This is kind of a strange book. It would admittedly be difficult to discuss Masterpiece (hereafter MP) at any length without discussing specific shows, but selecting the “best” ones from 50 years of broadcasting and some 400 series aired to date would be difficult no matter what criteria you used. As a relatively recent (mostly the past decade or two) MP fan, this book wasn’t the trip down memory lane for me that it would be for an older viewer. That said, though, getting the backstory of PBS and MP and learning more about some MP shows I have seen was interesting.
This book might also sit better with someone with more English (as in the academic discipline) background than I have–West is an English prof, and throughout the book she tries to situate MP in terms of the “brow” it’s aiming for (i.e., high, middle, or low), throws around terms like “sentimentalism” and “conventionality,” and tries to explain Americans’ love of MP shows by recourse to something fundamental (and usually facile) about American culture. (For example, p. 51: “Literature is vital to [England’s] heritage, just as the pursuit of liberty is to ours.” Um, what? Are those things even comparable?) I’m not familiar enough with English (or media studies?) discourse to know how much of this was her utilizing the common vocabulary and ideas of her field versus her expressing her own opinion or perceptions.
One question I had throughout the book was about the extent to which MP programming is aired in the UK. All of it? Only some? I learned that PBS is a co-producer of these shows, but does that translate to them being primarily or only incidentally made for the export market, as it were? Relatedly, West occasionally mentions how well a certain MP show (e.g., Downton Abbey) was received in the UK compared to in the US–it would have been interesting to have a list or table of the most popular MP shows on either side of the pond.
I’ve summarized the various chapters below (an exercise facilitated by having a PDF ebook from my local academic library).
Chapter 1 recounts the origins of MP. From 1948-1960, a so-called Golden Age of American TV, live performances of [American] plays called anthology dramas were popular, as was cultural and news programming. However, by 1961, FCC chair Newton Minow famously dubbed American TV “a vast wasteland,” populated by “game shows, formula comedies…blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western badmen, western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence and cartoons” (p. 2). Minow’s observation resulted in the reemergence of “smart shows” such as 60 Minutes and The Mod Squad, and the creation of PBS in 1967. Modeled on the BBC, PBS aimed to “inform and educate”--to provide quality TV and to create better citizens by providing models for aspiration. In practice, MP has often combined highbrow appeal (e.g., good books, history, theater-trained acting) and soap opera elements (e.g., sudden plot reversals, last-minute rescues).
Chapter 2 explores Upstairs, Downstairs (UD) and Downton Abbey (DA), attributing their success to “a long, immersive storyline, a dazzling ensemble of actors, finely sketched characters, and lavish attention to historical detail. Each also married period drama to soap opera, appealing to our aspirational desires and our love of lowbrow….[B]oth celebrated a vanished world of tradition, with its distinct social mores and lovely accoutrements….[Both] made the human dilemma—the perennial problem of how to live a satisfying, meaningful life in a world beyond one’s control—just as important to their portrayal of servants as to their portrayal of the upper classes” (p. 18). UD was the first MP original series to be created especially for TV, and the first produced for ITV, not the BBC. Its lowbrow elements, new to MP, continued a Dickensian “soap” tradition. West finds “sentimentalism” aplenty in both shows. DA was more popular in the US.
Chapter 3 discusses the questions of class, gender, and race that have dogged MP. Alistair Cooke, while in many respects the perfect host for MP, also “connoted a troubling image of white male authority” (p. 35). PBS and MP were meant to bring high culture to American TV, but Americans are ambivalent about high culture–torn between our impulse toward self-improvement and our dislike of elitism and snobbery. PBS’s funding (the government [15%], major corporate donors including Mobil Oil, and “viewers like you”) has influenced its mix of programming, with conservative period drama meant to balance radical shows such as Soul! The ‘80s saw a backlash against the Western canon; MP shifted its dramatic focus to contemporary fiction and American classics in response to criticisms of “Master Race Theatre.” Andrew Davies’ mid-90s adaptations revitalized period drama by employing various British accents (not just Received Pronunciation) and actors of color.
Chapter 4 examines the art of adapting literature for television. Britain’s literary heritage and its modern-day esteem of screenwriters combine with television’s ability to encompass even “the long, detailed novels of the nineteenth century” (p. 52) over multiple episodes or an entire series to produce what West calls “Masterpiece’s bulwark” (pp. 51-2), the literary adaptation. Not simply the reenactment of a book, the success of an adaptation “depends on finding its own, sure point between fidelity and innovation” (p. 53). While MP’s adaptations favor fidelity, they’ve evolved from being slavishly faithful to the source text in the 1970s to bigger budgets and new technology in the ‘80s to more creativity in the ‘90s. The MP Sherlock Holmes series and Davies’ 1995 Pride & Prejudice are discussed. Americans love adaptations because they feed our Anglophilia, show us an adaptable past, and speak to our sensibilities (e.g., individualism, rebellious females, romantic comedy).
