This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/12/david-hare-dead-bodies-tv-tension-murder

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
David Hare is right, dead bodies kill off TV tension David Hare is right, dead bodies kill off TV tension
(35 minutes later)
David Hare, the great dramatic navigator of our life, times and moral debasement, has been lamenting the surfeit of bodies in television drama. Since he was launching the second film of The Worricker Trilogy, his gun-free series about MI5 and political corruption (screened next month), he obviously had a particular point to make. Still, it's a good one.David Hare, the great dramatic navigator of our life, times and moral debasement, has been lamenting the surfeit of bodies in television drama. Since he was launching the second film of The Worricker Trilogy, his gun-free series about MI5 and political corruption (screened next month), he obviously had a particular point to make. Still, it's a good one.
Hare quoted Hitchcock's observation that the moment there's a body, the tension's gone. And of course he's right. The difficulty is that sustaining suspense is hard work for both the writer and the audience. A murder, on the other hand, is usually a kind of climax to a period of rapidly mounting excitement. It becomes a sort of fulfilment, on approximately the same level, say, as buying a new coat. For the writer stuggling to keep things moving along, there are other advantages in a death, which probably explains the extraordinary mortality rate in most soaps. It's such a convenient plot device when the narrative needs a bit of a kicking and a reset in a new direction. Hare quoted Hitchcock's observation that the moment there's a body, the tension's gone. And of course he's right. The difficulty is that sustaining suspense is hard work for both the writer and the audience. A murder, on the other hand, is usually a kind of climax to a period of rapidly mounting excitement. It becomes a sort of fulfilment, on approximately the same level, say, as buying a new coat. For the writer struggling to keep things moving along, there are other advantages in a death, which probably explains the extraordinary mortality rate in most soaps. It's such a convenient plot device when the narrative needs a bit of a kicking and a reset in a new direction.
On ITV tonight the 100th Midsomer Murders tries that thing every TV drama addict dreams of, with a partial mash-up featuring familiar heroes from Saturday night on BBC4, or at least two of those Danish actors who have become household faces in Britain. According to the blurb, the death of a local biscuit magnate takes our old friend Barnaby and his sidekick Charlie Nelson to Copenhagen, where they team up with a Danish duo played by Ann Eleonora Jorgensen, the heart-rendingly memorable mother of the first murder victim in The Killing, and Birgitte Hjort Sørensen, the political journalist from Borgen also now starring on the London stage as Tom Hiddlestone's wife in the Donmar's blood-spattered Coriolanus. (Just as well no one ever went after Shakespeare on the body count front).On ITV tonight the 100th Midsomer Murders tries that thing every TV drama addict dreams of, with a partial mash-up featuring familiar heroes from Saturday night on BBC4, or at least two of those Danish actors who have become household faces in Britain. According to the blurb, the death of a local biscuit magnate takes our old friend Barnaby and his sidekick Charlie Nelson to Copenhagen, where they team up with a Danish duo played by Ann Eleonora Jorgensen, the heart-rendingly memorable mother of the first murder victim in The Killing, and Birgitte Hjort Sørensen, the political journalist from Borgen also now starring on the London stage as Tom Hiddlestone's wife in the Donmar's blood-spattered Coriolanus. (Just as well no one ever went after Shakespeare on the body count front).
It's rumoured that writers on series such as Midsomer Murders have a strict limit on the body count, possibly in order to keep the village populated while clinging to a faint approximation of real life (still, 100 murders already, why does anyone go and live there?), but under the multi-casualty influence of Scandinoir, who knows what might happen. Hare complains that the soaring array of deaths in the latest series of The Bridge – bodies decomposed, bodies corrupting slowly from within, bodies bashed with lamp stands – is accompanied by none of the excitement in the wider world that would be needed to inculcate any sense of realism. But it does have a sustained account of the grief of the bereaved, even if the ethical context – there is definitely something to do with environmentalism going on – is definitely more context than ethics.It's rumoured that writers on series such as Midsomer Murders have a strict limit on the body count, possibly in order to keep the village populated while clinging to a faint approximation of real life (still, 100 murders already, why does anyone go and live there?), but under the multi-casualty influence of Scandinoir, who knows what might happen. Hare complains that the soaring array of deaths in the latest series of The Bridge – bodies decomposed, bodies corrupting slowly from within, bodies bashed with lamp stands – is accompanied by none of the excitement in the wider world that would be needed to inculcate any sense of realism. But it does have a sustained account of the grief of the bereaved, even if the ethical context – there is definitely something to do with environmentalism going on – is definitely more context than ethics.
But I think Hare cares about more than realism. He worries that the thrill of the kill can all too easily overwhelm moral subtlety. One result is that what in life would be an overwhelming reaction of repugnance to the enormity of a murder (never mind shock and grief) risks being foregone for the sake of more action, more excitement and another climax. But if there is no moral response to death, then how much harder it becomes to excite people with the more complex dilemmas that Hare himself cares about, such as the unseen corrosion of a debased political culture.But I think Hare cares about more than realism. He worries that the thrill of the kill can all too easily overwhelm moral subtlety. One result is that what in life would be an overwhelming reaction of repugnance to the enormity of a murder (never mind shock and grief) risks being foregone for the sake of more action, more excitement and another climax. But if there is no moral response to death, then how much harder it becomes to excite people with the more complex dilemmas that Hare himself cares about, such as the unseen corrosion of a debased political culture.
Unlike a murder, the choices that sustain a moral society are often small. They may not have clear implications or consequences. They may not even have an evident moral content. And even where they do, it may not be unequivocal. The security state and its relationship with democracy present all the queasy opportunities a playwright could want. Never mind the bodies.Unlike a murder, the choices that sustain a moral society are often small. They may not have clear implications or consequences. They may not even have an evident moral content. And even where they do, it may not be unequivocal. The security state and its relationship with democracy present all the queasy opportunities a playwright could want. Never mind the bodies.