‘Drama over Lockerbie’ A new look at television drama-documentaries

This article was downloaded by: [University of Kent]On: 24 November 2014, At: 08:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Historical Journal of Film, Radio and TelevisionPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chjf20

‘Drama over Lockerbie’ A new look at televisiondrama-documentariesRichard Kilborn aa University of StirlingPublished online: 12 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Richard Kilborn (1994) ‘Drama over Lockerbie’ A new look at television drama-documentaries , HistoricalJournal of Film, Radio and Television, 14:1, 59-76, DOI: 10.1080/01439689400260051

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01439689400260051

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chjf20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01439689400260051

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01439689400260051

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, Vol. 14, No. I, 1994 59

'Drama over L o c k e r b i e ' A new look at television drama-documentaries

R I C H A R D K I L B O R N , University of Stirling

FIG. 1. Why Lockerbie? 26 November 1990, Granada Television (Manchester). Timothy West as Colonel Wilfred 'Jumbo' Wood, Head of Training for the Alert security system. (Photo courtesy of

Granada Television, Manchester.)

Of all the television formats which have over the years secured a place for themselves in the broadcasting schedules the docudrama or drama-documentary [(DD)] [1] is the one which has possibly occasioned the most lively, and at times the most heated, debate [2]. Whilst some of the most furious battles have been waged over individual programmes such as The War Game (1965), Death of a l~'ncess (1980) and Who Bombed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

8:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

60 Richard Kilborn

Birmingham? (1989) [3], the ' fal l-out ' from these exchanges has resulted in the format itself becoming suspect. It is seen by some to encourage broadcasters to indulge in an irresponsible "monkeying a round with actuali ty" [4]. This has led to fears that d rama- documentar ies will be used to distort rather than to i l luminate reality and that, in the hands of the more unscrupulous, the "object will be, quite brazenly, to influence opinion on content ious mat ters ." [5] All in all, when one surveys the critical responses to material p roduced in over four decades of television history, it would seem that for every two critics who regard the D D as a most useful tactical weapon in the broadcaster 's armoury, there is at least one who views the format as a potent ial ly dangerous ins t rument by means of which history is dis torted and audiences manipula ted [6].

Upon closer scrut iny much of the lambast ing that D D s have received at the hands o f critics can be seen to be directed not so much at the format itself as the subject mat te r being t reated in individual programmes. In short: the more politically sensitive the subject matter , the more likely it is that the p rogramme will become the target for various types of sniping and attack. As such, D D s have often featured prominent ly in the ongoing straggle between those who set a high p remium on the 'publ ic ' s right to know' and those who believe that broadcasters should display some self-censoring moderat ion, when sensitive issues are being treated.

The fact that D D s have so often been at the centre o f controversy has had a number of consequences, both for the way in which such programmes are made and for how they are perceived. First , it has caused broadcasters themselves to pay especially close at tent ion to the D D s they make or screen, to ensure that not too many hostages to fortune are offered when their work is scrutinised and assessed. S e c o n d - - a n d closely connected with this first p o i n t - - t h e fears and misgivings about the distort ions to which D D s can allegedly give rise has mean t that they have been subject to intense scrutiny on the part of the regulatory bodies set up to guarantee that agreed codes of broadcas t - ing practice are adhered to.

As we move, worldwide, into an age of increasing deregulat ion in broadcast ing, there is an addit ional fear, namely that, with the proliferation of channels and the concomi- tant difficulties of policing or regulat ing p rogramme content , some of the mechanisms by which broadcasters have been control led in the past may prove more difficult to implement in the future. And if, so the argument goes, makers of D D s are allowed even greater liberties than hitherto, the opportuni t ies for distort ion, manipula t ion and "monkeying a round with actuali ty" will be virtually limitless. A more serious concern in a deregulated environment is the extent to which programme content is liable to be de te rmined by the populist , commercial imperative. In other words some critics are apprehensive that the requirement to reach out to the mass television audience will place a high p remium on fast-moving, act ion-packed dramat ic enter ta inment rather than carefully researched, sober, factual accounts of a par t icular event or episode [7].

The aim of this article is to review some o f the issues which have been to the forefront in the D D debate and to consider whether, as an accepted televisual format, it will continue to prosper in the new broadcast ing environment of the 1990s. Other quest ions addressed will include: H o w and with what success have the regulators sought to br ing their influence to bear in p roduc t ion and screening of DDs? Wha t evidence is there to suppor t the claim that D D s are by their very nature predisposed to produce distorted and misleading accounts? Wha t are the main ways of combining the 'd ramat ic ' and ' documenta ry ' within the hybrid D D mix? And finally, what impact do D D s have on audiences ' percept ions of part icular events? D o they, as is often claimed, play a significant role in swaying or shaping public opinion or, as has already been suggested,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

8:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

A New Look at Television Drama-Documentaries 61

does the furore that D D s frequently evoke have more to do with the politically sensitive nature of the subject being addressed?

In discussing these issues I shall be concentrat ing on British material , bu t will be making occasional reference to work originating in the USA. Like most popular television formats, DDs have acquired international currency and certain product ions such as the American The Day After (screened in late 1983) or for that mat te r the earlier Holocaust series, have achieved the same worldwide penet ra t ion as the legendary Hol lywood supersoaps Dallas and Dynasty. Different sets of priorities within individual broadcast ing systems have resulted in significant variations in the type of D D produced. Commerc ia l imperatives operat ing in the Amer ican system, for instance, have led to the privileging of the faction, that type of dramat ised reconstruct ion in which priori ty is given to ' human interest ' aspects in order to maximise the appeal to a large popular audience. In systems founded on the principle of Public Service Broadcasting, there has been a slightly different emphasis. In Britain, for instance, one of the most significant contr ibut ions to the D D oeuvre has taken the form of serious explorations of historical or contemporary events using the tools of investigative journalism, combined with a range of dramatic , fictionalising ploys to cover those parts of the ' s tory ' where, for a variety of reasons, s tandard documentary techniques could not be employed.

