EP. 178 - 'How TV Is Failing the Working Class' with Philip Ralph - Just Get A Real Job

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
Hello, I'm Jamie McKinley, and thank you for tuning in to
another episode of Just Get a Real Job.
I'm absolutely thrilled to welcome back on the podcast
someone who we've had on a few Times Now, and the first
conversation I had with this manmeant a lot to me and was one of
our sort of best episodes from last year in terms of the
engagement we got. It's an absolute privilege to

(00:22):
welcome on Philip Ralph. How are you doing, Phil?
Lovely to see you. I'm doing really well, Jamie.
It's really good to see you and thank you for having me back on.
I feel like I feel like we're sort of like that Michael Spicer
sketch sketch now of, you know, podcasters talking about, oh,
which so you were on last year, regular guests.
Yeah, regular guests though. But listen, I mean, I think last
year's conversation, I know fromspeaking to your sentence and

(00:43):
stuff had like a nice impact on both of us.
And it was a really great conversation, which really
connects to a lot of people. So it's basically coming up for
a year since we recorded that. So I just want to have you back
on reflect on the last year in terms of the TV industry.
So for anyone listening that maybe didn't listen to the last
episode with me and Phil recording episode, which are
called what the fuck has happened to the TV industry?
And it was basically all about the crisis facing the screen

(01:07):
sector, which sadly you're on isis still or continuing to affect
many freelancers and people working.
As I speak to Phil, I'm drinkingout of a River City monk, as
many of the regular listeners are know, like I'm out of a job
in six months, etcetera. But Phil, do you want to just
sort of recap for people listening as well about who you
are? I know we sort of talked a lot
about your origin story last imagine on the show, but give us

(01:29):
a bit of a recap for anyone, maybe newer listeners that
haven't listened to that first conversation.
Sure. Yeah, yeah.
So I'm a screenwriter. I've been working in the arts
and in the creative industries my whole professional life.
So I'm from a working class background in Halifax, West
Yorkshire. I went to RADA and trained at
Rada as an actor. And then about 10 years into my

(01:51):
acting career, sort of really fortunately for me, sort of
slowly segwayed into writing, but initially plays and then for
television and I became a regular writer on Doctors, the
BB CS daytime soap, which I wrote on off and on for 19
years. And then and then put a stupidly
long thread about about the end of doctors onto onto Twitter in

(02:15):
on the last day that it was in production and, and started
another life as I keep referringto to myself as, as the
industry's Cassandra basically kind of constantly saying the
sky is falling and nobody's listening.
So yeah, I'm really passionate about what's going on in the TV
industry and how it's impacting the sustainability of the

(02:35):
industry, but particularly how it's how it's impacting
individuals both who are alreadyin the industry and, and who
want to get into the industry. And I think probably because I
think if I was starting out now from my background, I wouldn't
be able to get in. And I think that's really
probably what motivates me is that sense of well, actually,
you know, and, and me getting inwas incredibly fortunate in all

(02:57):
sorts of ways, which I might talk about, but it's about
actually, you know, it's becoming, it always has been,
but it's becoming an incredibly privileged place.
And I think that's impacting thestories that we see.
And I think it's impacting the future of television.
So that's what I'm really. Passionate.
Yeah. So, I mean, last time we had you
on Phil, we sort of talked aboutthe screen crisis in general and
a lot of the reasons behind that.

(03:18):
And, and I think what would be good this time and, and for the
lessons you're this week about to record a keynote speech and
sort of what is it for again, off the top?
I've just forgotten off the top,man.
It's at the it's at the University of Leeds in their in
their media department. I was invited by Laura Minor who
who who works there to give a keynote so that it's a it's the

(03:42):
opening keynote of a day long symposium on class in the TV
industry. And my and my keynote is about
class in the in the TV industry.Yeah.
And I think to be honest, that'skind of what this episode is
going to be all about. I think it'd be really good to
talk to you about class and the TV industry, particularly as
with the wider context of what we've sort of covered before and

(04:02):
what we covered in our. You were part of a panel I put
together the start of year about, you know, called We
survived the 25. What happens now?
Interesting. We're near the end of 2025 and
there's still a lot of the same problems affecting people since
obviously I mentioned we've saidthe start of the episode as well
since we last spoke as well. You know, that's that's coming.
So it's now affected me directly.

(04:23):
All the stuff I spoke to you about six months later, Kit ends
up sort of ended up affecting meand that's always kind of
weirdly interesting as well. But yeah, I really want to talk
about class and you very kindly sent me your keynote across.
So there's lots of themes from that I want to ask you about and
stuff. But you referred to yourself as
the industry's Cassandra. So I just want to quickly say
something because I opened this episode up to listeners as well.
So we've got a few questions sent in which I'll work in

(04:44):
today. But one of our listeners
described you as the TV's Mick Lynch.
So that's like there's a quite anice compliment.
Well, well, I'm bold, you know, I'm bold like Mick Lynch.
I'm working class. Well, that's that's an
extraordinary compliment. That's going to, that's going to
be on my that's going on my tombstone.
Listen, if there's anybody to aspire to, you know, to be like,

(05:06):
it's Mick Lynch. I'm very happy about that.
TV's Mick Lynch. Well.
I sort of one of the things I wanted to speak about, Phil, is
you talk about, and you mentioned this last time when
you're on, but you talked about how a lot of the changes that
have happened in TV, it's not like a blip as a paradigm shift.
So I mean, that's a good place to start just to recap the
context for our listeners and wecan sort of go into some of the

(05:27):
the more deep stuff. But can you explain that again?
Like what you mean by the fact this is a paradigm shift?
It's not just a one off blip that's going to vent this for a
year? Well, I think it's been, it's
been really interesting in the past year because I've been
listening, you know, I'm, I, I try and keep my ear to the
ground. I'm I, and I should sort of
preface all this by saying I'm, I'm not, you know, I'm just

(05:47):
somebody who works in the industry.
I, I, I wouldn't consider myselfto be an expert.
I'm not in the rooms where it happens, you know, so it's all
about kind of observing this from the outside.
But I, I've been listening to there's a new podcast by Jimmy
Mulville and Peter Fincham, insiders about sort of working
in TV and they're kind of big beasts who have been, you know,

(06:08):
I think Peter was ran the BBC orran ITV and you know, they're,
they're very and Jimmy's a hat trick and stuff.
And it's been very interesting listening to them because I
think their take on what's goingon in the industry is, oh, well,
you know, it's boom and it's bust and things come and go.
And I don't agree with that. And I think the reason I don't
agree with that is because because as I described in the

(06:29):
keynote that you've read, Jamie,that you know, the, the kind of
the, the mechanisms by which television is made in this
country have changed and are changing at such a rapid pace.
And I, and I know that there wassome fantastic panels that are
starting to come online now fromthe Edinburgh TV Festival that
just happened, you know, and thefirst one chaired by Roz Atkins,

(06:51):
you know, sort of a big panel talking about and he sort of
starts with like 12 minutes of what is going on.
And basically the model that that has been established and
has been working for a long time, certainly ever since I
came into the industry, you know, of five television
channels, some of them public service broadcasters, IE
publicly funded, some of them privately owned and funded by

