The Crown should carry fiction warning, says culture secretary

[Nearly Sane]

Culture secretary doesn't understand what drama is.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-55122965

[Harrowby Hall]

But isn't the real problem that it is a large part of the audience that do not know what drama is?

[Nearly Sane]

But isn't the real problem that it is a large part of the audience that do not know what drama is?

No. Otherwise the culture secretary should be demanding that warning on pretty much all drama, and obviously the series of The Crown that were shown before this one.

[jeremyp]

No. Otherwise the culture secretary should be demanding that warning on pretty much all drama, and obviously the series of The Crown that were shown before this one.

There’s a case to be made that any drama that’s loosely based on history should carry a warning that it is fiction.

[Anchorman]

An expensive soap opera based on an expensive soap opera.

[Nearly Sane]

There’s a case to be made that any drama that’s loosely based on history should carry a warning that it is fiction.

Any drama based on history is loosely based.

[jeremyp]

Any drama based on history is loosely based.

I don't think that is the case, but assuming it is for a moment, how would it be a bar to each of them having to carry a warning that the events have been fictionalised to a degree?

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think that is the case, but assuming it is for a moment, how would it be a bar to each of them having to carry a warning that the events have been fictionalised to a degree?

Who said it was a bar? It just seems utterly pointless.

[jeremyp]

Who said it was a bar? It just seems utterly pointless.

Telling people that what they are about to see is fiction is pointless?

[Nearly Sane]

Telling people that what they are about to see is fiction is pointless?

Yes because it being a drama means that it is fiction. It's tautologous

[jeremyp]

Yes because it being a drama means that it is fiction. It's tautologous

The problem is that it involves historical events and historical characters. People often assume that it is therefore true.

[jeremyp]

Also, I am unaware that a drama is, by definition fiction.

[Nearly Sane]

Also, I am unaware that a drama is, by definition fiction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drama

[Gordon]

I haven't seen it myself, but I'd imagine it contains scenes portraying current 'senior royals', and other significant people such as political or media figures, having 'private' conversations about sensitive issues and no doubt part of the drama also involves the use of background music. Since several well known and recognisable actors are involved it seems unlikely that anyone watching would think that this wasn't a drama, and that the dialogue used and events portrayed were intended as accurate history.

I wonder if anyone was ever confused by, and having had a look at the cast list, Prince Philip being played by an incarnation of Dr Who: I suspect not, so maybe those who think it needs to be flagged as 'drama' are under-estimating the nous of viewers. 

 

[jeremyp]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drama

People don’t look up the dictionary definition of drama before deciding if it is real or not.

I was having a discussion with a friend about Sully, which is based on the incident where a plane landed on the river Hudson. That was a drama but she actually believed the almost defamatory portrayal of the NTSB was true.

[jeremyp]

I haven't seen it myself, but I'd imagine it contains scenes portraying current 'senior royals', and other significant people such as political or media figures, having 'private' conversations about sensitive issues and no doubt part of the drama also involves the use of background music. Since several well known and recognisable actors are involved it seems unlikely that anyone watching would think that this wasn't a drama, and that the dialogue used and events portrayed were intended as accurate history.

I wonder if anyone was ever confused by, and having had a look at the cast list, Prince Philip being played by an incarnation of Dr Who: I suspect not, so maybe those who think it needs to be flagged as 'drama' are under-estimating the nous of viewers.

Are you seriously suggesting that people should judge the truth or otherwise of a drama by whether the actors had previously appeared on Doctor Who?

[Nearly Sane]

Are you seriously suggesting that people should judge the truth or otherwise of a drama by whether the actors had previously appeared on Doctor Who?

No, he's saying that by that it is already an obvious fiction.

There is a brilliant drama about the Wannsee Conference called Conspiracy. If you haven't seen it, it's well worth seeking out. It's based around the transcript of the meeting. It's still fictional.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(2001_film)

The odd thing is that rather then tell people that stuff is fictional,l what usually happens in this sort of drama is that a faux authenticity is claimed by the 'Based on Actual Events' stuff. I recently mentioned watching Inspector George Gently, and one of the episodes is obviously based around the case of Mary Bell (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Bell), and yet it is entirely fictional.

I don't recall the culture secretary worrying about Wolf Hall's adaptation. And I would suggest that the issue that is problematic is not dramas, which as per my earlier link are defined as fiction, which are based on actual events being seen as true, but news which is claimed to be factual which is not based on actual events.

[Gordon]

Are you seriously suggesting that people should judge the truth or otherwise of a drama by whether the actors had previously appeared on Doctor Who?