Problems o f Definit ion

Attempt ing to point up, with very broad brush strokes, the existence of different 'na t ional ' t radit ions does of course alert one to one of the general problems of s tudying D D s as a p rogramme type, namely the difficulties of establishing criteria to allow one to decide whether a part icular p rogramme can be included within the D D category. Clearly, if DDs are going to be defined as art works which make a claim to be a dramatic retelling or reconstruct ion of events which have happened in the real world and for which some kind of documentary record is extant, then one has to extend one 's inquiry to a large propor t ion of world l i terature and drama. (Early Greek theatre, Shakespeare histories and contemporary Hol lywood biopics would all have to be included.) Even if one limits oneself to material specifically p roduced for television, one confronts a similar problem, s ince- -g iven the naturalist/realist thrust of so much T V drama over the y e a r s - - a significant propor t ion of the output has centred on the quas i -documentary chronicling of contemporary or historical events using well-tried dramat ic techniques. T h e label d rama-documenta ry has sometimes been used by p rogramme makers to enhance the claim that the work in quest ion is firmly rooted in observable, contemporary reality. The British soap-opera Coronation Street, for instance, when it first went on air in the early 1960s, was categorised as a D D , doubtless on the strength of its claims to give a 'warts and all ' depict ion of life in a nor thern industr ial city.

T h e problems of defirfition are further i l lustrated by the number of different terms used by critics and producers to describe programmes which they consider to have D D status. Critics have hit upon various strategies to account for the different types of DD. Drama-documenta ry , d rama-doc , docu-drama, documenta ry-drama, fac t ion--a l l have achieved some currency, though they are by no means used interchangeably [8]. D r a m a documentary is used when the pr imary intent ion of the p rogramme is basically to provide a documentary chronicling of events, with dramat ic reconstruct ions employed to make the account more persuasive or to illustrate things which could not be depic ted using tradit ional documentary means. Documenta ry drama on the other hand tends to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

8:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

62 Richard Kilborn

be used when there has been a more thoroughgoing t ransformat ion of the originally factually based material. Here the documentary e lement may be little more than those periodic reminders, in whatever form they may be expressed, that what one is witnessing does have at least some basis in fact. In these cases the documenta ry componen t may be little more than a device for heightening realism. I t makes the account being rendered that much more plausible and credible, though the pr ime objective remains that of providing a captivating dramat ic enter tainment .

Some critics have devised alternative strategies for categorising programmes which fall within the D D fold. These strategies have usually involved establishing a scale or grid, with categories de termined by the degree of fusion between the dramat ic and documentary elements or the underlying intentions of the p rogramme makers. Hoffer and Nelson in their categorisat ion of various types of American docudrama, come up with no fewer than nine variations "ranging from the 'pure ' form based on investigatory and trial records recreating events in the lives of actual persons ... to programs utilizing historical personages or themes which include some fictionalisation." [9] Similarly Goodwin et al. employ a method of categorisation based on a sliding scale spanning a "hard line category involving a fusion of the practices and conventions of d rama and commenta ry at all levels and the soft line category ... essentially documentar ies with a minimal use of dramat ic reconstruct ion." [10]

Many definitional strategies suggest the multifarious character of the D D format. This has far-reaching implications for any serious critical engagement with the D D form. I f one does not allow for the considerable diversity of applications and uses of drama-documentar ies and simply uses it as a catch-aU category, one is not going to be comparing like with like. Many of the attacks to which D D s have been exposed over the years have their roots in the refusal to recognise that there is a wide diversity of programmes to which the D D label has been affixed [11].

D r a m a - d o c u m e n t a r y a s a M o d e or T e c h n i q u e

An addit ional compl i ca t ion - -o r it could be one of the factors which has contr ibuted to the confusion surrounding the t e r m - - i s that it has been used somewhat loosely [12]. No t only has it been used to refer to a p rogramme category, as a convenient label to identify whole programmes in which there has been some fusion of ' d r ama ' and ' documenta ry ' elements; it has also been employed to refer to a set of techniques or practices which can be broadly subsumed under the heading 'dramat ic or fictional reconstruct ions ' . There can thus be a wide range of programmes in parts or sections of which producers resort to D D techniques in order to fulfil a number of illustrative, informational or educat ional objectives. I t is worth considering one or two of the best known examples of this type of reconstruct ion technique, since this will throw light on some of the issues most frequently discussed in the wider D D debate, especially the vexed question of ' intentionali ty ' .

Within educat ional broadcast ing, for instance, dramat ic reconstruct ions (whether in the context of radio or television) have been regularly used to 'br ing the past to life' for generations of students. Here the pedagogic intent ion has been to use the captivating power of images and narrative as a launch-pad for getting students to think more critically about a part icular per iod in history or to reflect on how sets of conflicting interests are played out in the lives of individuals and communit ies . Since the objectives of the educat ional broadcaster are, among other things, to encourage further critical speculat ion and debate, the fictional reconstruct ions will generally be in t roduced by a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

8:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


guide or presenter who will directly or indirectly draw at tent ion to the illustrative, didactic aims of the mater ial the audience is about to witness. Typical ly, following the dramat ised sequence, there will be some sort of panel discussion o f points arising or possibly the presenter / teacher-guide will re-appear to set the sequence in a wider historical context. The status and aims of the dramat isa t ion are thus clearly marked and the viewers left in no doub t about the broadcas ter ' s intentions. The objective is to supplement existing accounts of historical events by providing viewers with a memora - ble re-enactment or dramat ic interpretat ion of the event(s) in question, whilst making it clear that the televised account is not claiming to be an accurate, historical record but merely an interpretat ion of events as they might have occurred.

Another instance of dramat ic reconstruct ions being used as a device for eliciting an active audience response is in such police-investigation programmes as Crimewatch U K and Crimestoppers. Here the purpose is to seek the active cooperat ion of members of the television audience in bringing criminals to justice. Basing their reconstruct ions on all the available documentary evidence, the producers of these programmes provide highly dramat ic re-enactments of the crime in question. In each case the reconstruct ion is in t roduced by the p rogramme presenter whose function it is to state what addi t ional information is being sought or to draw at tention to the fact that what viewers see is based on the best evidence available at the time. Fears have occasionally been expressed about the conflicting needs or intentions of programmes such as Crimewatch. On the one hand there is the well publicised intent ion to enlist the suppor t of the T V audience in combat ing crime. On the other there is the enter ta inment imperative: the need to produce the sort of p rogramme calculated to have strong enter ta inment appeal. Fo r some critics this is an uneasy relationship.

Dramat ic reconstruct ions which are a regular feature of programmes like Crimewatch are the parts o f the p rogramme that most clearly reveal this dual commitment . T h e y provide dramat ic reconstruct ions using techniques which are familiar to audiences from crime-fiction material. Whils t such re-enactments are justified on the strength of the need to enlist the active suppor t of the television audience, they are also calculated to appeal to the voyeuristic, even the ghoulish in h u m a n nature. F o r this reason they sometimes place the viewers in an ambivalent relationship with regard to what they are witnessing.