(07:12):
advertisers. That model has, is changing
incredibly rapidly. And what it means is that in
practise, along with a lot of other factors, but what it means
in practise is the amount of television that's being made in
the UK market for the UK market is dropping and dropping really
rapidly. And what that means is that

(07:32):
Indies who make the vast majority of television in this
country are really up against it.
Since we last spoke, loads of Indies have gone to the wall and
really, really big ones as well.Ones that it's really surprising
to see that they, that they ended up having to fold.
And what that means is there's less work and, and because the
vast majority of the TV industryworkforce are freelance, there's

(07:56):
less work for them. So we have a, we, you know, we
have this massive talent drain from the industry of freelance
people because they simply can'tsustain themselves without work
for these long periods of time. And why to me, that feels like a
paradigm shift rather than just a, well, it's just a
readjustment. Is that actually, and, and I
heard this echoed again on that,on that Edinburgh TV Film

(08:17):
Festival, TV festival panel was this sense that nobody knows
what the end game is. Nobody knows where this is going
and nobody can get a real sense of well, so if it is as as other
people say, oh, it's just an adjustment.
Well, what's the end point? What the point that people can
go, OK, it's settled again and we're not there yet, You know,
we're absolutely not, not there yet.

(08:38):
I mean, very recently in the headlines, you'll have seen it
as well, I'm sure. You know, the number 2 watched
channel now in the UK is YouTube, you know, and so a lot
of the terrestrial channels, a lot of the traditional channels
are trying really quickly to gettheir content onto YouTube in an
accessible way that still means that they can pay for it.
And that's one of the big issuesis that our five channels can't

(09:02):
afford to pay for the televisionthat they want to make.
So there's a lot of work that they've said, yes, we'd like it,
but then they've turned around to the Indian going, we can only
give you half the budget you want for this.
So it's that to me doesn't feel like, oh, it's just kind of
resettling. It's just an adjustment.
It feels like actually the whole, you know, the whole
ground underneath everybody's feet is still shifting, still

(09:25):
moving, and nobody really knows where it's going to settle and
where it's going to land. And so, yeah, I think, I think
it's a really, it's a really frightening time.
It's a really scary time. And and I think it's very
interesting. You know, we were talking on on
the on the the panel that I did with you earlier in the year
about, oh, you know, the kind ofeverybody was kind of bemoaning,
you know, survive to 25 a year on.

(09:47):
I don't hear very much exist to 26, right.
And and that's not just because survive to 25 was always
bollocks, but it's actually moreabout, I think an awful lot of
the people who tried to survive to 25 aren't here anymore in
terms of they've had to step away from the industry, they've
had to retrain, they've had to find some other way of keeping
the roof over their head is, youknow, people aren't hanging on.

(10:10):
And I think that's why the crisis has dropped from the
headlines as well was really struck.
John McVeigh, who is the the current outgoing chief executive
of PACT, talked about how he felt the industry didn't move
fast enough and didn't didn't retrain and re skill a lot of

(10:31):
these freelancers for this change.
And so they've lost them. And he calls that a tragedy.
And I think it is a tragedy thatthe industry didn't move fast
enough and hasn't moved fast enough to try and retain a lot
of these people. So yeah, that's that's a whistle
stop tour. And I mean, we're talking about
class and TV. It's a grand to go to that
festival. So I'm not wanting to.
I'm not not. And that's not including your

(10:52):
accommodation, Yeah. Exactly, and I'm not trying to
criticise some of the work the TV and film charted to I think
is very important. But I think the fact that TV's
main festival costs a grand to go to is a bleeding example of
the class inequalities in our industry, especially at a time
right now. And they did give out quite a
lot of free passes this year andfairness to them, but it's still

(11:14):
not the gates do still from my PV not having to go anyone.
But they do feel very close. No, I was lucky enough to go to
some of the talks and it was interesting to hear people
talking about the things you mentioned.
But the same time still sometimes they'd feel like there
wasn't enough reality like from people that maybe are.
And I don't want to use the wordivory towers because it feels a

(11:36):
bit cliche, but you mean they maybe just don't, aren't in
that, they just don't really know.
Many people are just haven't realised the reality on the
ground and from someone on the ground, especially in Scotland
and, and it where it was in already an industry that maybe
didn't have hundreds and hundreds of opportunities.
It does feel really like pretty hopeless.
And I'm not saying I'm giving upand I'm not going to keep

(11:56):
looking for jobs. But I've been at Riverside for
nearly two and a bit years. And in that time, I've seen
maybe 3 realistic things I couldhave gone for as a script editor
where I could stay where I live and make a living.
That's there's that's nothing. And that's coming from someone
at a mid level career with quitegood experience and good
connections. And I might still yet find
something. But if you know, if people on my

(12:19):
level are finding it hard from aworking class back and like God
knows how you even start or likeit's just, it's mental.
And I mean, that is people listen may find that
frustrating, but it's the reality.
And I think it's important for us to be honest about that.
And a lot of that will tie into the themes of class that we're
going to be talking about tonight.
Yeah, absolutely. And I, I think, you know, as we,

(12:40):
as we talked about obviously last time, the fact that one of
the first things to start to really feel the pinch in an
overt way in the industry are the soaps, you know, Holby City
doctors now, River City, you know, and, and I, I think it
think it is fair to say that thesoaps as an entity came into

(13:00):
being because they were designedto tell working class stories,
you know, and, and they are, or they were at least, you know,
these kind of factories for drama and to mass produce drama
on a, on a big scale. You know, a lot of it, a lot of
hours, a lot of people working on them.
Lots of people did what basically amounted to

(13:23):
apprenticeships. I certainly did.
And not only that, but then people could make a consistent
living in the place where they live.
And I think, you know, as they go, what we'll what we'll see
now is, you know, the work will just slide S as it as it has
been doing. And it is increasingly hard then
because you know, for all the kind of talk from all the

(13:43):
channels about, Oh yes, we absolutely want to invest in the
regions. The reality is, you know,
there's been a, there's been a big thing recently in Birmingham
where there's been an announcement of two new shows
that are going to be made in Birmingham.
And that is fantastic, don't getme wrong.
But then when you think about how much in terms of hours and
how many people were employed ondoctors on an annual basis.

