Dram3140 Contemporary Television Drama: Report.

The Ambassadors (‘Ambassadors’ – original title) written by James Wood and Rupert Walters and directed by Jeremy Webb. Episode Two.

This report will focus on Episode two of the BBC three-part British comedy-drama

‘The Ambassadors’. This episode aired on BBC Two on Wednesday, 30th of October

2013 at 9pm. The series follows the lives of the employees of the British embassy in

the fictional city of Iskfana in the fictional Tazbekistan and it tackles quite a few

sensible subjects, the situation in Central Asia, terrorism and totalitarianism. How

could comedy work against such a background?

‘People take life and themselves entirely too serious and when a writer turns a

serious idea into a funny one, it makes us laugh at ourselves. The more serious the

situation, the more possibilities for comedy.’ (Rannow 2000: p.19)

In The Ambassadors, comedy comes from this exact seriousness. Wood and

Walters shadowed the British Ambassador to Kazakhstan for a week, which allowed

them to give the series a more real taste. Add that, a team of not very formal British

officials and a couple of strong-headed locals and you have a comedy-drama with a

very strong flavour of Satirical TV.

‘Satire TV examines what happens when comedy becomes political, and politics

become funny.’ (Gray, Jones, Thompson 2009: p.3)

In the last few years, Satirical TV became imperative to watch for those wanting to

become clear about the contemporary state of political life. This new trend has made

TV Comedy, once limited to a couple of sitcoms, into an attractive source of state

and political critique. From situations derived from reality (The Ambassadors case),

to fake news and animated sitcoms, satire has become an accessible way of

presenting politics in a revealing and captivating form.

Comedy-drama does not oblige the writer to a happy-ending and combines a serious

story-line with elements from situational comedy Uhlig (2009). In the second episode

of The Ambassadors the story line revolves around the visit of someone from the

British royal family to Tazbekistan. A formal and serious matter, but what happens

when this ‘someone’ (Prince Mark of Bath) is an arrogant, counterproductive man

which makes abuse of the fact he is a royal descendant. However, in comedy-drama

characters are allowed to change and develop so by the end of the episode Mark

manages to impress both the audience and the British ambassador and saves the

day. The situation presented is not necessarily funny but because the series is set

against a political background and features British officials acting out of their

imposed norms, the humour is brought to life.

‘Often the scripted humour on TV mirrors the state and the ideals of the culture and

society and where the series is set.’ (Uhlig 2009: p.21).

Prince Mark of Bath represents the royal British family and thus a certain lifestyle. He

evokes an undoubting Britishness and the pride of not only being royalty but being

British. He expresses a sense of ownership and entitlement, not only he does not

understand the cultural and social factors in Tazbekistan as he insists to be

accommodated at the ‘Four Seasons Hotel’ but he even brings his full six-foot ironing

board over in Tazbekistan. (See Figure One)

(Fig.1)

Furthermore, Prince Mark of Bath attempts to help the British industry by having

British products wherever he travels. Keeping his national identity intact is a key

factor, more a tourist than an official, Mark does what Brits usually do in their

holidays as Hazel Andrews points out in his book ‘The British on Holiday’.

‘…purchasing British newspapers and watching British news reports on satellite

television all serve to keep the tourists, in part, mentally if not physically in the UK.

(…) British food and drink are looked for and the other is kept at bay in the rejection

of locally produced food and water.’ (Andrews 2011: p.13)

In the second episode we have a clearer look at the embassy officials and get to see

how they work together as a team. (See Figure 2).

First we have Keith Davis (David Mitchell) the newly appointed British Ambassador

of Tazbekistan, an ex-Soviet states ruled over by President Kairat. Keith is described

as an ambitious, diplomatic individual. He wants to assert his capability and prove to

his superior in London played by Matthew Macfadyen that he can successfully

represent Britain anywhere in the world.

Next in line is Neil Tilly, Deputy Head of Mission (Robert Webb). Central Asia expert,

fluent in Russian and in loved with the region and a Tazbek girl he is the one that

managed to get rid of his national identity at the point where he accepts to give away

withhold information to the Secret Police in Tazbekistan.

(fig.2)

Mise-en scene is ‘the totality of expressive content within the image’ (Sikov 2010:

p.6). In Film Studies we assume that everything that goes in the composition of a

shot has expressive meaning.

‘…and by analysing mise-en-scene, we begin to see what those meanings might be.’

(Sikov 2010: p.6)

In this Medium Long Shot we can see the British embassy team having a meeting.