In educat ional broadcast ing and ' investigational ' p rogramming of the Crimewatch type, the use of I ) D techniques has by and large not at t racted any negative criticism, since in both instances the programmes are regarded as having laudable intentions. In addit ion, the D I ) inserts are clearly marked as such. I t is when D D techniques are made to serve what are seen as more dubious ends that critics begin to voice serious misgivings. The deepest suspicions are reserved for the use of D D techniques in types of p rogramming which have a foregrounded persuasive intent ion or where powerful interests (especially those of the State) are being criticised or at tacked. Included in this category are all forms of propaganda, in which the pr imary objective is to win the audience over as much by the emotional impact of the delivery as by the force of reasoned argument.

Producers of par ty political election broadcasts have occasionally resorted to D D techniques in the a t tempt to heighten the ' human interest ' appeal of their presentations. The use of such devices, however, provides critics and political opponents with the oppor tuni ty to moun t a vigorous counter attack, frequently by targeting the suspect ' hybr id ' character of the D D mode. A good il lustration of this was provided by the furore surrounding a par ty political broadcas t by the Labour Par ty at the last General

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

8:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

64 Richard Kilborn

Election in April 1992. The broadcas t and the controversy it unleashed became known as the 'saga of Jennifer 's ear ' . T h e main intent ion of the broadcas t was to draw at tent ion to what Labour saw as the move towards an increasing two-t ier system in the Nat ionai Heal th Service. As well as providing the usual array of statistics, the p rogramme featured a ' fact ional ' dramat ic insert to highlight the gulf between private and public medical care. In order to hammer home the ' two-t ier ' message, the p rogramme makers used a mixture of documentary and D D techniques to reveal the different s tandards of t rea tment me ted out to two five-year girls bo th with a serious ear complaint . I t was this combinat ion which led to much adverse cr i t ic ism--pr incipal ly from Labour ' s political opponents . The story of the girl t reated by the N H S was based on an actual case (the eponymous Jennifer) and in this respect could thus claim the validity of a documentary account. In the case of the girl who had private t rea tment on the other hand, the story was a fictional construct , though based upon an amalgam of wel l -documented real-life cases. This amalgamat ion was, in the eyes o f Labour ' s critics, a piece of sleight of hand, since the impression given to many viewers was that the whole broadcas t c laimed a documentary- type validity, whilst the reality was that parts of the presentat ion were wholly fictional.

Instant His tor ies

The problems of defining DDs , together with the various uncertainties about how audiences will decode them, has led some critics to quest ion the very legitimacy of the D D format. The nub of much of the criticism has centred on D D s ' alleged capacity to seduce audiences into thinking that what they are seeing is a truthful, unal loyed account of events, whilst not making it sufficiently clear that a whole range of fictional strategies ( including invented scenes and all the conventions of ' realist ' drama) are being deployed to heighten the reality-status of the depiction. Other critics have expressed concern that, in an age where so many individuals depend on television accounts for their unders tanding of historical events, the proliferation of these dramat ised renderings of history is a development which should not be allowed to go unheeded or unchecked. Some fear that audiences will develop a resistance to what are seen as possibly more challenging means of representat ion. These misgivings about the role played by dramatic work of various kinds in shaping our view of history is expressed in the following observation by two American critics:

... much of what we 'know' about the p a s t - - a n d indeed by extension the political p re sen t - - i s media ted and shaped by popular depictions. Thus , our political knowledge of the past and present is part ial ly formed by the dramat ic fantasies of popular media.J13]

An addi t ional concern, especially as the days of Public Service Broadcast ing in the U K now seem numbered , is that televisual accounts of history will become closely allied to the needs of a television industry dedicated to merchandis ing information in attractively presented packages. In the last two decades we have witnessed a sub-genre of D D s based on events which have occurred only weeks or months before. T h e attractions of producing what N i m m o and Combs have called "instant histories" [14] are plain enough to see. Audience familiarity with, and interest in, the subject can be presup- posed from the extensive news coverage given to the original event, so one is in many ways t rading on exci tement already generated. At the same time, by applying a whole range of s tandard fictional devices and techniques calculated to maximise viewers'

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

8:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


sense of involvement in an unfurling drama, the producers of these "instant histories" offer their audience a form of popular entertainment that is by no means out of line with other types of fictional drama that bulk large in the television schedules. Several DDs, for instance, followed the television schedules. Several DDs, for instance, followed the Israeli raid on Entebbe in 1976, whilst the Watergate scandal in the United States in the early 1970s likewise gave rise to a number of DD accounts. By the same token, the work of the Granada drama-documentary unit in Britain has in recent years become more geared to exploring events which have occurred in the immediate past: the Birmingham pub bombings in Who Bombed Birmingham? (March, 1990), the terrorist attack on a Pan-American airliner in Why Lockerbie? (November, 1990), the demise of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in Thatcher--the Final Days (September, 1991) and, most recently, Hostages (September, 1992).

The fear on the part of some critics is that history, whether relating to the immediate or distant past, will be progressively reduced to the biographical or the anecdotal; The danger for audiences, it is claimed, is that past or present events will now be seen as not so much resulting from the complex interplay of multiple forces as centering on the struggle of notable individuals (Great Men and Women) striving for supremacy. In the words of one such critic: "... while the discourse of factuality is helping to legitimate the fiction, issues are draining away into an exaggerated 'human interest' which is (ulti- mately) unproductive." [ 15]

For many working in the area of DD production, there is, however, a recognition that too great a dependence on the popularising strategies of dramatic fiction can indeed have a negative impact on the audience's readiness to accept a programme as a credible account of events. Every effort is therefore made to persuade the audience that what they are seeing and hearing is not so much the product of an individual author's creative imagination as a painstaking documentary reconstruction of events. The major emphasis in this type of DD production is on meticulous research in order that what is depicted or recounted can be traced back to, or checked against, original sources. Such productions can be judged according to the criteria which obtain in news and current affairs rather than in fictional drama productions [16].

DD: Productive Fusion or Dangerous Hybrid?