(14:04):
And then you go, oh, we're goingto do 2 new shows and you go,
great, great. But, but it's not even
scratching the surface of the people who were working there
and who were making a living there and able to live and live
where they worked. So it's, you know, it's really
quite scary in that regard, definitely.
No, for sure. And I think something which
frustrated me when River City was cancelled and you know, I

(14:27):
did a lot of work with this podcast on this issue to have
these quite frank and open conversations.
It's great that the BBC have committed and said we're going
to invest in Scotland and they have commissioned 3 new dramas.
But I think the point a lot of people aren't understanding is
that's really good, positive, right?
But these dramas only film for maybe 3 months a year, if that
there's not, they can't sustain someone who doesn't have a

(14:50):
financial backing behind them orthe sustainability, you know,
they can't sustain someone to work for the long time.
So even if I was lucky enough toget job with that for three
months or four months, I'd probably end up being unemployed
again for at least, you know, several months or there's a risk
of that. And then people decide what's
better, just go and get a job somewhere else.
And then you are excluding working class people from the

(15:10):
industry. And that's that's the issue and
that's why people. Yeah, and, and and that's not
even factoring in the major issue in the regions I'm sure
you will have seen. I think he's called Peter
Strachan. I've never met him or Peter
Strawn dependent though It's pronounced who's who's doing
really. Peter Strachan is doing really,
really important work in holdingto account these announcements

(15:32):
of, oh, we're going to make thisshow in Scotland and then go
right. So what's the percentage of the
crew on that show who are actually Scottish and based in
Scotland, You know, like traitors, for example?
He's been highlighting that, amongst other things, he's been
doing incredible work. And I think, I think that's,
that's one of the things that I'm really hyper aware of is,
you know, we're an industry thatthrives on spin.

(15:54):
You know, we, we, we thrive on everything's great and
everything's wonderful. And we are really, really not
good at examining ourselves and going actually this isn't great.
And, and the reality is that what, what you know, what it
means on the ground is there arethere are fewer and fewer jobs
going back to class. Those jobs then are going to

(16:17):
more and more of the same peopleas, because as, as I talked
about last time, I, I don't believe that we, that the
television industry or indeed the world, frankly, but I don't
believe that the television industry is a meritocracy.
You know, I think it's a successocracy.
And what happens in that instance is people go, this
person has been very successful before.
Let's give them more work, you know, and, and, and, oh, I know

(16:38):
this person, you know, so therefore, I, you know, I've
worked with them before, so I'llwork with them again because I
know they deliver, blah, blah, blah.
All the reasons might be the right ones, but what it means is
that there's less jobs, fewer jobs and, and, and fewer
opportunities. And therefore it just becomes a
more and more rarefied profession.
And that's really concerning because it because for the
future, because it's just not a,it means that less people are

(17:01):
able to make a living now. And it means that fewer people
are able to sort of, you know, come into the industry, get
their first job and then know that, oh, well, I'll get a SEC.
You know, within some reasonableperiod of time, I might get a
second job and I might be able to make a living doing this and
get experience and get good at it.
You know, it's just it's not sustainable.
No, it's not at all. You know, if you don't have
money behind you, you don't have, like, that safety net and

(17:24):
you're not privileged enough to come from a privileged back, and
you can't take the rest. Unfortunately, this industry
requires you to take. You have to take a lot of risks
in this industry, work somewherethat you'd only guaranteed
employment for six months to a year, a terrible pension often,
you know, if you get sick. Yeah.
If you if you get a. Pension.
And and as you say, if you get sick, you have nothing.

(17:44):
And that's the freelance life. If there's no sick pay, that and
they'll replace you because theyneed to keep making the show.
And you know, it's even worse ifyou're a woman, for example,
maternity, things like that are really, you know, so again, it's
just it is a really shines lighton inequality.
I think actually a good thing tosort of get to maybe unpack,
Phil would be, I know in your keynote speech you're going to
talk about the supermarket analogy and you mentioned the

(18:06):
factories of the soap. So could you kind of talk about
that? Because I think that's quite an
interesting aspect to this. Yeah, all of this is just, you
know, these aren't hot takes, they're just kind of my
theories. Basically, as I kind of examine
this, looking at what's happened, you know, the analogy
that I make is that the sort of existing channels were sort of
like, you know, the traditional High Street, which is long gone

(18:29):
now in most British cities and town, you know, but sort of
local shops, local retailers, They knew what the local market
needed. They, you know, they, they
sourced their their goods locally, etcetera, etcetera, all
very League of Gentlemen. And then, you know, the
streamers kind of arrived and emerged, you know, and did and
are doing to the television industry what Spotify arguably

(18:50):
did to the music industry, whichis basically cut away.
They came in with masses of money, like the supermarkets
when they arrive in these small towns, masses of money, they can
afford to undercut the the prices of those of of those
pre-existing shops until they close.
And then they've got a monopoly.And I think it's, you know, I
think it's really that's that for me is the picture that that

(19:12):
I've seen. Don't get me wrong, the
streamers make incredible work. And perhaps we'll go on to talk
about adolescence, which as we see speak today is just one
boatload of Emmys, which is fantastic.
But I think I think adolescence for me is a kind of a case study
in what's both right and wrong. You know, there's an amazing
things to talk about there. But so I, I think that's, that's

(19:33):
what I mean by the supermarket analogy really is, is that local
production can't compete. And because everything needs
high end television values. What that then means locally is,
you know, if the BBC want to make a show, it's got to look
like all the shows on Netflix oron Amazon.
And we can't afford to do that, you know, and, and particularly

(19:55):
now we can't afford to do it because as we know the licence
fees under threat and the, you know, that's going to be
reviewed, advertisers are fleeing.
The commercial channels, becauseless people are watching them,
so you know, they've got less money to spend.
So it's this kind of perfect storm of less money to spend
whilst needing to spend more to compete.
So yeah, it does feel like the the streamers of the

(20:16):
supermarkets, really. No, I think, I think the
supermarket and High Street stuffs are really interesting
analogy because it does feel like that.
And we I recently had Nick Lambon, who's ABBC Commissioner
on and I really appreciate him coming on and being honest
Again, he's in a position where he can't maybe have as frank a
conversation as we can have. So about the state of the
industry. Kind of nice to him talk about
who the BBC know they need to try and make stuff on a lower

(20:38):
budget. And I think, you know, maybe has
been quite a negative. You know, it's not the the most
positive thing in the world, buta positive thing that has
happened is pay to play coming back, which you pitched when you
came on the live show in February.
So maybe they'll listen to you, who knows?
I don't think so. I don't I mean, I think, you
know, I really, really loved your conversation with Nick and
I think it was really, really important.

(21:00):
And I think it is really important that people who were
in his role, you know, have these kind of more open
conversations. Because otherwise it does get to
be this point where the commissioners are in their ivory
towers and every and all the sort of, you know, the poor surf
freelancers are desperately trying to get, find some way to
get in there. Whereas, you know, logically

(21:20):
we're all working together. So, and the argument I've always
made and the position I've always taken since I foolishly
decided to open my big mouth is that, you know, people like make
commissioners, you know, they'rehuman beings and they, they,
they are doing their very, very best to make really, really good
television in really difficult circumstances.

(21:41):
So I think it's foolish to get, you know, God knows the rest of
the world is polarised enough. You know, it's foolish to get
personal about it. But what information is power?
And to kind of know the challenges that people like Nick
face and the difficulties they face and the fact that the
pressures on people like him andother people who Commission
shows, you know, the pressure onthem every time they say, yes,

(22:05):
it's a massive chunk of their available budget.
And they need that show to work.You know, they need it to work.
They need it to be successful. And if it isn't, it's a massive
blow and it's, and it could impact their livelihood.
So what interests me is how we all function within that system
and how we and how we work together.

