Monthly column on the arts

Sometimes I wonder if I'm getting old. I suppose the facts are undeniable. Writing on the day England go through to round two of the World Cup, I even have dim recollections of the last time we won it. You don't live in two consecutive centuries without picking up memories. It's been a full life, Sven.

As somebody once said to the doctor who warned him that he couldn't make him any younger: I don't really mind, so long as I keep on growing older. Ronald Reagan said to a voter who implied he was too old to be President of the USA: 'How old would you think you were, if you didn't know how old you were?' We're all 25, fit and good-looking on the internet.

For much of the month I have been twiddling TV knobs looking for something to amuse me while recovering from the attentions of an enthusiastic anaesthetist during a recent routine (and highly-reassuring) examination. I was alarmed to hear myself like an elderly 'Disgruntled of Slough', grumbling petulantly about the quantity of dross that seems to be around the airwaves right now. They're even running a third series of Big Brother, which indicates how bad things have got.

Exceptional quality

When television falls into fallow times, it's hard to tell whether the good stuff really is good or whether it's just not so bad as the bad stuff. But this month we had at least one production of exceptional quality: Peter Ackroyd's three-parter on Charles Dickens, where the life and work of one of England's greatest novelists was assessed by one who is certainly among the greatest English novelists now living. It hardly seemed to matter that in television terms he was doing almost everything wrong. Ackroyd's mastery of language and uncommonly acute critical judgement communicated with very few obstructions. It was one of the first productions for the new BBC4 digital channel I mentioned here recently, and it was good to see it offered to non-digital viewers too.

Ackroyd's view of Dickens was profoundly respectful of his genius and unsparing in its acknowledgement of his moral fragility. A similar theme ran through another big TV production this month: the royal Jubilee. Unexpectedly, it confounded sceptics and affirmed monarchists everywhere. The TV pundits warned against rosy recollections of the Coronation and Silver Jubilee years: these are different times, the Queen pays taxes now. Yet there was popular academic Simon Schama enthusing about the monarchy, and many republicans reluctantly conceding: monarchy is deplorable, but you've got to admit that Queen Elizabeth is the best queen you could have. Watching the million-strong crowd lining the Mall, I found myself thinking that her popular support must be far in excess of any British Prime Minister.

Affection

One of the benefits of the overwhelming surge of affection for Queen Elizabeth is that it made it safe to ask difficult questions without necessarily subscribing to a republican agenda. Much of the television coverage maintained this balance very well, for example ITV's series 'The Queen's Story' and the glossy biopic 'Bertie and Elizabeth'. The former thoughtfully analysed the present monarch, identifying several personal factors that may have contributed to the troubles of the House of Windsor; at the same time it was warmly generous in praise of her service to the nation. 'Bertie and Elizabeth' was a romanticised version of the Queen Mother's adult life, which cheerfully blackened any redeeming features Mrs. Simpson may have had, portrayed the abdicating king as a cynical playboy, and had nothing critical whatsoever to say about its two stars. It did, however, show you, for example, how hard the King had to work during the war, how easy it would have been for the royal family to leave London in the Blitz, and how the more expensive the outfits royalty wore, the more the public loved them. Not much change there, then.

The TV Jubilee coverage created a relatively safe area in which one could ponder recurring questions that surround monarchy in the modern world. Why should one particular family be bred to a life-dominating concept of duty? What is the relationship between moral leadership and personal moral behaviour? Why is Prince Charles's confessed adultery to be forgiven and not the reported adultery of Fergie, Duchess of York? Why is our national anthem a hymn of praise to one person? Is it a good idea for the Head of State to be Head of the national Church?

Maybe the Jubilee is more a time for thinking hard about the future, and less one for celebrating the past. To be able to do so in the context of basic support for the monarchy, and not as part of a revolutionary agenda, is something to which TV contributed this month. If change is to come, it is valuable to have the opportunity to reflect on it beforehand. Left to herself, the Queen has made it clear she isn't going anywhere - a fact that Britain's republicans have been gloomy about in recent months.

They thought it was all over. Not yet it isn't, not by a long chalk.

They think it's all over

Exceptional quality

Affection

David Porter

Main Articles

Other articles