What then are the particular advantages which accrue when a dramatic component is introduced into a documentary account? From the point of view of the makers of traditional documentaries, the introduction of a fictional element gives them the opportunity to escape what they well see as the straightjacketing constraints of the documentary format. As one American writer has observed: "Some writers feel that the fictionalised form allows them the freedom to get closer to the truth than the narrow confines of the documentary form." [17] But what exactly is meant by "getting closer to the truth"? For some DD practitioners it means that through the introduction of the 'dramatic dimension' they are able to highlight certain aspects which would not have received the same emphasis in a purely documentary account. In particular, drama may help to expose the role played by emotional or psychological drives in determining human action. Such inner explorations are not possible using the techniques available to 'traditional' documentarists. As Jerry Kuehl has commented:

the methods of traditional documentary condemn its practitioners to present only the surface of people or events. By excluding re-enactments, reconstruc-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

8:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

66 Richard Kilborn

tions and invented dialogue, traditional documentaries abandon the possibility of ever penetrating beyond appearances to the three-dimensional reality. They thereby make genuine understanding of real persons and events impossible. [ 18]

The claim being made for DDs is that they provide a different type of access compared to other types of programming. The use of dramatising techniques enables a different level of understanding of events, as audiences become emotionally positioned vis-d-vis the characters on whom attention is focused [19]. As such, DDs can have an important revealing function in that they point up the role played by personal aspirations or fears in the unfolding of a chain of public events. As David Edgar has commented:

... The dramatic power of drama-documentary lies in its capacity to show us not that certain events occurred (the headlines can do that) or even, perhaps, why they occurred (for such information we can go to the weeldy magazines or the history books), but how they occurred: how recognizable human beings rule, fight, judge, meet, negotiate, suppress and overthrow. [20]

Sceptics and detractors argue otherwise, insisting that sleight of hand is used to persuade the hapless viewers to interpret texts according to a false set of criteria. An audience is being called upon to judge the programme in question by applying frames of reference which do not take sufficient account of the fictionalising strategies being deployed.

Such a view seriously underestimates viewers' familiarity with the conventions and techniques which are deployed by D D makers. M o d e m television audiences are not so easily hoodwinked, and viewers are just as likely to reserve judgement on a particular programme's account of events as accept that version as the final and definitive statement. In addition, critics of the D D format are not always willing to concede that traditional documentaries themselves are by no means free of those fictionalising strategies which these same critics so roundly condemn in DDs. John Grierson, acknowledged founding father of the documentary movement, already recognised this when, in the early 1930s, he observed that there was considerable scope for the employment of "creative artifice" in documentary accounts [21]. What Grierson meant was that the work of the documentary film maker would always involve a certain amount of active, (subjective) intervention in the filming process. Moreover the actuality material would often need to be shaped and re-presented using a variety of standard narrative ploys. Thus in some ways a traditional documentary could in some measure be seen as a type of dramatic reconstruction. In all these respects the makers of traditional documentaries cannot justifiably claim that what they produce is an intrinsically more objective or more truthful account of events than that provided by the drama-documentarist . As Jerry Kuehl has noted, documentaries "claim to present the ' truth' , yet they can never present anything other than one man or woman 's selective version of reality." [22]

The Issue o f A c c e s s

Rather than continue to regard DDs and traditional documentaries as if they were locked in some sort of long-standing power battle, it would seem that a more productive approach would be to explore what type of subject or material is most appropriately accommodated in what format. Much of the discussion on this matter has centred on the question of access, that is, how programme makers use the D D format to gain

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

8:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


access to---and thus to make accessible to audiences- -events , information and knowledge. In this respect D D product ions often carry with them the promise that they will unlock the door to new types of unders tanding or will clear away the obfuscation in which a subject has so far been enshrouded. Whether or not the majori ty of D D s have actually succeeded in fulfilling this aim is of course an entirely different question.

When talking about access, one must r emember that the reasons for employing D D techniques have changed over the years. In the late 1940s and the early 1950s, the technical l imitations and cumbersome nature of recording equipment were such as to make it almost impossible for documenta ry crews physically to get to all the locations in which they wished to film. Anyone therefore wishing to produce a graphic i l lustrated account of an impor tant contemporary issue had little alternative but to opt for some form of dramat ised reconstruct ion in the studio [23].

I f in the early days of television broadcasters resor ted to the D D as a way of overcoming problems of access, the problems did not simply d isappear with the advent of lightweight recording equipment . I f anything, the new technology made p rogramme makers even more aware of access problems, for even though documenta ry camera crews could now film in what were previously considered the most unlikely locations, they quickly discovered that there were still many places from which they were barred. (The inner sanctums of Cabinet rooms, courts of law, meetings of top business executives, in short all those places where the publ ic ' s gaze was not allowed to penetrate.) I t is part ly for this reason that the D D has cont inued to be employed as a device for imaginatively recreat ing what might well have t ranspired in these inner sanctums as part of television's self-declared mission o f opening up a window on the world. [24]

D D s v i s -a -v i s o ther Te lev i s ion F o r m a t s

What relationship do D D s have to other forms of television presentat ion and what criteria are decisive in persuading a part icular company or organisation to proceed with a D D project? F r o m the broadcas ter ' s poin t of view an impor tant considerat ion before he or she embarks on any D D project will be how the projected account fits in with other extant accounts of the subject, in whatever format these may have been circu- lated. This may of course be a commercial ly mot ivated move to get a new angle on a relatively familiar subject (yet another 'controversial ' account of the shooting of JFK, for instance) or the journalist 's desire to analyse a situation about which little may currently be known. Whatever the underlying intentions of the p rogramme makers, the questions that a team is likely to ask itself before embarking on a D D product ion are ones such as: Wha t previous knowledge will the audience be expected to have of the topic? Wha t sort of film and television material (news, current affairs, documentary) is available and could some of it be integrated into a D D account? Wha t indications are there to suggest that a D D t rea tment could lead to any greater unders tanding of the subject than that given by other accounts?

There are comparat ively few accounts which provide satisfactory answers to these questions, but in one recently publ ished article Leslie Wood_head, for many years a leading m e m b e r of Granada ' s D r a m a Documenta ry unit , gives us some impor tan t insights into how drama documentar ies come to be made and how, in the eyes o f the producers , they 'feed off' o ther p rogrammes which have tackled the same subject, but in a different way.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

8:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

68 Richard Kilborn

FIG. 2. Ned Beatty plays Edward J. Acker, Chairman of Pan Am; Vincent Gardenia plays Harry Pizer, Pan Am Head of Security; Harry Ditson plays Marry Shugrue, Deputy Chairman of Pan Am; and Peter Boyle plays Fred Ford, Head of Alert: the Pan Am security system in Why Lockerbfe? Granada's 90-minute drama-documentary investigating the events leading up to the Lockerbie air disaster. (Photo courtesy of

Granada Television, Manchester.)