(22:26):
Yeah. So I, I thought that was a
really, really important session.
And it was great that he he was prepared to have that
conversation with. No, no, I really appreciate
today and thank you to all the listeners that have have checked
that one out. And if you haven't yet, you
know, if you're on YouTube or Spotify, wherever you're less
than and have a look and listen,it's it's a really good chat and
I really appreciate next time wecan't touch on that.
The licence. I was gonna bring this up Phil,

(22:47):
and you've brilliantly mentionedit.
I think that's kind of interesting thing to talk about
because there might be some listeners and I think this was
mentioned in this year's Mctaggart as well.
Like I think who did the Mctaggart again?
It's completely went out my headfor their name again.
It's it's so interesting. I think James Harden, yeah, but
he. Talked about like, you know, for

(23:11):
people watching and TV and consuming it, it feels like
there's an endless through basically and for the people
working and it feels like the commissioners have all went up
Kilimanjaro and and abandoned them.
And I mean, that's a great analogy because people listening
or watching and maybe aren't as involved in the industry, aren't
as geeky about it as ourselves. They might be like, well,
adolescence is AUK show and it'sjust one a bunch of Emmys like

(23:33):
we're fine, calm down. But that's kind of what it's an
interesting one because it's kind of a juxtaposition in a
way. It's sad the BBC couldn't now
make a show like Adolescence. I think that's a tragedy,
actually. Right.
But I suppose that that's that'sfor me what's really, really
interesting about adolescence. And again, looking at that
opening panel from the EdinburghTV Festival, you probably

(23:54):
remember this because it made some headlines.
So Louisa Compton, who is head of specialist factual and news
and current affairs at Channel 4, in that panel talked about
Channel 4 being, quote, the proud parents of adolescence and
that the streamers are, she quote, TV tourists.
And what she meant by that, I think is that, you know, the

(24:15):
public service broadcasters likeChannel 4 and like the BBC and
obviously our existing channels over the years have invested
huge amounts in bringing on new talent.
You know, Jack Thorne and Stephen Graham both made many
shows for Channel 4 and then youknow, but Channel 4 and none of
our channels could afford to make adolescence.

(24:37):
And that seems crazy. But then you think about, you
know, the one shot thing every time I, you know, I've seen
adolescents, just the ones, but but each episode I'm like,
Jesus, this must have cost a fortune because in order to pull
that off, you know, however manytimes they ran each one of those
individual takes, they had weeksof, you know, however many weeks

(24:57):
of rehearsals, how many extras, you know, how much time it must
have cost a fortune, you know, and so so there's no way that
our channels could have covered that.
And the argument is from somebody like Louisa Compton
that, you know, Netflix, which doesn't provide, doesn't have
any, there's no demand on it to provide news.

(25:19):
There's no demand on it to provide local services, whether,
you know, anything's arguably anything specific to a country
or a region. Their only remit is make shows
that get seen a lot and make them and get more subscribers
onto the platform. So that so the argument is that
they are kind of coming along and cherry picking all this
talent that has been nurtured bythe by the PSBS and then not

(25:42):
putting anything back. And obviously Netflix pushed
back very hard against that. But it is really fascinating
that it's also something to do with risk.
I think, you know, the, the sense that adolescence was a
quote, unquote risky proposition, you know, and, and
Jack Thorne said in response to the the thing about TV tourists,
he said the real problem in TV is a certain conservatism that's

(26:05):
crept in because of the recession.
So that thing about people don'twant to take a risk and they
don't want to spend big money taking a risk.
You know, even though it's Jack Thorne and Stephen Graham and
Philip Barantini and you'd think, well, with that track
record, this isn't a risk. So.
And that's not even before we get on to the issues around
class representation and things in adolescence, which I'd love
to talk to you about. But yeah, it's a, it's

(26:28):
symptomatic, I think of where weare that shows like Adolescence
or or another Jack Thorne show, Toxic Town, which would have
been made by our PSPS and channels, now are made by
Netflix. I think there's two interesting
things I want to pick out of that.
It's really interesting point for firstly, talk about risk.
This is this is a way to class thing as well.

(26:49):
But if it's a risk to make showsof big people like that and it
that's when you go, where the hell do these young writers or
even writers like yourself that have been working in the
industry for years that haven't had that big show behind them?
If we can't even take a risk without being a big streamer
like Netflix on, you know, writers that have that pedigree,
then, you know, it's really it'sgonna make it even harder to

(27:12):
have that start and to go back to that chat head with BBC
commissioner Nick Clamben, Like he was speaking about something
They're trying to remind themselves a lot is like we have
to try and not be too risk averse because that's when you
lose out on these great shows. And the second thing I want to
pick out is this talking about these writers like Jack Foreign.
You know, again, this is not a knock on Jack front at all, but
it is sadly because of this thing I just talked about risk.

(27:34):
It's the same 12 to 15 writers in the UK that get all the jobs,
all the shows, and then everyoneelse gets squeezed.
And then if you lose stuff like soaps or lower budget dramas,
you're just losing hundreds of writing, hundreds of writers and
hundreds of talented writers from the industry, and it's a
tragedy. Right.

(27:55):
And that's the successocracy in action, right?
You know, and it's not coming from a malign place.
It's not these commissioners andexecs going screw all these
little people. It's just them being risk averse
and going well, Jack Thorne has an incredible record.
Let's work with him, you know, you know, no shade on Jack
Thorne, but sometimes I wonder how he if he ever gets any sleep

(28:17):
because he seems to be writing 24/7.
So you, you know, it's, it's that, it is that thing and it's
and fantastic and he's worked very hard and he deserves it.
But that then squeezes everybodyout.
And it not only does it, and I say this as a kind of a
recovering actor, as I like to refer to myself, you know, when
I started out as an actor in theearly 90s, you know, the, the,

(28:37):
the theatrical reps, stage reps had gone.
But you know, in a year, you could probably get like an
episode of Casualty. You could maybe get on on an
episode of the Bill, maybe get acouple of episodes or something
to eke out as an, as a kind of an unknown actor.
Now, because the industry's beenso squeezed and there's less
work being made. I urge your listeners to watch

(28:59):
any TV drama and look who's playing the 123 scene parts.
It's people. You go, bloody hell, that's so
and so, you know, that's that big name.
Wow. And they're they're playing what
they're in one scene, 2 scenes, you know, so my TV career.
So, So what? So again, what that means in
terms of class and in terms of kind of, you know, the, the

(29:20):
industry being sustainable is you get people who they can't
even even get 1 gig a year to kind of sustain themselves.
You know, I know as a writer on Doctors, people would come in
and Doctors was terribly paid because it, the budgets on those
shows were tiny, but people would come in and, and, and, and
not only do they get a little bit of work, but they get to go,
Oh yeah, I'm an actor. I'm still an actor and without

(29:44):
that volume of work, you get allthese people who who you go,
bloody hell, did they really need that job?
And you go, yeah, they probably did that big name in that 3
scene cameo probably did need that job and they're going to
get ahead of nobody. So yeah, the knock on effect of
all of this, and I think that's it's what really exercises me

