Shameless

[talktooloose]

We just discovered the British comedy-drama, "Shameless." I found it while doing one of my YouTube searches for shows with recurring gay characters. The show, about a family living in a subsidized housing estate in Manchester, dates back to 2004 and is now in its 8th season.

I hadn't realized at that point that an American reboot of the show had started back in January starring the wonderful character actor William H. Macy. I downloaded the first ep of the American version and we watched it on Saturday. Uh... great actors and design and scenes. But something was really wrong. YouTube had the entire first ep of the UK series, so we compared it. The American pilot was almost identical, scene for scene (even some dialogue) but it just didn't work, whereas the UK version totally sparkled.

I think the problem is that a show about the poor in the UK is fundamentally different than one in America. First of all, any cultural translation must be rethought from the ground up, not just transplanted. But what are the differences? Perhaps it is the long-standing, acknowledged class system in Britain. The family in Manchester and their friends and neighbours have a unique sense of pride in their working class identity. American urban poverty is much more steeped in a sense of cultural shame, partly because of the myth of America as a classless society. If you're poor, it's because you're lazy or not taking advantage of all the amazing opportunities. Any little boy can grow up to be POTUS, etc.

Nothing in the American pilot rung true; which is a shame, since a lot of hard work clearly went into it. Meanwhile, even though Snake can only understand about 60% of the UK version with its thick Mancunian dialect (I get about 85%!), we're going to rent the rest of season 1.

Here's the first ep.

Comments

American working class

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

It really is strking, how the U.K. seems to easily portray working-class characters, isn't it? The only American programs I can think of that managed the trick succesfully even remotely recently were Rosanne and (though I couldn't stand the show, credit where it's due and all that) King of the Hill.

I think you're right about the American fantasy that everyone is middle class is part of the problem, but maybe it's also that mainstream U.S. television deals almost exclusively in advertising-driven fantasy, whereas an awful lot of the British television I've seen seems to have pretensions towards art. I've always been struck by how many British programs are "By so-and-so", where so-and-so" is the writer.

P.S. Another couple of series which dare to portray the Amecian working (and under) classes are the brilliant cable series, The Wire, which starts out as a really good police procedural in its first season, then becomes so much more in the next four. By the same guys is Treme, which seems more experimental yet still rivetting. It looks like it's going to get two seasons at least and I for one can't wait.

P.P.S. A couple of gay/lesbian characters in The Wire, one of whom is portrayed as a sort of Robin Hood figure (the other is a cop). As a straight guy, I thought they were well-realized.

[talktooloose.livejournal.com]

I've always wanted to watch the Wire. I need to start at some point. The task seems a bit daunting at the moment.

I wonder how UK TV avoids the demands of pleasing advertisers. More subsidy? Less shark-like advertisers? Broader range of what the public will watch?

[briseur.livejournal.com]

We have no BBC. Public sector needn't pander.

[talktooloose.livejournal.com]

But that doesn't explain the shit factory that is CBC television, which specializes in putting out sub-par versions of American shows. With notable exceptions.

One thing the BBC does exceptionally well is nurture talent. If there is a hot young playwright, he finds himself getting a call from the BBC to write a six-part TV show and see how that flies. The CBC, on the other hand, seems to use the dubious talents of Hollywood wannabes and ignores the rich base of talent that is evident in our theatre community.

It's also interesting how television narrative shows in Britain are seen as a writers medium in the way theatre is. The lead writer gets his name first after the title, and the show is known as a "Paul Abbott" show for instance. I suppose that's also true in America with "Allan Ball" shows or "David Chase" shows, but they are thought of as "creators" rather than "writers."

[lady-drace.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. *is curous now*