tv essay, the ambassadors
Post on 14-Jan-2016
3 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Dram3140 Contemporary Television Drama: Report.
The Ambassadors (‘Ambassadors’ – original title) written by James Wood and Rupert Walters and directed by Jeremy Webb. Episode Two.
This report will focus on Episode two of the BBC three-part British comedy-drama
‘The Ambassadors’. This episode aired on BBC Two on Wednesday, 30th of October
2013 at 9pm. The series follows the lives of the employees of the British embassy in
the fictional city of Iskfana in the fictional Tazbekistan and it tackles quite a few
sensible subjects, the situation in Central Asia, terrorism and totalitarianism. How
could comedy work against such a background?
‘People take life and themselves entirely too serious and when a writer turns a
serious idea into a funny one, it makes us laugh at ourselves. The more serious the
situation, the more possibilities for comedy.’ (Rannow 2000: p.19)
In The Ambassadors, comedy comes from this exact seriousness. Wood and
Walters shadowed the British Ambassador to Kazakhstan for a week, which allowed
them to give the series a more real taste. Add that, a team of not very formal British
officials and a couple of strong-headed locals and you have a comedy-drama with a
very strong flavour of Satirical TV.
‘Satire TV examines what happens when comedy becomes political, and politics
become funny.’ (Gray, Jones, Thompson 2009: p.3)
In the last few years, Satirical TV became imperative to watch for those wanting to
become clear about the contemporary state of political life. This new trend has made
TV Comedy, once limited to a couple of sitcoms, into an attractive source of state
and political critique. From situations derived from reality (The Ambassadors case),
to fake news and animated sitcoms, satire has become an accessible way of
presenting politics in a revealing and captivating form.
Comedy-drama does not oblige the writer to a happy-ending and combines a serious
story-line with elements from situational comedy Uhlig (2009). In the second episode
of The Ambassadors the story line revolves around the visit of someone from the
British royal family to Tazbekistan. A formal and serious matter, but what happens
when this ‘someone’ (Prince Mark of Bath) is an arrogant, counterproductive man
which makes abuse of the fact he is a royal descendant. However, in comedy-drama
characters are allowed to change and develop so by the end of the episode Mark
manages to impress both the audience and the British ambassador and saves the
day. The situation presented is not necessarily funny but because the series is set
against a political background and features British officials acting out of their
imposed norms, the humour is brought to life.
‘Often the scripted humour on TV mirrors the state and the ideals of the culture and
society and where the series is set.’ (Uhlig 2009: p.21).
Prince Mark of Bath represents the royal British family and thus a certain lifestyle. He
evokes an undoubting Britishness and the pride of not only being royalty but being
British. He expresses a sense of ownership and entitlement, not only he does not
understand the cultural and social factors in Tazbekistan as he insists to be
accommodated at the ‘Four Seasons Hotel’ but he even brings his full six-foot ironing
board over in Tazbekistan. (See Figure One)
(Fig.1)
Furthermore, Prince Mark of Bath attempts to help the British industry by having
British products wherever he travels. Keeping his national identity intact is a key
factor, more a tourist than an official, Mark does what Brits usually do in their
holidays as Hazel Andrews points out in his book ‘The British on Holiday’.
‘…purchasing British newspapers and watching British news reports on satellite
television all serve to keep the tourists, in part, mentally if not physically in the UK.
(…) British food and drink are looked for and the other is kept at bay in the rejection
of locally produced food and water.’ (Andrews 2011: p.13)
In the second episode we have a clearer look at the embassy officials and get to see
how they work together as a team. (See Figure 2).
First we have Keith Davis (David Mitchell) the newly appointed British Ambassador
of Tazbekistan, an ex-Soviet states ruled over by President Kairat. Keith is described
as an ambitious, diplomatic individual. He wants to assert his capability and prove to
his superior in London played by Matthew Macfadyen that he can successfully
represent Britain anywhere in the world.
Next in line is Neil Tilly, Deputy Head of Mission (Robert Webb). Central Asia expert,
fluent in Russian and in loved with the region and a Tazbek girl he is the one that
managed to get rid of his national identity at the point where he accepts to give away
withhold information to the Secret Police in Tazbekistan.
(fig.2)
Mise-en scene is ‘the totality of expressive content within the image’ (Sikov 2010:
p.6). In Film Studies we assume that everything that goes in the composition of a
shot has expressive meaning.
‘…and by analysing mise-en-scene, we begin to see what those meanings might be.’
(Sikov 2010: p.6)
In this Medium Long Shot we can see the British embassy team having a meeting.