Woodhead bases his observations [25] on the 90 minute D D Why Lockerbie? (screened in November 1990). The basic intention, according to Woodhead, for

producing what he terms a "dramatic investigation" of the events leading up to the I~ckerbie disaster was the journalistic desire to show exactly why it happened. The Lockerbie tragedy had already given rise to hundreds of news reports and current affairs investigations (including a 30 minute programme put together in the summer of 1989

by Granada 'World in Action ' team), so clearly Woodhead could presuppose a degree of audience familiarity with many details of the Lockerbie story. What had, however, become increasingly apparent from the research carried out by members of the 'World in Action' team was that the " important wider themes of air security were worthy of further exploration". At the same time it also became obvious that traditional reporting methods were not going to be sufficient to overcome the "formidable problems of access to key sources in areas of aviation security, terrorism and police surveillance", all areas which appeared to afford important clues as to who was responsible for the crime.

Whilst it was accepted that some sort of journalistic reconstruction was the most likely way in which the access problems could be addressed, it was felt initially at least that a "hybrid mix of documentary interviews and dramatic reconstruction might be the most effective technique for exploring the background to Lockerbie," with attention

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

8:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


being focused on the three months leading to the disaster. All this would be accommo- da ted in a 60 minute mixed format programme. As work proceeded, however, and further information came to light, it became obvious that a more wide ranging account covering a longer t ime span would have to be given, in order that the audience could gain an "adequate unders tanding of the events which shaped the disaster". The scope of the investigation was thus widened to cover the 20 months leading up to Lockerbie and the running t ime of the p rogramme extended to 90 minutes.

The decision was taken to opt for a fully fledged D D . This was done for two major reasons. First , while some of those working for Pan A m ' s security organisation Alert were willing to talk to Granada ' s researchers about the many deficiencies of the system, they were certainly not willing to do this on camera. Similarly, members of the terrorist group suspected of carrying out the bombing could hardly be expected to volunteer to give their side of the story! This left dramat ic reconstruct ion as the only feasible means of covering events. Second, as the p rogramme makers gained more knowledge about the probable causes of the Lockerbie disaster, it became clear that the p rogramme ' s central thesis, "how an overstretched and under funded security system is left fatally vulnerable to terrorist at tack" could be very effectively presented in terms of a dramat ic conflict between two warring protagonists: on the one hand those representing a vulnerable airline security system and on the other those belonging to the terrorist group.

Presenting the bui ld-up to Lockerbie in the form of a dramat ised investigation, the Granada team succeeded in accomplishing two things. I t realised its intent ion of exposing a fatally flawed security system by produc ing a credible, wel l -documented account o f how the commercial priorities o f the airline were allowed to override safety considerations. At the same time, by deploying the s tandard drama techniques of intercutt ing scenes il lustrating the role played by boa rd room executives and security appointees with sequences showing terrorist preparat ions for plant ing a bomb, the audience was able to see how these two sets of protagonists became fatefully inter- twined. The conventions of popular d rama were thus harnessed to give a large television audience a bet ter unders tanding of the possible sequence of events leading to the disaster which had so powerfully gr ipped the publ ic ' s imagination.

A u d i e n c e s

Whilst W o o d h e a d ' s account provides valuable insight into the genesis of a part icular D D from the product ion team's point of view, it ignores the quest ion of how audiences will make sense of what they see. As we know from the mount ing body of work on the issue of text reception [26], an audience 's unders tanding of one text is going to be substantially de termined by the network of connect ions that readers make between it and a potential ly endless series of other texts with which it is bound up by virtue of the conventions it employs, the subject it treats and the imagery it deploys.

The connect ions set up when a reader confronts a text such as a D D account of a much publicised contemporary issue or event such as the Lockerbie disaster are likely to be large in number . Or pu t slightly differently: viewers watching the Why Lockerbie? programme in November 1990 would not only be generat ing meanings by applying frames o f reference concerning the rules and conventions that operate in DDs , bu t would also be activating all the 'Lockerbie ' knowledge and information they had gleaned from a host of other media sources in the per iod between the event itself and this part icular account. Given the hybrid character of D D s (the fact that they fuse

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

8:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

70 Richard Kilborn

different components) , it follows that there will be a greater number of interconnect ions with related texts and accounts. The failure of many critics to recognise the ' in tercon- nectedness ' o f D D s with other texts explains the hostil i ty shown towards them. Viewers tend to be seen simply as prisoners of the text, rather than being involved in a much more complex process of negotiat ing meanings by drawing on a rich fund of knowledge and experience from a variety of different sources.

Detractors of the D D make a large number of unjustified assumptions about how audiences are likely to be affected by certain programmes rather than collecting more concrete evidence on how viewers actually respond. (Most intellectuals tend to scorn DDs simply on the grounds that they trivialise all subjects.) In the case of audience response to DDs , one of the most frequently made assumptions is that audiences will s imply not be in a posi t ion to separate fictional from factual. They are therefore, so the argument goes, in danger of being seriously misled, since the factuaUy based material has invisibly merged with various types of fictional elaborat ion and this amalgam creates its own reality.

When audiences are consulted, however, about what they have actually made of various DDs screened over the years and about how these programmes have affected their views on certain issues or events, a very different picture emerges. Any assertion that D D s win over audiences to a part icular point of view has to be t reated with scepticism. T h e claim that D D s have a decisive effect on the way that audiences construct their concept ion of social and political reality has been "asserted far more often than it has been tested" [27]. Likewise, whilst there is plentiful evidence to show that programmes on controversial subjects, such as Death of a Princess, Law and Order and Who Bombed Birmingham? all unleashed a lively, and at t imes furious debate, there is little indicat ion that the programmes in themselves radically altered at t i tudes or changed opinions [28].