Keith Davies, the ambassador is set at the top of the table, having the team looking

directly to him, indicating that he is the one in charge. Between him and the two

women set in his right and left side there is an unoccupied seat. This can mean he

has distanced himself from his feminine co-workers in an attempt to keep things

professional and also to set some clear boundaries between him and the team. It

can also point out the fact that being in charge sometimes can lead to solitude, and

his role requires to take the blame for every single decision forcing Keith to not make

mistakes.

Neil is the only one that has his back at the audience revealing his lost identity and

his mysterious nature.

This set up is indicative for how the team functions. Keith and Neil, the two main

characters are seated face to face similar to the position of two chess player. Even if

they are on the same side they often argue with regards to the best course of action.

Their opinions often clash and although, as a team they have the same purpose, as

individuals they want different things.

The way the team is seated shows how they divided themselves into two ‘camps’.

Neil and Caitlin (right side), both experienced staff and old friends and Natalia and

Isabel (left side), one is an ambitious local woman ready to strive in her new job as

Head of PR at the embassy and the other one is Isabel, which just arrived in

Tazbekistan and still has a lot to learn about Iskfana.

A key element that could define the way the British embassy works is the small

notice glued on the office window (Clean up after yourself).

As Charles Peirce, the father of modern semiotics once said: ‘'we think only in signs'

(Peirce 1931-58, 2.302).

Signs can take the shape of words, sounds, images or objects but these do not have

an underlying meaning and they only become signs when we give them a meaning.

'Nothing is a sign unless it is interpreted as a sign', says Peirce once again (Peirce

1931-58, 2.172).

Anything can have a meaning as long as you interpret it as ‘signifying’ something –

alluding to or standing for something other than itself.

This interpretation is largely done by relating what we see to familiar systems of

conventions.

The denotative meaning of the phrase ‘To clean up after yourself’ means to tidy up

or clean up if you have made a mess. If I think to a connotative meaning for this

phrase and explore the role of a British embassy in such a disputed country, I could

argue that one of the main purposes of this institution is to clean up the mess of

others. This ‘clean up’ can mean handling and masking the wrong decisions of the

British state while the pron. ‘yourself’ is used for emphasis; however, ‘yourself’ can

also signify the viewer. That analogy could give the audience a sense of belonging

and the reassurance that the British state looks out for you, and they are there for

you, the citizen, not for the state’s selfish purposes such as securing oil contracts or

selling war helicopters.

The choosing of a medium long shot gives the audience a glimpse of the contained

square office with clear windows where the team is set. This setting expresses the

team situation perfectly as fictional Tazbekistan as well as the real Uzbekistan is a

landlocked country (country entirely closed by land). And even though they are so

well ‘preserved’ they are entirely transparent and under the sight of the Tazbek

officials.

The co-writer of the series, James Wood publicly declared that the series has been

inspired by the stories told by diplomats after the writers spent a week in the British

embassy in Kazakhstan.

The resemblance of Tazbekistan with real Uzbekistan is unsettling and presenting

embassy cases with such accuracy does nothing else than reinforcing the series

genre, Satirical TV.

Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan truly believed that the

Foreign and Commonwealth Office has backed The Ambassadors to simply defuse

the horror of the British alliance with Uzbekistan and make it mundane and socially

accepted.

The television in Britain has a public service function. However, with the appearance

of shows such as ‘Yes, Prime Minister’ or ‘The Thick of it’ the news media became

no longer credible. Audience felt the need of creating its own norms with regards to

the truth and Satirical TV was there to exploit that and show the news in a more

entertainment and accessible form.

‘…these shows have challenged the privileged position that news media (as

reporters but also arbiters of political talk) play as society’s regime of truth, our

primary institution for establishing truth in public life.’ (Jones 2010: p.236)

In comparison with The Thick of it, The Ambassadors is not filmed in a documentary

style; it often has Extreme Long Shots for establishing the location or Long Shots for

showing the surroundings of Tazbekistan. Through these the series plays a lot with

the fear that a western audience has of the cultural other.

(fig.3)

(fig.4)

In this viewpoint medium long shot (see Figure 4) the audience can look at Neil as

he looks towards the city. This gives the frame an almost voyeuristic nature and the

audience a great sense of involvement.

The fear becomes even more intense when the series shows that the embassy is

bugged and there is always a ‘Big Brother’ watching you from an unknown location.

This selective focus shot of Neil gives the feeling that he is being watched with a

hidden camera.

(fig.5)

The camera swivels to follow him in a following pan until…

(fig.6)

Neil is being abducted by terrorists. This is one of the most recognized and

impregnated fears of a modern western European situated in a Muslim country. Only

later on, the audience learns that Neil is not actually in danger and he knows the

‘attackers’.

