In a recent CST blog, I discussed some of the negative issues surrounding the use of a fictitious country in the context of a series which also features both actual countries and attempts of sociocultural and/or sociopolitical critique. For this blog [1], I would like to provide a counterpoint with an example of how the use of a fictitious country can be done in a way that is more nuanced, if not necessarily more positive.
By dint of their genre, medical series often deal with matters of morality and ethics. This in part lends itself to storylines about playing ‘god(s)’ which can then position the medical personnel as divine entities who are capable of both positive and negative acts (Jacobs 2003). But medical series can also mimic detective series, as House (Fox 2004-2012), an iteration of Sherlock Holmes, most certainly does.
The Trump administration prompted a space for dissent, critique and counter positioning within the media. Inevitably its extreme agenda had an impact on television. Trump’s rhetoric was so problematic that there would inevitably be responses to his views and policies within a range of television programming. The divisive language represented the then President’s emphasis upon borders, exclusion and enemies, both outside and within the USA.
The very first episode of Monty Python’s Flying Circus (BBC, 1969-1974) asked ‘Whither Canada?’, which is an interesting question for a former coloniser to ask of her former colony (and current member of the Commonwealth).
Fig. 1: Logo of ITVX In my first CST blog, over 10 years ago now, I confessed that I was a late adopter of television and its technologies.
I have been writing about Samuel Beckett’s film and television plays for over 20 years, but until recently I had not studied screen adaptations of his theatre plays. A new collection of essays about adaptations of Beckett’s work after his death in 1989 gave me an opportunity to write about the Beckett on Film project (2001) that adapted all 19 of his theatre plays.
The election of President Trump, plus the #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements have invigorated cultural reckoning about the role of popular culture plays in creating the conditions for inequity and exploitation.
or Keeping it (un)Real or Questions at the End, thanks. Yes, I know, thank you so much for watching, I’m really happy that you recognised me from the telly and decided to let me know that you had.
Why is there so little TV scholarship about TV and sports? —John Ellis John Ellis posed this simple yet salient question in his think piece for this online forum back on 21 May 2021. Given the outsize role that sports programming has played on TV around the world since the medium’s inception, it is indeed surprising that this subject has drawn such little interest from most television scholars over the years.
Picture it: Gaborone, Botswana, 2008. An international co-production between the US (HBO), UK (BBC) and South Africa (Film Afrika) is filming an adaptation of Scotsman Alexander McCall Smith’s book series about Tswana ‘lady detective’ Precious Ramotswe (Jill Scott in the adaptation), The No. 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency (HBO/BBC/Film Afrika, 2008-2009) .