Wha t these surveys into viewer response suggest is that viewers have developed a sophist icated and critical at t i tude towards DDs. The results of these surveys suggest that viewers tend to test the account against several other available sources of infor- mat ion before reaching their own verdict [29]. The series of investigations conducted by the research depar tment of the I T C (formerly the IBA) bear out this finding. In a series of reports on the reception of D D s ranging from 1970s Amer ican docu-dramas such as Holocaust and The Day After, to more recent home-grown product ions like Who Bombed Birmingham?, the picture which emerges is one of differentiated and discrimi- nat ing response which gives the lie to all talk of a malleable and manipula ted audience. Summaris ing these findings Barrie Gunter , Head of the I T C Research Depar tment , has this to say about the meanings which audiences at tr ibute to or generate from television DDs:

T h e research illustrates the layer of sophist icated judgement viewers can br ing to programmes, albeit dramat ic ones, which deal with serious and true-to-life subject-matter . [30]

One of the more recent ITC/ IBA reports which clearly underl ines Gunte r ' s p ronounce- ments concerns the recept ion of Who Bombed Birmingham?, a p rogramme which had become the subject of major controversy at the t ime of its screening in March 1990. This was a D D based on the case of the Birmingham Six, the six I r ishmen imprisoned on terrorist charges and subsequently released. At the t ime that the p rogramme was broadcast , the men were still in jail and though there was a mount ing body of evidence

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

8:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


FIG. 3. Who Bombed Birmingham? 28 March 1990, 8.00 pm, ITV. On 21 November 1974 two pubs were blown up in Birmingham. Twenty-one people died and 162 were injured in the worst crime of its kind in mainland Britain. Six men were arrested and jailed for the offence. They have consistently maintained that they are innocent. Granada's drama-documentary tells the story of the Birmingham Six and the controversy surrounding the evidence that convicted them.

Five of the men play cards on the train journey from Birmingham to Heysham before they are arrested. Clockwise from left: Niall Toibin plays Paddy Hill, Ciaran Hinds plays Richard McIlkenny, Brendan Laird plays Billy Power, Vincent Murphy plays Gerry Hunter and Niall O'Brien plays Johnny Walker. (Photo

courtesy of Granada Television, Manchester.)

po in t ing to the pr i soners ' i nnocence , the g o v e r n m e n t refused to c o u n t e n a n c e a re-trial.

T h e p r o g r a m m e , the resul t o f pa ins taking inves t iga t ion by the G r a n a d a t eam, ident i f ied

four o ther m e n who, it was c la imed, were actual ly respons ib le for the B i r m i n g h a m pub b o m b i n g in 1974.

Pred ic tab ly enough , the official pol ice and g o v e r n m e n t response to the p r o g r a m m e ' s

revela t ions was one o f anger and disdain. As is so of ten the case wi th D D s , however ,

the host i le response which the p r o g r a m m e e n c o u n t e r e d in s o m e quar ters was in d i rec t

cor re la t ion to h o w high it was on the poli t ical sensit ivity scale. F o r s o m e g o v e r n m e n t

minis te rs the p r o g r a m m e was little m o r e than a p r o p a g a n d a exercise, in which the

aud ience was fed a dub ious mix tu re o f con jec tu re and factual ly inaccura te i n fo rma t ion

u n d e r the guise o f serious invest igat ive repor t ing. O n the o the r hand , w h e n viewers

themselves were ques t i oned abou t the impac t o f the p r o g r a m m e and its possible

inf luence on views they held , a very different p ic ture emerged . T h e major i ty o f v iewers

were u n d e r no i l lusions as to ways in wh ich the p r o g r a m m e was a t t emp t ing to pos i t ion

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

8:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

72 Richard Kilborn

them, but were more than capable of resisting what they saw as exaggerated claims or i l l - founded proposi t ions [31]. Thus , while 76 per cent of respondents to the IBA survey acknowledged that the p rogramme gave them information they had no t heard before, a much lower percentage (59 per cent) were willing to accept that the "great majori ty of information given in the p rogramme was true". Similarly one in three of the respondents (33 per cent) were of the bel ief that "some of the information given in the p rogramme as true, may not be true". These are hardly statistics which prove extreme audience gullibility.

These findings provide reinforcement for the idea that viewers do not soak up D D s passively, but a t tend to them in highly critical ways. Often they will stay their judgement on an issue or event until more evidence is forthcoming. Certainly they are not likely to have their views changed on the strength of a single television programme, even though some D D s have on occasions played an impor tant role in helping raise publ ic awareness about a hi therto neglected issue. Wha t does emerge from the research findings on the other hand is a highly developed awareness on the viewers ' part of the conventions according to which D D s are constructed and an awareness of what techniques are being employed to increase the enter ta inment quot ient of what is being offered.

I f an audience, in making sense of a part icular D D , is frequently capitalising on views expressed or information given in different types of p rogramming (news, current affairs, fictional d rama etc.), the converse is also true: namely a knowledge of the workings of DDs will sharpen an audience 's critical unders tanding of how information is media ted and views of the world conveyed in a range of other programmes right across the broadcast ing schedule. As David Edgar has observed:

I would defend d rama-documenta ry as a form in which impor tan t things can be said in a uniquely authoritat ive and credible way. But the form also needs to be defended because the presence of d rama-documenta ry in the schedules is an active encouragement to audiences to think critically and seriously about all the p rogrammes they watch. [32]

Regulation and the Drama-Documentary

The belief that DDs can powerfully shape an audience 's view of contemporary and historical reality has meant that they have been subject to intense scrutiny both by the broadcast ing insti tutions and the regulatory bodies. As far as the BBC is concerned, the control is exercised in effect by a system of self-regulation, (some would say self-censor- ship) whereby individual producers and commissioning executives are required to operate according to a series of Producers ' Guidel ines in tended to ensure that an appropria te level of accuracy and impart ial i ty is achieved. In addi t ion to exhortat ions to strive for a 'fair, impart ial and rounded view of events ' in d rama portraying contemporary situations, the BBC Guidelines have specific recommendat ions about DDs . Special at tent ion is to be pa id to the claims made for such items, and programme executives are urged to give Careful thought as to how the programmes in quest ion are publ ic ised and presented, ~ so as not to arouse any false expectations. 'When drama features real l i f e - -and especially when it mixes real life with fiction---careful, clear and effective labelling is needed for the viewer and listener, who must be aware of the nature of what is on offer. ' (BBC Producers Guide l ines [Section 5]).