‘The starting point is recognizing the fear as a social construct ever present in

individuals. (…). Fear appears specifically to characterize contemporary society as a

risk society’ (Dammert 2012: p3)

Having this shot into today’s social/cultural and political context is defining for the

world we live in. The American War on Terror after the 9/11 attacks when ‘the world

had been, reportedly, ‘forever changed’, (Gournelos and Green 2011: p.1) the war in

Afghanistan where Britain sent troops to support the US-led Operation Enduring

Freedom (OEF), are all factors that contributed to the making of this series. Not only

it is relevant but it is defining for the Western mentality where the Muslims countries

are to be avoided because of the terrorist danger.

‘…the different fears affecting people at present are not only the result of the new

lifestyles and modes of interacting with others but they are also the expression of a

cultural anxiety.’ (Dammert 2012: p.3)

‘The Ambassadors’ is not intended to make the regime in fictional Tazbekistan

anything else than what already is, a vicious and corrupt system.

(fig.7)

The public speeches that remind us of Adolf Hitler, the body language and the medium low shots, all meant to convey the idea of totalitarianism.

(fig.8)

This cutaway shot (See Figure 8) shows the other officials reaction to the President’s

speech. The British Ambassador is in the front line together with Mark Prince of

Bath, behind him there’s the American Ambassador, which is represented as an

Afro-American woman with a mourning expression on her face that reminds us of the

changes that America went through the last years. On her right side, a few steps in

the back there is the French Ambassador. This is not a random setting, as it

attempts to show the political and economic situation throughout the world. Britain is

first, represented not only by its officials but by the royal family as well.

The Ambassadors is cleverly cast, with very well-known actors forming the embassy

team. (Matthew Macfadyen and Keeley Hawes – Spooks) David Mitchell and Robert

Webb (Keith and Neil) are the protagonists of the award-winning British sitcom,

‘Peep Show’ (Channel 4). They are long acclaimed comedy actors, old friends and

co-workers. Yigal Naor (The President) played Saddam Hussein in the four episode

House of Saddam television docudrama from HBO and BBC so his image has

already been sold to the British audience as one of a cruel dictator. This choice of

actors intends to make the series more likeable as it deals with such sensible

themes.

The Ambassadors makes its meaning while depicts (to a certain extent) the British

diplomats outside of their comfort zone. It also conveys the idea that Muslim

Countries are still misunderstood places for the modern Western Europe.

Satire TV is funny and smart and ‘has proven a powerful draw for audiences’

attention’ (Gray, Jones and Thompson 2009: p.4). The first episode of The

Ambassadors had 1.67 millions UK viewers, 5.4% of television viewers, while the

second episode had one million viewers (4.5%).

This comedy-drama is not intended to be funny in a laughing out loud kind of way as

it is intended to portray today’s world in a more accepted and safe form.

‘"It's not lol-tastic. (…)Ambassadors didn't blow me away, but it grew on me as it

went along.’ (Sam Wollaston on the Guardian)

Word Count: 2264

(Quotes: 350 words)

REFERENCES:

Andrews, H. (2011) The British on Holiday: Charter Tourism, Identity and Consumption.

Exeter, Short Run Press Ltd, pp. 1-38.

Dammert, L. (2012) Fear and Crime in Latin America: Redefining State-Society Relations.

Abingdon, Routledge, pp. 1-46.

Gournelos, T. and Greene, V. (2011) A Decade of Dark Humor: How Comedy, Irony, and

Satire Shaped Post-9/11 America. Jackson, Mississippi, University Press of Mississippi,

Introduction

GOV.UK (2013) UK Forces: operations in Afghanistan. [Online]. Available from:

https://www.gov.uk/uk-forces-operations-in-afghanistan [Accessed 21th November 2013]

Gray, J. Jones, P. J. and Thompson, E. (2009) Satire TV: Politics and Comedy in the Post-

Network Era. New York, New York University Press, pp. 3-37.

Jones, P. J. (2010) Entertaining Politics: Satiric Television and Political Engagement.

Maryland, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, pp. 147-253.

Peirce, C. S. (1931-58): Collected Writings (8 Vols.). (Ed. Charles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss &

Arthur W Burks). Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press

Rannow, J. (2000) Writing Television Comedy. 2nd edition. New York, Allworth Press

Sikov, E. (2010) Film Studies: An Introduction. New York, Columbia University Press

The Guardian, Wollaston, S. (23rd October 2013) Ambassadors – TV review. [Online]

Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2013/oct/23/ambassadors-tv-

review-david-mitchell [Accessed 21th November 2013]

Uhlig, C. (2009) Humour in the TV series 'Gilmore girls'. [e-book] University of Duisburg-

Essen. Available from: My Library [Accessed 20th November 2013]