(30:04):
and gets me interested, is just the systemic nurse of it all.
You know, the kind of how it's all interconnected and I think
it's really hard, particularly as everybody sort of is in their
own silos and on their own laptops and things.
I think it's really hard to not see it as malign or there's
some, you know, some malicious kind of moustache twirling
villain at the top going, I'm not working with those poor

(30:25):
people. Whereas actually that's not, you
know, that's not what happens, but it's stressed people trying
to a keep their jobs and and do their jobs well in an industry
that's in drought and is in thisparadigm shift as we've been
saying all along. Completely.
Completely what's frustrating what you want to kind of say to
these big streamers and listen, the money people will look at it

(30:46):
and go, well, we aren't investing lots in the UK and
they are to an extent they are. It was bringing a lot for the
economy. I'm not denying that.
But what I'd love to try, you know, and I tried to talk about
this in the podcast and I'm surepeople in government and
whatever are making this, you know, case.
I hope anyway, maybe I'm being completely naive, but if they
invest in the public service broadcasters here and they
invest in the grassroots of our industry, it will actually

(31:08):
benefit them. It just might not be can't show
that on a budget straight away. It's a long term investment.
If they were like, we'll give 1%of all our income, even if
that's a small amount really, and we're going to invest it in
the grassroots of the screen is in the UK.
It would actually mean that it'dbe so much that you could create
a talent pipeline and it and that would actually lead to
probably 1015 incredible hits for a streamer like Netflix.

(31:32):
I can't prove that as idly, but I generally do believe.
No, but this is where we're sortof stepping into the into the
kind of murky areas of sort of, you know, macroeconomics and
but, but you know that there wasthe Select Committee for the
Department of Culture, Media andSport last year or earlier this
year recommended a levy on the streamers.

(31:53):
So actually recommended a kind of forced, you know, getting the
streamers to pay into the sustainability of the industry
and the streamers of course, pushed back very hard on that,
you know, but the but the kind of the, the, the economics of
the system now, you know, it's not, it's not calling anybody
out to go Netflix. I don't think they pay the

(32:13):
proper rate of tax that they should pay in this country
anyway, Never mind, you know, paying a streamer levy.
Amazon certainly don't you know Apple etcetera, etcetera.
And this goes back to in a way, you know, the kind of this is
the other analogy that I have for kind of our public service
broadcasters that that they're in the same position now that

(32:35):
that the NHS is in. The NHS is a publicly funded
system designed so that people get, you know, care at the point
of need free. And originally the original
premise behind IT, behind BBC, Channel 4, ITV, whatever, was
that people get shows, they pay a little bit in and they get

(32:57):
shows free. And basically it's a socialised
system of television. And that what that means is,
yeah, there might be stuff that you don't want on, you know, I'm
not, you might say I'm not interested in the problems.
Why do I have to pay for it? And the deal is you have to pay
for it so that the arts survive enough, so you get the stuff you
love. And I think it's that kind of

(33:20):
interconnectedness that that people have lost sight of.
And and that's across the board.It's journalism, it's music, you
know, the the people's disconnect with, you know, it's
on my telly. Why should I have to pay any
more for it? Because the people who make it,
the vast majority of them aren'tmaking an astonishing living, if

(33:40):
they're making a living at all. And they're really, really
skilled craftspeople. And they should be making a
living. You know, it's a job.
It's not a hobby. It's not a, you know, it's not a
pastime. It's a job to do this.
And so that the disconnect between how we pay for it and
how we consume it I think is what's causing the problem.
Yeah, I just wish you could explain to them that it might

(34:02):
look like right now you're, you're spending, you know, for
example, I'll use the Riverside analogy again.
I'm just going to bang on about,about, you know, it's important.
On paper, they, it probably looks like to be scorn.
We are saving £50 million a year.
We can reinvest in other things.I do get that right.
It must be so hard running that and I don't, I do simplify to
the next time having to make that decision.
It's probably not easy, right? It's a difficult decision to
make. On paper, you're like, I've

(34:23):
saved 15,000,000, That's good. But my argument is in the long
term, you're actually costing yourself more money because if
you lose the pipeline of talent,then you're going to have less
people working for you in the future, and then you're risking
having less good shows and losing revenue that way.
That's how I see it, but that's a long term way of thinking.
No, no, no, no, no, no. But you're absolutely right.
But, you know, but we've sort oflost that ability to think long

(34:47):
term. And again, this feels like sort
of macroeconomics. And I and I, I hold my hand up
and say I've got AUA level in economics.
So I really am flying blind here.
But, you know, but for the last 15 years, in terms of politics,
what we, the story we've been told is there's no money, so we
have to cut everything. But yeah, but the those who are
wealthy are exponentially getting more wealthy.

(35:08):
And as everything gets caught, public services disappear,
support disappears, it all disappears.
So it is illogical. It doesn't make any sense.
It's short term is to go, well, I'm not going to invest in that
thing. Now that I that I'm like, oh,
well, I'll save money. The short termism of going 00.
We need to save money. Let's cut doctors and then you

(35:30):
go, oh, hang on. The entire infrastructure of the
future of the industry just got whipped out from under our feet.
And the fact that people can't put those things together comes
down to, I think that people in all these jobs are kind of in
this really high pressure situation with their heads down
and they can't see the bigger picture.
And if they can, they're not in,they, they don't feel they're in
a position to act on the bigger picture, you know, because,

(35:53):
because that could be their job.If they say, Oh no, I'm going to
keep that, then somebody above them will go, well, we'll sack
you then. And that's kind of what's
happening, you know, in general society.
I mean, that's probably you could apply that to what's
happening right now in the UK actually as well, which is
interesting. I agree.
Let's quite a little bit of adolescence and I want to talk.
I love this and one of my favourite bit of the of your

(36:14):
keynote by the end. I'm a big pulp fan.
I love con people's one of my favourite songs as well.
So I really enjoyed this. But you've basically suggested
you've used compilers and algebra.
You've suggested the Cocker test.
Explain the Cocker test. I've I think this is fantastic
and I'll hope we bring it in. OK, well I hope Jarvis is ready
for this. My partner this morning said
what has he got? A picture of a Cocker spaniel?

(36:35):
I said no, no. Jarvis Cocker.
So yeah, So what what sort of struck me, I was very, very
struck by the Bechdel Wallace test.
The Bechdel Wallace test stems from an American cartoonist
called Alison Bechdel, who came up with this test for how women
are represented in film. And the test has three
components. Basically it's are there at

(36:56):
least two named female characters?
Do they have a conversation about something other than men?
So those are the three categories.
And it struck me thinking about the representation of class on
television at the moment, given the pressures for high end
television etcetera, I thought is there a, is there a way of,
you know, doing a version of that for class on television?

(37:18):
So the what I came up with, and this is obviously a work in
progress, Is there a need to be at least two named working class
characters who have a conversation with somebody
outside of their class about something other than crime,
poverty, grimness, you know, drugs, etcetera, etcetera.

(37:41):
So something about the representation of how we
represent class and to kind of start to look like hold a mirror
to what we're producing, you know, in an age when high end
television and those values is meaning that, you know, we're
watching things like the White Lotus or Succession, massive
production values, huge budgets,all about the wealthy.