Chapter 5 takes on MP’s historical dramas. Americans are both notoriously ahistorical and crave connection to the past. “[I]nterest in historical fiction of all kinds—novels, films, plays, television series—is currently at an all-time high….MP is the granddaddy of this trend” (pp. 73). While dramatizing Americans’ own history is outside MP’s scope (West attributes this to MP’s “distinctive brand as a purveyor of British culture coupled with its financial limitations” p. 73), Americans still appreciate MP’s historical offerings because they “animate the dead” (p. 74), present historical events as the opposite of faits accompli, and provide fascinating anthropological windows on different times and places. However, while MP’s historical dramas have ranged in tone, strategy, and approach, West notes that “MP needs to demonstrate a greater willingness to include dramas that unsettle our view of history rather than affirm it” (p. 74).
Chapter 6 focuses on MP’s sister show “Mystery!”, which aired from 1980-2006 (its supposed demise is unexplained–and indeed, the index listing all Mystery! programming extends beyond 2006). In 1979, Mobil Oil offered to sponsor a PBS anthology program devoted to mysteries, then popular on ITV and American TV. Mystery! aired a “robust selection of drama….But hands down, the most popular shows were detective mysteries” (p. 90). Mystery! often surpassed MP in the ratings. West calls out Miss Marple, Agatha Christie’s Poirot, Inspector Morse, and Foyle’s War as paragons of Mystery!’s offerings, which at their best encompass “conventionality, nostalgic appeal, innovation, and irony” (p. 91). Such shows “refined and widened” (p. 91) what mystery shows could be. Some provided a less rosy picture of “chocolate-box England”; others addressed modern urban social issues head-on. As with historical drama, MP now finds itself one among many providers of excellent TV detective drama.
Chapter 7 discusses various MP characters and qualities West thinks they epitomize: Lord Melbourne, Victoria (Charm); Worricker (Cool); The Durrells (Eccentricity); Jeeves, Jeeves and Wooster (Manners); Elinor Dashwood, Sense and Sensibility (Reserve); Downton Abbey (Wit). Although any single MP show with an ensemble cast probably has characters that epitomize each of these! Having only seen DA, I skimmed this chapter–I feel like it works best as a reminder of or a new take on what you’ve seen. Nor does it inspire me to try any of these shows, since I don’t pick shows based on qualities I’d like to see in action. Note that this chapter takes the characters as a starting point, but those characters are only as effective as the actor/actress playing them, so those folks’ acting careers get brought into the discussion as well (although they aren’t named in their associated subheadings, which follow the style “Wit: Downton Abbey [2011-2016]”).
Chapter 8 discusses how MP benefits from British dramatic training and tradition and highlights six top MP performances: Ian Richardson (House of Cards), Helen Mirren (Prime Suspect), Damien Lewis (The Forsyte Saga), Gillian Anderson (Bleak House), Kenneth Branagh (Wallander), and Claire Foy (Wolf Hall). (Again oddly, the subheads in this chapter don’t mention the name of the character being played, only the actor and the show: “Ian Richardson in House of Cards [1990]”.) These descriptions discuss not only the particular role but also the show itself and/or that actor’s career. Again, I’ve only seen a couple of these in their entirety (HoC, TFS), but those were interesting to learn more about.
Chapter 9 provides a brief discussion of the British “heritage” movement as it pertains to historic properties, and then an overview of 20 places of varying scale (from 221B Baker Street to Castle Howard to Manchester) where various MP shows were shot. Unfortunately, the chapter lacks pictures, so unless you know off the top of your head what x place looks like or are familiar enough with the shows mentioned to say, “Oh, that must be that building/city in my mind’s eye when I think of this show,” this chapter requires lots of Googling to appreciate fully.
Finally, we reach the brief Conclusion. Its brevity reminds us that this book is primarily an anniversary retrospective, celebrating MP’s achievements over the past 50 years, including its pioneering role in the creation of excellent dramatic literary adaptations, historical drama, and detective shows for television. I wanted to hear more about its vision and plans going forward, because as West observes, we are currently in the era of “Peak TV” (p. 158)--the very opposite of a “vast wasteland”--including several notable purveyors of British TV in particular (e.g., Acorn and Britbox, as well as Netflix, Amazon, etc.). Especially because we have now been reminded of all the MP shows we have enjoyed over the years, readers long to hear that its aspiration to bring us “emotional truths” (p. 159) will continue in the decades to come.
(That said, however, I am definitely raiding Appendixes 1 and 2 [Masterpiece Productions with Casts and Mystery! Productions with Casts, respectively] for viewing ideas.) :)