Keith Davies, the ambassador is set at the top of the table, having the team looking
directly to him, indicating that he is the one in charge. Between him and the two
women set in his right and left side there is an unoccupied seat. This can mean he
has distanced himself from his feminine co-workers in an attempt to keep things
professional and also to set some clear boundaries between him and the team. It
can also point out the fact that being in charge sometimes can lead to solitude, and
his role requires to take the blame for every single decision forcing Keith to not make
mistakes.
Neil is the only one that has his back at the audience revealing his lost identity and
his mysterious nature.
This set up is indicative for how the team functions. Keith and Neil, the two main
characters are seated face to face similar to the position of two chess player. Even if
they are on the same side they often argue with regards to the best course of action.
Their opinions often clash and although, as a team they have the same purpose, as
individuals they want different things.
The way the team is seated shows how they divided themselves into two ‘camps’.
Neil and Caitlin (right side), both experienced staff and old friends and Natalia and
Isabel (left side), one is an ambitious local woman ready to strive in her new job as
Head of PR at the embassy and the other one is Isabel, which just arrived in
Tazbekistan and still has a lot to learn about Iskfana.
A key element that could define the way the British embassy works is the small
notice glued on the office window (Clean up after yourself).
As Charles Peirce, the father of modern semiotics once said: ‘'we think only in signs'
(Peirce 1931-58, 2.302).
Signs can take the shape of words, sounds, images or objects but these do not have
an underlying meaning and they only become signs when we give them a meaning.
'Nothing is a sign unless it is interpreted as a sign', says Peirce once again (Peirce
1931-58, 2.172).
Anything can have a meaning as long as you interpret it as ‘signifying’ something –
alluding to or standing for something other than itself.
This interpretation is largely done by relating what we see to familiar systems of
conventions.
The denotative meaning of the phrase ‘To clean up after yourself’ means to tidy up
or clean up if you have made a mess. If I think to a connotative meaning for this
phrase and explore the role of a British embassy in such a disputed country, I could
argue that one of the main purposes of this institution is to clean up the mess of
others. This ‘clean up’ can mean handling and masking the wrong decisions of the
British state while the pron. ‘yourself’ is used for emphasis; however, ‘yourself’ can
also signify the viewer. That analogy could give the audience a sense of belonging
and the reassurance that the British state looks out for you, and they are there for
you, the citizen, not for the state’s selfish purposes such as securing oil contracts or
selling war helicopters.
The choosing of a medium long shot gives the audience a glimpse of the contained
square office with clear windows where the team is set. This setting expresses the
team situation perfectly as fictional Tazbekistan as well as the real Uzbekistan is a
landlocked country (country entirely closed by land). And even though they are so
well ‘preserved’ they are entirely transparent and under the sight of the Tazbek
officials.
The co-writer of the series, James Wood publicly declared that the series has been
inspired by the stories told by diplomats after the writers spent a week in the British
embassy in Kazakhstan.
The resemblance of Tazbekistan with real Uzbekistan is unsettling and presenting
embassy cases with such accuracy does nothing else than reinforcing the series
genre, Satirical TV.
Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan truly believed that the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office has backed The Ambassadors to simply defuse
the horror of the British alliance with Uzbekistan and make it mundane and socially
accepted.
The television in Britain has a public service function. However, with the appearance
of shows such as ‘Yes, Prime Minister’ or ‘The Thick of it’ the news media became
no longer credible. Audience felt the need of creating its own norms with regards to
the truth and Satirical TV was there to exploit that and show the news in a more
entertainment and accessible form.
‘…these shows have challenged the privileged position that news media (as
reporters but also arbiters of political talk) play as society’s regime of truth, our
primary institution for establishing truth in public life.’ (Jones 2010: p.236)
In comparison with The Thick of it, The Ambassadors is not filmed in a documentary
style; it often has Extreme Long Shots for establishing the location or Long Shots for
showing the surroundings of Tazbekistan. Through these the series plays a lot with
the fear that a western audience has of the cultural other.
(fig.3)
(fig.4)
In this viewpoint medium long shot (see Figure 4) the audience can look at Neil as
he looks towards the city. This gives the frame an almost voyeuristic nature and the
audience a great sense of involvement.
The fear becomes even more intense when the series shows that the embassy is
bugged and there is always a ‘Big Brother’ watching you from an unknown location.
This selective focus shot of Neil gives the feeling that he is being watched with a
hidden camera.
(fig.5)
The camera swivels to follow him in a following pan until…
(fig.6)
Neil is being abducted by terrorists. This is one of the most recognized and
impregnated fears of a modern western European situated in a Muslim country. Only
later on, the audience learns that Neil is not actually in danger and he knows the
‘attackers’.