(38:02):
The irony that adolescence was too expensive for our our public
service broadcasters and our commercial channels too
expensive for them to make. But yet it passes every single
one of the strictures of the Cocker test.
You know, they are working classpeople living normal working
class lives and yet the conversations that they have are

(38:22):
not are with people outside their class and they're not
related to crime. Oh, I mean, obviously the
central issuer in adolescence isa crime, but you can argue about
whether or not that crime is related to class or not.
But for me, I think that's what's really interesting.
And it's really interesting to note, you know, it's made by
Warp Films. Warp Films are famously working

(38:42):
class outfit, you know, the people who made it.
So people like Steven Graham, Jack Thorne are all state
educated, the state educated people.
And at a time when when the proportion of people working in
the television vision industry who are privately educated is
way out of whack with the numberof privately educated people in
the country, it's really significant that you know that

(39:06):
is the case. So it's so it's a proudly
working class show that has donephenomenally well around the
world. And I think that's a fantastic
thing. But at the heart of that is the
difficulty of our channels couldn't afford to make it.
And that's tricky because there aren't going to be many stories
like adolescents that we'll speak to around the world.

(39:27):
And that can be made in that extraordinary way that Philip
Barantini does with the one shotper episode thing.
So it's really, yeah, yeah, I think it's really, really
fascinating. And the Cocker test, I think,
was just my way of going. How do we start to, how do I
start to assess, you know, thesethings?
Because I watch an awful lot of working class narratives written

(39:48):
by working class writers, made by working class teams.
And sometimes, sometimes I come away from them feeling a bit,
you know, given my background and where I'm from, just that
feeling of is, is this slightly kind of patronising?
Is this slightly, you know, denigrating?
And who's it being made for? You know, is it being made for
people from that that class in that demographic or is it being
made for other people who kind of go, you know, I feel better

(40:10):
about myself because I've watched a show about poor
people, you know, so there's lots of issues, lots of issues.
But that was where the original idea came from.
What made me, I think another thing that makes me laugh so
much, but the Cocker test is I think most things that have been
made, particularly about Scotland training wouldn't pass
it. And I think that's sad.
It is genuinely quite sad. But I'm trying to think when you
when I read that, I was trying to think what shows have I seen

(40:31):
recently that would pass it and it really hard to come up with
any. What other ones apart from
adolescence do you think recently maybe I've passed that?
There were two that have really,really come to my mind.
One was a fantastic show that went out on BBC Three called
Just Act Normal, written by Janice Okko, made for, you know,
a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what something like

(40:51):
adolescence is made. And it's adapted from a play of
hers and it's about 3:00 young people who are trying to survive
and trying to sort of live theirlives after spoilers, the death
of their mother. And, and I think it's it's it's
funny. It's, it's really, really
charming, heartfelt, moving. And it never feels like it's

(41:12):
either sort of it's leering or it's kind of, you know,
exploiting the fact that these they are struggling for money
and struggling to survive. And plus it was a cast of
complete unknowns apart from Roma Lagarre, who was at the
centre of it. And I imagined that was probably
quite instrumental in the show being made because she's quite a

(41:33):
name. And so again, that's kind of the
successocracy lending something to something.
So I really love just act normal.
And then the other one which I really loved was The Gathering,
which was which was made by World Productions for Channel 4,
written by first time writer Helen Walsh, first time
screenwriter. She's an worked in a novel as a
novelist before set in Liverpool, again made with an

(41:55):
all Liverpool crew. And and it's like a sort of a,
if you haven't seen it, it's this extraordinary sort of cross
section of society through all various kind of demographics of
class. But I remember at the heart of
it is a working class family living in a small terraced house
in Liverpool. And when we were sitting in the
living room with them, I went, that's what it felt like to sit
in my living room when I was a kid, you know, not kind of in

(42:18):
squalor, you know, real kind of house proud.
But that sense of they haven't got a lot of money, you know,
and the and and so I think it's a fantastic show, the gathering
and and it it storms the cockatest.
I think it's just a brilliant piece of work and not enough
people saw it in my opinion. OK.
No, that's good. There's a few examples, but
again, as you say, it's, it's hard to come up with them, but I

(42:40):
love the Cocker taste. And that's now will not be the
last that you'll hear about being to be bringing this up on
more interviews. If I have any more commissions.
I'm really trying hard to get people in positions of of
influence to a different parts of our industry on because it's
really important and I will be taking that idea to them and
spreading and I'll make sure you're credited for don't worry.
And Jarvis, of course. No credit, Jarvis, not me.

(43:01):
I suppose I want to ask because Speaking of things like the
caucuses, are there any other ideas?
Because remember last time you're on the podcast, one of
your ideas did sort of come intoexistence so that we can hope.
Have you got any other solutionsor ideas you think we could
implement into? If anyone's listening, if in a
position of more influencing us that we they could maybe try.
I mean, I, you know, God, God knows I'm, you know, as, as

(43:24):
again, I say in the keynote, listen, I'm, I'm a screenwriter
and we have about as much power to action change as a, you know,
a year old iPhone after a full charge.
So all of this is all of this isjust me kind of, you know,
thinking off the top of my head.So obviously the play for today
idea, you know, Channel 5 have taken it up in a limited way,
which is really fantastic. We've yet to see them and I

(43:44):
really hope, I'm really looking forward to seeing them and I
hope they're really successful and they do more.
And I also hope the other channels pick that up.
But I think fundamentally what'sat the heart of that, and I
think what what needs to happen is, you know, there there's
something in the spirit of the way that, you know, digital
creators and online creators, you know, YouTube and, and
TikTok creators, etcetera, are making stuff, which is, which is

(44:07):
sort of tantamount to this generation's punk basically,
which is you have the tools to make stuff and you have the
ability to distribute it. The what you don't have is the
ability to make a living from it, right.
So I think if there's some way of connecting that And and I
think that the difficulty that the commissioners and executives

(44:27):
and channels have is this whole issue about HETV and production
values. And therefore the problem is
that you make shows for less money.
The fear is they look less good,but I remember, you know, when I
just shortly after I came out ofdrama school.
So in the mid nineteens, shows like this life and the cops, you

(44:52):
know, and obviously it was an era when digital cameras just
sort of become a thing. So there there was the
possibility of working handheld longer takes, you know, shooting
verite style. But those shows were made for
comparatively, comparatively at a time to open Taitney, you
know, but actually they reinvigorated storytelling and

(45:14):
the realities of realities of, you know, awful thing to say
because none of us should have to do this.
But doing more with less, you know, So one of the, one of the
things I'm working on at the moment, you know, which I, which
I can't tell you what it is at the moment, but you know, it's,
it's got a very, very small budget.
But that's not impinging on the ambition of these stories that
we want to tell and the kind of right.

(45:35):
Well, so we just, we have to work within these parameters.
And in a way, I learned that from doctors, you know, for all
for all doctors. And I'm, and I'm not holding
doctors up as an ideal perfect show because of course, nothing
is. But the strictures of the low
budgets never impinged on the stories that we told or what,
or, or the breadth of them or the quality of them.

