a gas man, Carter wooed her to the cause with the immortal line: "Can you think of a funkier way to earn a living?" (That's the service, not reading meters.)
And what about when his archetypal west Londoner went undercover as a Syrian terrorist? It was surely the most unconvincing infiltration of a dangerous Middle Eastern faction since Team America.
At least Spooks offers some great touristy shots of London - it's amazing how many coups are plotted in view of the Gherkin or the London Eye. It's also extraordinary how many swarthy wrongdoers are darn good-looking. Caucasian conspirators are always weaselly, presumably to distinguish them from MI5 as cast by Models 1.
Yet despite its laugh-out-loud qualities, I only ever read about how coolly impressive Spooks is. Dead Ringers spoofed it, but just made fun of the 24-ish split-screen effects. Come on Culshaw et al, it won't send itself up, you know. Well not much, anyway.
Is it me or is Spooks unintentionally very funny? I say this as a fan - I'm as entertained by the gung-ho antics of MI5's section D as everyone else. I want to believe in a world where the offices of public servants are full of Apple Macs, mood lighting and uncompromising men and women of action. Unlike so much British drama, it's slickly directed and looks great - and not just when Rupert Penry-Jones wears a Hugo Boss suit.
The sixth series, which starts tonight, will follow one continuous arc, a format familiar from US shows. But if it mimics the devices as well as the glossy production values of a series like 24, Spooks really needs an ideas polish. There are enough signature clichés, lapses in logic and script howlers to make it a kind of action-comedy. For example, why aren't the writers credited on the DVDs? Do they want plausible deniability?
Whatever 24's flaws, it has a certain ruthless efficiency. Spooks' operatives are half superhero, half stumblebum. Among my favourite moments in the last run was when resident hotshot and yes, "loose cannon" Adam Carter (Penry-Jones) took out members of Mossad in a pitch-dark building, left them with their night vision goggles and started blundering around complaining to base control he couldn't see a thing.
In the middle of another security crisis, Carter once barked to his underlings about the urgent need to stay hydrated, and ordered sandwiches. (If Jack Bauer's stomach thinks his throat's been cut, it's probably because it has been.)
A lot of the dialogue suffers from the George Lucas problem: easy to type, harder to say. Recruiting Miranda Raison after a chance meeting posing as a gas man, Carter wooed her to the cause with the immortal line: "Can you think of a funkier way to earn a living?" (That's the service, not reading meters.)
And what about when his archetypal west Londoner went undercover as a Syrian terrorist? It was surely the most unconvincing infiltration of a dangerous Middle Eastern faction since Team America.
At least Spooks offers some great touristy shots of London - it's amazing how many coups are plotted in view of the Gherkin or the London Eye. It's also extraordinary how many swarthy wrongdoers are darn good-looking. Caucasian conspirators are always weaselly, presumably to distinguish them from MI5 as cast by Models 1.
Yet despite its laugh-out-loud qualities, I only ever read about how coolly impressive Spooks is. Dead Ringers spoofed it, but just made fun of the 24-ish split-screen effects. Come on Culshaw et al, it won't send itself up, you know. Well not much, anyway.
Friday 10 September 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)