No: I'm pointing out that several well-known actors are involved, and no doubt the programme also includes credits that show who is playing which character, which I'd imagine is a fairly obvious clue that this programme is indeed a drama and that, therefore, dramatic license is involved.

 

[Nearly Sane]

People don’t look up the dictionary definition of drama before deciding if it is real or not.

I was having a discussion with a friend about Sully, which is based on the incident where a plane landed on the river Hudson. That was a drama but she actually believed the almost defamatory portrayal of the NTSB was true.

What you wrote was that you were unaware that drama was by definition fiction, a simple thank you for me providing you with a bit of education would have been nice. You can now go and explain this to your friend too.

[Gordon]

I don't know much about this Oliver Dowden chap, since he isn't a figure of note in the hurly-burly of Scottish politics, but his highlighting of this seems to me to be a mix of forelock-tugging deference to the royals and a patronising view of the intelligence of viewers.

If I might employ a little dramatic license of my own, I can imagine him saying, in private, something along the lines of "we need to make sure that the great unwashed don't think The Crown is actually history, just in case they are too stupid to realise it is a drama": if I was a viewer of The Crown I might feel offended that he would really think I was that stupid. 

[ProfessorDavey]

I rather enjoyed the earlier series of the Crown, not least because of the historical events portrayed in each episode. I think this series is the weakest, partly because those events seem to have been reduced in importance, but also because the characterisation has become really one-dimensional in comparison with the rather more complex character portrayal in previous series. And frankly that means that there are no 'sympathetic characters' at all.

Me and my wife have watched up the 4th episode (I think) and so far the most sympathetic character is Michael Fagin - the guy that broke into Buckingham Palace and had a chat with the Queen in her bedroom.

On 'fiction warning' - well this all smacks of double standards to me. The first couple of series were overwhelmingly sympathetic to the Queen to a point of sycophancy - kind of a recruiting manual for royalist sentiment. Even Philip, although portrayed a complex was given a highly sympathetic backstory and Margaret was the lovable rogue. No suggestion from the Tory press that a 'fiction warning' should have been used then. Yet as soon as the series become less sympathetic they are all over it in criticism. Realistically neither the sychophancy of the earliest series, nor the current more critical and unsympathetic approach are likely to be true in full but each has a fictional value.

Frankly the main take-home throughout his that they are a pretty dysfunctional family, and given their appalling record on maintaining marriages and retaining good relations with those who married into the family it is hard to argue against that.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't think that is the case, but assuming it is for a moment, how would it be a bar to each of them having to carry a warning that the events have been fictionalised to a degree?

But my point is that the likes of Oliver Dowden are only jumping up and down when their perceive that the fictional element isn't sympathetic to the Royals - where was the similar outcry against Series 1, demanding 'fiction warnings'.

Overall I have no problem with having 'fiction warnings' for dramas based on factual characters and events, but you have to be consistent - you can't just demand it when the editorial line isn't in line with your views on the Royals but not when it is.

[jeremyp]

No, he's saying that by that it is already an obvious fiction.

How does the fact that that one of the cast members was in Doctor Who show it  is already  an obvious fiction? I didn't know it was a law that Doctor Who alumni can't play historical people in truthful reconstructions.

There is a brilliant drama about the Wannsee Conference called Conspiracy. If you haven't seen it, it's well worth seeking out. It's based around the transcript of the meeting. It's still fictional.

Yes I saw it.

If it's based on a real transcript, how is it fictional? Wouldn't you like to know which bits are from the transcript and which bits were invented by the writer?

I don't recall the culture secretary worrying about Wolf Hall's adaptation. And I would suggest that the issue that is problematic is not dramas, which as per my earlier link are defined as fiction, which are based on actual events being seen as true, but news which is claimed to be factual which is not based on actual events.

Wolf Hall is about people who all died more than 500 years ago. The Crown is about people who are still alive. Even so, I suspect there are plenty of people who think that Wolf Hall depicts events as they really happened. There are even people who think Braveheart is true.

So yes, for any historical drama I think a disclaimer at the beginning reminding people that what they are about to see is fictionalised, would be a good idea.

[jeremyp]

No: I'm pointing out that several well-known actors are involved, and no doubt the programme also includes credits that show who is playing which character, which I'd imagine is a fairly obvious clue that this programme is indeed a drama and that, therefore, dramatic license is involved.

But it says nothing about how close to the truth the events depicted are.

[jeremyp]

What you wrote was that you were unaware that drama was by definition fiction, a simple thank you for me providing you with a bit of education would have been nice. You can now go and explain this to your friend too.

You mean I should thank you for resorting to a dictionary defence?