(45:55):
And I think we have to start embracing that again, because if
the pressure of high end TV values means that we can't make
lower budget stuff, but then it really is going to disappear
because there just isn't going to be the money to make them.
So some way of dealing with thatconundrum through innovation,
through risk, through kind of, you know, or even like think

(46:19):
about, sorry, I'm waffling, but think about like, you know, when
Armando Iannucci made the first series of the Thick of it,
right? You know, it was, I think it was
BBC Four that had just come intobeing.
And BBC Four controller went here's a tiny amount of money.
Armando Iannucci made the first few series of the pick of it in
BBC buildings pretending to be Whitehall.

(46:40):
You know, it just with with digital cameras, you know, and
some actors and something of that spirit just go, well, what
can you do with what you have rather than it has to be up
here. Otherwise we're not going to
even do it when you're not even going to attempt it.
And I think something about going for those lower budgets as
well means you can you can then take a risk on people that
people haven't heard of and givethem the opportunity because

(47:03):
there's so many fantastic actorsout there who were champion at
the bit to do work and to do good work and will do good work
if given the chance. So yeah, that's my, that's my.
So I think it's really good as well because what we talked
about the start was we talked about YouTube's become the
second most watched thing in theUK in terms of television,
right? We're on this will be on YouTube
Right now. I have very little money behind

(47:23):
this podcast. I'm trying really hard to
professionalise it more and I'm really proud of how much we've
grown in the last five years. But is an example of like, as
you say, the punk thing, like I do this from I started this in
my bedroom and you know, sometimes I'm lucky enough I can
have fund myself to go into a nice studio or I can buy
equipment to make this look a bit nicer, like tonight or
whatever. But there is that E force and
there's a lot of the skills are there, but I can't it'd be

(47:46):
impossible for me to make a living from this podcast right
now in the current state of it. Majority of content creators are
people in that position. That's similar.
But there is a you're right. I think there must be something
we can try and connect and thereis people doing that.
But you know, I know Channel 4 try to do a lot more digital
stuff. I think they all are.
But I think part of the reason they.
All are, they all think. Part of the reason sometimes
fails, though, they try to do itwith foods, money behind it or

(48:09):
in a way that feels inauthentic.You have to keep the
authenticity of what content creators and people like that
are able to do on YouTube. I think people care more about
that than they do about the flashiness.
So it's a great, it's a great so.
So, so that speaks to something that I'm really, I'm really
interested in and I'd, I'd really love to dig out with you
if we've got a little bit of time, which is for me, one of

(48:32):
the one of the things that has niggled at me and made me go.
This seems to be a symptom of what's going wrong, right, Is
the red carpet premiere for TV shows.
Do you notice how, you know, when the streamers came in, it
started to be a thing of like, oh, there's got to be a red
carpet premiere? And I'm like, why?

(48:53):
Why is that? You know, I'm all for
celebrating cast and crew and that's that, you know, and I'm
all for sort of but so there's something about, you know, we've
got it feels like we've kind of got into a thing of it.
You can't make something unless it's going to be mega
successful. And I was really struck, and
again, this is just me sort of chewing on this.

(49:13):
I was really struck by both OwenCooper, you know, the young, the
fantastic young young boy in adolescence who won the Emmy
last night, both and Stephen Graham who won lots of Emmys,
but he also won for acting. And I when I saw their speeches,
I wrote this down South, Owen Cooper said.

(49:33):
When I started these drama classes a couple of years back,
I was nothing about 3 years ago and I'm here now.
Right. And then Stephen Graham started
his speech by saying this kind of thing doesn't normally happen
to a kid like me. I'm just a mixed race kid from a
block of flats in a place calledKirby.
Now, Stephen Graham is one of the most brilliant, successful

(49:54):
actors this country's produced in my generation, you know, and
I have no doubt that Owen Cooperwill go on to be.
But these are people from working class backgrounds
standing on the biggest stages of the world going.
This doesn't happen to people like me.
And something about that thing of, you know, is it is it less

(50:17):
valuable to make work that doesn't get you on that stage,
But still you're making work. Do you know what I mean?
And this, this is my thing aboutmagical thinking, you know, you
know, because we talked about itlast time, I'm really
passionate. The work should be the thing,
not the success. And, and, and actually that will
then for me, if the work becomesthe thing, then the, then the,

(50:41):
the landscape and the ecosystem becomes healthier because it
isn't about I've got to become the next this or that.
It's just I want to, I want to make work and I want to just
about be able to sustain myself doing it.
I don't want to, you know, I don't want to make a fortune.
I just want to be able to sustain myself so that I can
make the next thing and the nextthing.

(51:01):
There's something really interesting for me and for me
that's symptomatic. And for some reason about these
red carpet premieres for TV shows.
Yeah. High school.
What? Really.
Why do we need those? It's really interesting.
So that's really interesting. Yeah.
About that. The pinnacle thing, we talked,
we did talk about the last time and I do find the magical
realism thing really interestingin this constantly.
Ideally I've not made it. I need to get to this place.

(51:22):
And then you get there, you're like, well, I need to do this
other episode and get more downloads if it's with the
podcast, for example, or whatever it may be.
And I think that's the artist. I mean, that's a real.
I think most great people struggle with that thing, but
they're like, I don't know. And it is a it's a complicated
one. Yeah.
I think awards enemies are kind of think we obviously, I don't
know if we'd say wrong, if that's too strong a word, but

(51:43):
maybe they are. They're a symptom of maybe
capitalism in a way where it's like you're chasing that thing.
That could be what it is like without getting on my creaking
but probably sound like a massive like big left destiny
but. I think you Marxist.
I don't know. It does interest me though.
I think about that a lot. Sometimes I get, I'm guilty of
that going. I'd love to get an award for

(52:04):
this podcast one day, like be berecognised.
And it's like, well, would you not rather just enjoy recording
each episode? Is that really relevant?
It's a strange one. I think it is, you know, I think
you're right. I think it is symptomatic of
something and I don't, and I'm not saying it's wrong at all.
I think I'm just I'm just more interested in, you know, for

(52:25):
example, imagine the pressure onOwen Cooper now.
It looks like he has a fantasticblig supportive family.
And obviously, you know, you'll have that the family of people
who made adolescence around him to take care of him.
But imagine the pressure on him now, whatever the next thing he
chooses to do, you know, rather than he's clearly an incredibly
gifted young actor. He's 15, you know, And there he

(52:49):
is going. I was.
I was nothing three years ago. You were 12-3 years ago.
You know, you want nothing and you are nothing now and you
won't be nothing tomorrow. So there's something for me
about the intrinsic value of being an artist and being a
creator rather than this extrinsic thing.
And I say this as somebody, you know, who I'm as, I'm as guilty

(53:09):
of kind of desperately wanting to try and be successful.
I've won awards. And it's complex and challenging
to kind of win an award and thengo the following day, go, oh,
hang on, I've got to get up and walk the dog.
You know, it's so yeah, there's there's something for me that
obviously is a bee in my bonnet about just, you know, my
favourite film. This is a segue, but it does