In the case of the BBC the fact that there has always been a general commi tmen t to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

8:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


and support for dramas and documentaries, cannot disguise the fact that in recent years there has been a decided reticence on the part of the Corporation to produce work which would challenge received wisdom. A number of critics regard this as quite a disturbing development, since it suggests that 'self regulation' is interpreted by some at the Corporation as a desire not to become involved in any damaging political controversy. Some commentators have gone so far as to suggest that there is a direct connection between this 'reticence' and the scarcely disguised government hostility to the corporation, especially in Margaret Thatcher's second period of office. As Bob Woffmden has observed: "It may be that the buffeting the BBC got in 1986, around the time of The Monocled Mutineer and the Falklands Play, has led to caution, or even cowardice within the corporation." [33]

If the combined impact of controversies surrounding DDs produced by the BBC in the last few years has indeed resulted in a degree of self-regulation whereby the production of a challenging programme becomes an exceptional event, the same cannot be said for the ITV network. Here there has been a steady flow of DDs over the last two decades. It is interesting to speculate on the reasons for this and to consider why it is that the ITV companies should not have felt exposed to the same pressures as the BBC. Certainly as far as the regulatory constraints which govern programme makers are concerned there are no fundamental differences between the BBC Producers Guideli- nes and the Code under which ITV personnel are required to operate.

In the case of the ITV companies the body charged with establishing codes of practice and ensuring that they are observed is the ITC (formerly the IBA). Experience has shown that a regulatory body such as the ITC has had to pay especially close attention to DDs both in terms of laying down a series of guidelines (similar to those of the BBC) and acting as arbiter when major controversies arise. As far as its statutory obligations on these matters are concerned, the duty of the ITC is clear. In terms of the 1990 Broadcasting Act it is to ensure that 'due impartiality is preserved on the part of the person providing the service as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy.' (ITC Programme Code:3.2)

In attempting to enforce these guidelines, however, ITC officials are well aware of the practical difficulties faced by programme makers in implementing these requirements. They recognise, for instance, that 'considerations applying to drama ... are different from those applying to current affairs programmes.' As always, problems arise for the regulators when the 'boundaries between what is fact and what is fiction may become blurred.' (ITC Code 3.7) Programme makers are required to draw a 'clear distinction between plays based on fact and dramatised documentaries which seek to reconstruct actual events.' Careful labelling of programmes is considered to be one way of avoiding confusion on part of viewers. By the same token every possible care should be taken to prevent the fictional elements from 'distorting the known facts'. Scrupulous regard should be paid to the checking of the evidence on which dramatic reconstructions are based. One specific recommendation of the ITC is that special care should be given to the scheduling of drama documentaries as one way of ensuring that alternative interpre- tations or points of view can be voiced. In practical terms this may be achieved by arranging for a studio discussion to take place after the screening of a potentially controversial DD. An additional strategy might be to 'hammock' the DD in question in a sequence of programmes which present the subject in question from several different angles and in a variety of formats.

As is the case with most forms of regulation, however, what the regulators see as a necessary system of checks and balances to facilitate good broadcasting practice, is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

8:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

74 Richard Kilborn

often viewed by broadcasters themselves as the imposi t ion of unnecessary constraints. These differences perhaps show up most clearly of all at those meetings or conferences where regulators and broadcasters gather to discuss matters of mutual interest. At one such meet ing held in October 1990- - an IBA symposium to debate issues surrounding drama documenta r i e s - - i t quickly became clear how difficult it was in practice to find c o m m o n ground between what appeared to be two irreconcilable positions. On the one hand there was the Author i ty posi t ion, as represented by the words of the IBA Deputy Chairman, Lord Chalfont: "I am a regulator. The law of the land requires a code, so that is what I have to do." [34] On the other there was the broadcast ing pract i t ioners ' claim that any too heavy handed insistence on 'due impart ial i ty ' for every p rogramme t ransmit ted would be a highly regressive move.

Part icular problems arise in the debate between regulators and broadcasters as to how D D s should be treated in relationship to other forms of broadcas t material . Those in favour of stricter forms of regulat ion argue that DDs should be brought more into line with rules governing current affairs broadcast ing. At the IBA symposium, for instance, Lord Chalfont blunt ly suggested that "drama documentar ies must not be allowed to suggest conclusions which would not be sustainable in current affairs programmes" . Broadcasters disagreed, not ing that one of the pr imary reasons for making D D s is to open up areas of the subject which are not accessible through other means. I f the rules were to be t ightened, the broadcasters argued, this move would be not so much a minor adjus tment to regulatory requirements as a major at tack on the raison d'etre of the D D form.

Conclusions

The differences between regulators and broadcasters on the issue of what safeguards have to be observed in put t ing together D D s points once more to the fact there is a political d imension to this whole debate. The concern of the regulators (themselves government appointees) to assure that high standards of broadcast ing practice are mainta ined is clearly l inked to the government ' s desire to exert a measure of control over broadcasters. Whilst there is widespread assent to the not ion that s tandards have to be preserved, there are addit ional politically based motives for keeping a watchful eye on how the media operate, what fTeedoms they are allowed and what new safeguards will need to be built in to existing arrangements to ensure that the 'publ ic interest ' is being served. The debate over the ethical issues underlying the combining of ' fact ' and ' f ict ion' in a hybrid format will doubtless continue, but the most telling battles are still likely to be fought over those D D programmes where it is felt that the public could be 'seriously mis led ' on issues where powerful state or polit ical interests are at stake.

Correspondence: Richard Kilborn, Depa r tmen t of F i lm and Media Studies, Universi ty of Stirling, Stirling, Scot land F K 9 4LA, UK. F A X 44-(0)786-466-855

N O T E S

[1] Whilst in America works of the type in question are referred to as docudramas, in Britain they are referred to as drama-documentaries.

[2] The docudrama debate goes back to much earlier days. Faked re-enactments of the Spanish- American war caused considerable controversy when they were screened. Similarly there were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

8:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

,4 N e w Look at Television Drama-Documentar ies 75

some problems when in March of Time look-alike actors were used to re-enact news events when actual newsreel footage was unavailable. For more on this see RAYMOND FmLDING (1972) The American Newsreel 1911-1967 and RAYMOND FIELDING (1978) The March of Time 1935-1951 (New York).