‘The starting point is recognizing the fear as a social construct ever present in
individuals. (…). Fear appears specifically to characterize contemporary society as a
risk society’ (Dammert 2012: p3)
Having this shot into today’s social/cultural and political context is defining for the
world we live in. The American War on Terror after the 9/11 attacks when ‘the world
had been, reportedly, ‘forever changed’, (Gournelos and Green 2011: p.1) the war in
Afghanistan where Britain sent troops to support the US-led Operation Enduring
Freedom (OEF), are all factors that contributed to the making of this series. Not only
it is relevant but it is defining for the Western mentality where the Muslims countries
are to be avoided because of the terrorist danger.
‘…the different fears affecting people at present are not only the result of the new
lifestyles and modes of interacting with others but they are also the expression of a
cultural anxiety.’ (Dammert 2012: p.3)
‘The Ambassadors’ is not intended to make the regime in fictional Tazbekistan
anything else than what already is, a vicious and corrupt system.
(fig.7)
The public speeches that remind us of Adolf Hitler, the body language and the medium low shots, all meant to convey the idea of totalitarianism.
(fig.8)
This cutaway shot (See Figure 8) shows the other officials reaction to the President’s
speech. The British Ambassador is in the front line together with Mark Prince of
Bath, behind him there’s the American Ambassador, which is represented as an
Afro-American woman with a mourning expression on her face that reminds us of the
changes that America went through the last years. On her right side, a few steps in
the back there is the French Ambassador. This is not a random setting, as it
attempts to show the political and economic situation throughout the world. Britain is
first, represented not only by its officials but by the royal family as well.
The Ambassadors is cleverly cast, with very well-known actors forming the embassy
team. (Matthew Macfadyen and Keeley Hawes – Spooks) David Mitchell and Robert
Webb (Keith and Neil) are the protagonists of the award-winning British sitcom,
‘Peep Show’ (Channel 4). They are long acclaimed comedy actors, old friends and
co-workers. Yigal Naor (The President) played Saddam Hussein in the four episode
House of Saddam television docudrama from HBO and BBC so his image has
already been sold to the British audience as one of a cruel dictator. This choice of
actors intends to make the series more likeable as it deals with such sensible
themes.
The Ambassadors makes its meaning while depicts (to a certain extent) the British
diplomats outside of their comfort zone. It also conveys the idea that Muslim
Countries are still misunderstood places for the modern Western Europe.
Satire TV is funny and smart and ‘has proven a powerful draw for audiences’
attention’ (Gray, Jones and Thompson 2009: p.4). The first episode of The
Ambassadors had 1.67 millions UK viewers, 5.4% of television viewers, while the
second episode had one million viewers (4.5%).
This comedy-drama is not intended to be funny in a laughing out loud kind of way as
it is intended to portray today’s world in a more accepted and safe form.
‘"It's not lol-tastic. (…)Ambassadors didn't blow me away, but it grew on me as it
went along.’ (Sam Wollaston on the Guardian)
Word Count: 2264
(Quotes: 350 words)
REFERENCES:
Andrews, H. (2011) The British on Holiday: Charter Tourism, Identity and Consumption.
Exeter, Short Run Press Ltd, pp. 1-38.
Dammert, L. (2012) Fear and Crime in Latin America: Redefining State-Society Relations.
Abingdon, Routledge, pp. 1-46.
Gournelos, T. and Greene, V. (2011) A Decade of Dark Humor: How Comedy, Irony, and
Satire Shaped Post-9/11 America. Jackson, Mississippi, University Press of Mississippi,
Introduction
GOV.UK (2013) UK Forces: operations in Afghanistan. [Online]. Available from:
https://www.gov.uk/uk-forces-operations-in-afghanistan [Accessed 21th November 2013]
Gray, J. Jones, P. J. and Thompson, E. (2009) Satire TV: Politics and Comedy in the Post-
Network Era. New York, New York University Press, pp. 3-37.
Jones, P. J. (2010) Entertaining Politics: Satiric Television and Political Engagement.
Maryland, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, pp. 147-253.
Peirce, C. S. (1931-58): Collected Writings (8 Vols.). (Ed. Charles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss &
Arthur W Burks). Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press
Rannow, J. (2000) Writing Television Comedy. 2nd edition. New York, Allworth Press
Sikov, E. (2010) Film Studies: An Introduction. New York, Columbia University Press
The Guardian, Wollaston, S. (23rd October 2013) Ambassadors – TV review. [Online]
Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2013/oct/23/ambassadors-tv-
review-david-mitchell [Accessed 21th November 2013]
Uhlig, C. (2009) Humour in the TV series 'Gilmore girls'. [e-book] University of Duisburg-
Essen. Available from: My Library [Accessed 20th November 2013]
top related