Irish Television Drama: A Society and Its Stories Helena Sheehan published by Radio Telefís Éireann in 1987 2nd (revised) edition published in 2004 ISBN 0 86029 011 5 pb ISBN 0 86029 012 3 hb © Helena Sheehan Professor Helena Sheehan website: http://webpages.dcu.ie/~sheehanh/sheehan.htm e-mail: [email protected] Table of Contents Introduction Part 1: Concepts / Contexts / Criteria Chapter 1: Story, Myth, Dream and Drama Chapter 2: Television as a Medium of Drama Chapter 3: Judgments of Television Drama Part 2: The Evolution of Irish Television Drama Chapter 4: The 60s: The Coming of Television Chapter 5: The 70s: Progress, Pressures and Protests Chapter 6: The 80s: The Satellite Era Appendix: RTE Television Drama Productions 1962-1987 Titles index Introduction This is essentially a story about storytelling. It is, first of all, an account of why people tell stories. It is an exploration of what has been at stake in the whole, long and complex history of storytelling, stretching from the voices of the ancient bards to the signals of space age satellites. It is, in the second instance, a story about why particular people have told particular stories at a particular time in the history of a particular society. The Irish people have always been renowned as storytellers. This is the story of Irish storytelling in the television era. Although storytelling would seem to be a universal activity, fundamental to the human condition, it has by no means been a static one. It has not been the same for all times. It is an activity that has undergone enormous transformations. Perhaps the most striking change is the extent to which tales told face to face in direct human contact have given way to tales electronically transmitted from increasingly remote sources. Dinner table conversation, school lessons, pub craic, bedtime rituals and fireside chats still survive. So do newspapers, books, theatre, radio and cinema. Nevertheless, television has become the predominant medium of contemporary storytelling. This makes it ever more imperative to subject its stories and its modes of storytelling to critical scrutiny; to ask what sort of stories are being told and what sort of criteria are appropriate in assessing them; to see if there are any patterns discernible in this vast output; to find out if there are any explanations for its shapes and changes of shape. To get to the heart of the matter it is necessary to raise such preliminary issues as: • the role of storytelling in human experience • the role of drama as a mode of storytelling • the role of television as a medium of drama and to do so in a way that is up front about fundamental assumptions, terms of reference, methods of research and alternative approaches. It is then in order to analyse particular stories in terms of their deep structures and to place these within the context of the total flow of television and the larger tapestry of social experience. This means an analysis of Irish television drama in terms of the underlying meaning of the stories being told and the emerging patterns of meaning, within the larger patterns of indigenous and imported television and within the development of Irish social history. Finally, there are the problems and prospects for the future. Much is at stake, both for Ireland and for the world, in the emergent scenarios of global flows in the satellite era. The aim of this book is to pursue these larger and deeper questions about television drama, and to do so in a systematic manner and on a comprehensive scale, as an antidote both to the passive and unreflective nature of much television viewing and to the shallow and fragmented character of most television criticism. It is a somewhat daunting task to seek to synthesise such a vast and variable flow of programming across decades and across continents, to try to find a coherent pattern in the seemingly random chaos that others let be as a babel of incommensurable discourses, to look for deeper meaning in what others insist is simple entertainment or pure escapism, with no other rhyme or reason. Nevertheless there is reason to believe that television drama is shaped and being shaped by contemporary consciousness, in ways that are crying out to be understood. Paralysis in the face of the difficulties of doing so would be acquiescence in the laziness, cowardice and confusion that prevail. It is my belief that there is a deeper logic to most things than is at first apparent and that it is important to take on panoramic projects. I have tried to give due attention to detail, without losing sight of the wood for the trees, concentrating on achieving as much of an overall perspective and sense of historical sweep as possible. My orientation in sorting out such a huge mass of data has been to adopt a holistic and historicist approach, which has aimed: • to look at television drama in terms of the stories a society tells about itself and others to itself and others • to draw as comprehensive and as vivid a picture as possible of Irish television drama in the various stages of its development, decade by decade • to trace the networks of assumptions underlying these stories through the recurring images, plots, settings, themes, genres and modes of characterisation and through the patterns of change emerging in these over the years • to articulate the implicit world view, or clash of world views, underlying the productions of each period • to analyse the shifts which have occurred from the earliest days of Irish television to the present in relation to the socio-historical context in which they have occurred • to reflect on the relationship between such shifts in the shape of television drama and the larger pattern of social change. My argument is that a detailed and disciplined study of both texts and contexts reveals certain recurring modes of representation. These patterns are rooted in a larger process, a process forging its way through the work of writers, producers, directors and executives, most often below the threshold of consciousness. Time and time again, I was told by those who made policy, who wrote and edited scripts, who produced or directed the drama I was investigating, that there was no pattern in it. Most believed that what was produced or not produced was a matter of fortuitous circumstance, personal whim or some sort of individual non-contextual creative process. I was told all sorts of details about practical contingencies, personal tastes, differential talents and many other things, which were important for understanding the intricate processes on the ground and the particular reasons for particular productions being as they were. However, it would have been easy to get lost in these details and not see the wood for the trees. The fact that there were more particular processes and reasons involved does not invalidate the thesis that there were larger processes and reasons working their way through them. The fact that the writers, producers, directors and executives are not always aware of the forces shaping their consciousness and their situation makes those forces no less real. Although this is a work of social history, making very large and strong theoretical claims, I have tried to devise methods of research which would ensure that my general analysis was properly grounded in particular knowledge of programmes and the concrete conditions of their production and reception. This meant, first of all, watching a lot of television. Several years of taking copious notes from intensive off-air viewing were supplemented both by drawing on memories of years of past viewing and by making the most of access to television archives. I had total access to RTÉ archives and was limited only by how much material had been lost when videotapes were wiped in the earlier period. I must acknowledge here my enormous debt to Radio Telefís Éireann, as my relationship to RTÉ was crucial in making many aspects of my research possible. RTÉ not only gave financial support to my work, but gave me the run of the institution over a period of several years. I became a familiar face in the drama department, in studio, on location, in the library, in editing suites, in viewing facilities, in numerous offices and in the restaurant. I received considerable co-operation wherever my probing took me, without restrictions of access and without pressure to inhibit my critical assessments of what I might encounter. Indeed, most people I dealt with were remarkably critical and self- critical and expected the same from me. The whole experience gave me an understanding of the inside workings of a broadcasting organisation and the production side of television drama that I would not have otherwise. I observed the making of whatever drama was in production during the period of my research: Glenroe, Inside, Leave It to Mrs. O'Brien, Spring Cleaning. I conducted a number of formal interviews with executives, producers, directors, authors, actors, which have been cited where relevant in the text. Perhaps I learned most, however, in the less formal situations, from the offhand remarks, anecdotes and reactions that arose spontaneously in the course of work in progress, comings and goings and lunch breaks. I have respected whatever was said to me in confidence, although such knowledge shaped what I wrote, implicitly if not explicitly. This experience of things at the source has immeasurably enhanced my understanding of how television comes to be as it is and I can never watch television in the same way again. I have also pursued more orthodox methods of research. My reading encompassed the entire range of academic work in television studies and related fields, as well as scripts, production manuals, previews, reviews, memoirs, reports, memos, files and miscellaneous archival material.