[3] For details of availability of recordings of these and other DD programmes see Appendix. [4] H. HOLT (1978) The BBC a prime offender in the area of half-truths, The Stage and T V today,

27 April, 1978, p. 12. [5] P. JOHNSON (1981) Truth is a precious and vulnerable commodity not to be adulterated, The

Listener, 19 March, 1981, p. 363. [6] Useful historical-critical accounts of the D D debate are provided by: E. BELL (1986) The origins

of British television documentary: the BBC 1946-1955, in: J. CORNER (ed.), Documentary and the Mass Media, (Stratford-upon-Avon Studies (Second series)); ERIC BREITBART, (1981) From the panorama to the docudrama: notes on the visualization of history, Radical History Review, 25, pp. 115-25; D. EDGAR (1982) On Drama Documentary, in: F. PIKE (ed.) Ah/Mischief, The Writer and Television (London), pp. 14-29; S. FELDMAN (1986) Footnote to Fact: The Docudrama, in B. GRANT (ed.), Film Genre Reader (Austin, TX), pp. 344-356; A. GOODWIN, P. KERR & I. MACDON- ALl3 (eds) (1983) Drama-Documentary, BFI Dossier 19, (London); T. HOFFER, R. MUSBURGER & R. NELSON (1985) Docudrama, in: B. ROSE (ed.) TV Genres. A Handbook and Reference Guide (Westport, CT) pp. 80-211; D. NIMMO & J. COMBS (1983) Mediated Political Realities, (New York); D. PAGET (1990) True Stories? Documentary drama on radio, screen and stage, (Manchester).

[7] This issue was raised most recently after the September 1992 screening of Granada Television's DD Hostages, an account of the imprisonment and eventual release of the British and American hostages held in the Lebanon. Hostages was made, significantly enough, in conjunction with the American "IV company Home Box Office (HBO).

[8] See also note 1. [9] Cited in S. FELDMAN (1986), p. 346.

[10] GOODWlN et al. (1983), p. 4. [11] See also in this respect L. WOODHEAD (1990) Leads to Disaster, The L/stener, 22 November,

pp. 12-13. Woodhead, a very experienced DD producer comments: "It seems to me that many of the controversies surrounding dramatised documentary derive from the varying intentions and claims of widely differing programmes. Dramadoc is a broad church, and the label has been applied indiscriminately to programmes such as Cathy Come Home, The Monocled Mutineer, and Who bombed Birmingham?" See also Microfiche supplement: Granada Television (Manchester), Why Lockerbie? The Making of a drama documentary (November 1990).

[12] Some critics have been reluctant to use the term DD because they feel that the range of material to which it could be made to apply is so broad that no useful purpose is served by using it to refer to a particular programme category. They prefer rather think of the drama documentary in terms of a debate. (See GOODWlN et al. (1983), p. 1.)

[13] NIMMO & CoMBs (1983), op. cir., p. 71. [14] NIMMO & COMBS (1983), op. cir., p. 75. [15] PAGET (1990), op. cir., p. 87. [16] Those who work for the Granada Television Drama-Documentary Uni t see their work not so

much as an offshoot of dramatic fiction as an extension of "IV journalism (see microfiche supplement).

[17] R. MUSBURGER Setting the Stage for the Television Docudrama, Journal of Popular Film and Television, 13(2), p. 93.

[18] J. KUEHL (1981) Truth Claims, Sight and Sound, 50(4), Autumn 1981, p. 272. [19] John Caughie introduces the concept of the dramatic and documentary looks in the attempt to

demonstrate how the DD works upon its audience (Caughie, in GOODWIN (1983) op. cir., pp. 67-74).

[20] EDGAR (1982) op. cir., p. 23. [21] J. GRIERSON (1946) Grierson on Documentary, (London), p. 37. [22] J. KUEHL (1981) op. cir., p. 272. [23] For more on this point see BELL (1986) OP. cit., p. 74; FELDMAN (1986), OP. dr., pp. 352-335; and

GOODWIN et al. (1983), op. cir., pp. 3--7. [24] In the 1970s and 1980s DDs also played a significant role in overcoming problems of access to

those countries from which journalists and documentary film makers were barred for political

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

8:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

76 Richard Kilborn

reasons. See in particular E. SUSSEX (1981-1982) Getting it right, Sight and Sound, 51, Winter, pp. 10-14.

[25] WOODHEAD (1990), op. cir., pp. 12--13. [26] See R. STAM, R. BURGOYNE & S. F t a v x ~ - L n w l s (1992) New Vocabularies in Film Semiotics,

(London). [27] W. ADAMS et al. (1985) The power of The Right Stuff." a quasi-experimental field test of the

docudrama hypothesis, Public Opinion Quarterly, 49(3), (New York, NY), p. 331. [28] It may be true that programmes like Cathy come Home (first screened in 1966) helped raise public

awareness about the issue of housing for the homeless, but this is not the same as suggesting that the programme swayed viewers into accepting a thesis or proposition to which they were formerly resistant.

[29] See also EDGAR (1982), op. cir., pp. 26--28 for more on this point. [30] Cited in P. FIDDICK (1990) Facts do Furnish a Story .... The Listener, 25 October, p. 5. [31] See J. WOBEg (1990) Effects on Perceptions from Seeing a Drama Documentary. The case of Who

Bombed Birmingham, IBA Research Paper, September 1990. [32] EDGAR (1982), op. cir., p. 29. [33] B. WOFF1NDI~q (1990) What's up doc?, New Statesman and Society, 30 March, p. 20. [34] Cited in P. FIDDICK (1990), Op. cir., p. 5.

Appendix

T h e programmes referred to in this article are available from the following outlets:

1 Who Bombed Birmingham? (1990), W h y Lockerbie? (1990), Thatcher, the F ina l Days

(1991) and Hostages (1992) are obtainable through:

Sylvia Cowling, Granada Television, Quay St, Manchester M60 9EA. Tel: 061-

832-7211 ext. 2207. Fax: 061-839-6558 [UK enquiries]

Elfyn Morris, Granada /LWT International, T h e London Television Centre, U p -

per Ground, London SE1 9LT. Tel: 071-737-8358. Fax: 071-928-8476.

2 Death o f a Pn'ncess and The W a r Game are currently available from the BFI Video

Hire Division, 21, Stephen St., London WIP IPL. Tel: 071-255-1444. Fax: 071-436-7950.

3 Ca thy Come H o m e (video or 16 mm) can be hired from the Concord Video and

Fi lm Council , 201, Felixstowe Rd, Ipswich. Tel: 0436-726012.

Richard Kilborn is Senior Lecturer in Film and Media Studies at the University of Stirling. He has also lectured at the University of Munich and worked as a broadcaster for Radio Bavaria. He has particular interests in film and television adaptation (The Multi-media Melting Pot (London, 1985)) and in television drama serials (Television Soaps (London, 1992)). He is currently writing a book on documentary with his colleague Dr ffohn Izod.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

8:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Documents

‘Drama over Lockerbie’ A new look at television drama-documentaries