(53:29):
feed into this. My favourite film, and I'm not
big into top fives or anything like this, but my favourite film
consistently over the years has been a film called Big Night.
Yeah. And they've ever seen Big Night,
Stanley Tucci and why I love BigNight so much, apart from the
fact that it's a fantastic film.So it's Stanley Tucci.
Campbell Scott directed it and together and Stanley Tucci is

(53:52):
one of two brothers who run a restaurant in the Bronx, Italian
restaurant in the 1950s. And they're they're dying on
their ass. And so they along along with Ian
Holm playing the the, the guy who runs the brassy trattoria
across the road, who's always absolutely rammed with people
while they're dying. He organises to get this jazz
band, led by Louis Prima, to come to their restaurant and

(54:14):
kind of give them a big splash in the press.
And the brothers are having a conversation about this.
And the chef is like a real artist.
He's a real creative artist. And he says to Stanley Tucci's
character, people should come just for the food.
They should come just for the food.
And Stanley Tucci's character is, Secondo says, I know, but

(54:37):
they don't. And for me, that's the heart of
the creative life and the challenge of the creative life,
you know, because because you just want to make the work.
And so that's why there's such astrong argument for for trying
to sustain in some way our public service broadcasting
model. Because the theory behind it is

(54:59):
people should come just for the food.
Every show that the BBC makes doesn't have to be adolescence.
It can be just like normal, you know, and just that normal is a
fabulous show, but it's never going to do the kind of numbers
that adolescents does and it doesn't have to and it shouldn't
have to. So that's that's what I get
really passionate about as you could.

(55:19):
Tell and I suppose we're also just a topic we touched on this
last time, but there's this needconstantly that we need to make
things for a global audience. And you do sometimes you can do
both the best show do both. But you should also need you
need to make stuff for a local audience too.
As you talked about, the High Street needs to serve its local
community as well as this, you know, people who are tourists.
Yeah. Yeah, and and you know, the the

(55:43):
role of those shows in in talking about us to us.
You know, I've been really interested in the last year
since we last spoke. How many assassin dramas have
there been? You know, like black, like black
doves, the one with Kili Halls, you know, oh, he's a spy, He's
an assassin. He's a this, he's a that.

(56:03):
And I go, yeah, why? Why are those, you know, the
same? For the same reason.
There are so many cosy crime shows and cop shows and murder
mysteries because they sell around the world and they're and
they're not specific to a place.And that's great that they're
there in the market. But if there isn't space for the
other kind of stories, then we have a monoculture basically.
You know, we don't have a variety of stories that actually

(56:24):
talk about us to us. And I think that's really
problematic. For sure.
And then that's just going to keep driving people to all these
other things on YouTube that feel more authentic and they
connect to. And I'm not saying that's a bad
thing either, but you want to sustain all of it.
So we're approaching about an hour or so.
I want to ask you a few more questions and I want to round
off the sort of theme of our conversation.
But before that, there's a few things on touch on.

(56:45):
I want to talk to you personallyabout.
I know you're working again and last time we spoke can't work
for a bit, which has obviously been really tough.
But Congrats for for that as well.
I hope that's made things a bit easier for you.
But are you able to talk to thema little bit about what you're
working on now? I can't really talk.
This is one of the difficulties.I can't really say exactly what
I'm working on, you know, I'm working on.
So I can't tell you what they are.

(57:05):
You know, I, I've done an episode of something of, of, of
cosy crime. Well, I, I can say I've done an
episode of Father Brown, which was the thing that that kind of
got me out of. I didn't have, I didn't have
worked for 18 months, which was,you know, terrifying, absolutely
terrifying. And, and, you know, and really,
really without going into sort of too much detail or triggering
detail, you know, was incrediblydifficult for my mental health.

(57:27):
And, and in the midst of that, you know, I put that thread on
that thread on Twitter. So that was, that was kind of
interesting. Yeah.
So I was really fortunate to getthat, get that, get enough sort
of Father Brown, which which, you know, got me back into the
saddle. I'm working on something at the
moment, which is a drama documentary about, about
something and that's going to bea feature length drama

(57:47):
documentary. And that's, that's being made
incredibly fast and shooting really soon.
And then I'm, I'm writing a feature film and I'm being paid
to write a feature film, which is remarkable because most
feature films, you know, you kind of write them on spec or
you you're not paid and then youtry and sell them.
So, and I've got I've got one ortwo other things in the fire.
But you know, it's interesting talking again about class and

(58:09):
talking about, you know, issues around the industry.
One of the things you might havebeen aware of in the Edinburgh
TV Festival was in the wake of James Graham's Mactaggart last
year. The TV Foundation put together a
working group and did a lot of research around practises,
working practises and how they impact kind of working class
people getting into and get staying in the TV industry.

(58:29):
And one of the things that's interesting, and this is not me
calling out any of these jobs that I've got, I got none of
them via any form of formal interview or recruitment
process. You know, I got them because
there were people I'd worked with before.
So this is the successocracy in action, right?
I got them because people I'd worked with before were really
kind enough to say, Phil, you know, you've, you know, you'd be

(58:52):
great for this. How do you feel about doing
this? Or somebody I'd worked with
before recommended me to somebody and said, oh, he's
great, you should work with him.Or in or in one instance, the
feature film, you know, I have aparticular research expertise in
one area that chimed with the film that they were interested
in making. And they said, oh, Phil knows a
lot about this. So that's really interesting,

(59:13):
right? Because you could argue and some
would argue, well, that's good. You know, you're, you're an
experienced screen, right? You've been working for 20 plus
years. That's how it should work.
But then if you don't and you aren't, how do you get those
jobs if they're not advertised? If then, if there's no interview
process? So.
So yeah, the TV Foundation's report on class and TV
industries really, really fantastic piece of work and

(59:34):
really useful in terms of offering suggestions to Indies
and producers about how to, you know, think about working class
people in the industry. No, it's really interesting to
mention Peter Strachan again, who I would love to have on this
podcast and I'm trying to make that happen, but he did some
great work recently about exclusive WhatsApp groups and

(59:54):
there and things like that that have an effect on getting jobs
in this industry. I've also benefit from it and I
think it's really, I appreciate you being so honest about that.
I think many of it, it's just a lot of the time how this
industry operates, but it is gross and unfair.
It is gross, unfair because again, it plays into that
exclusivity. And if you come from a one class
background, it's or you have anysort of inequality or
disadvantage like a disability or whatever, it just makes that

(01:00:17):
little bit harder to get those opportunities and and it is a
big issue and. Yeah, for sure.
I think somebody to work on. Yeah.
And again, it goes back to all the things that we've talked
about, you know, in terms of thesuccessocracy and in terms of
how the people who are responsible for kind of
allocating those jobs, they are risk averse because it's their
job often on the line if they give it to somebody who can't

(01:00:37):
deliver, you know, if some if. And so their risk aversion means
that they go, OK, well, this this person, I know I can trust
them to deliver. You know, in my case, I hope
that's what people that employ me feel and I certainly attempt
to do that. So, you know, it's about that
and it isn't about them going, oh, I just want to work with my
mates. Of course that might be the case
in some instances. But actually the reality is it's

(01:00:59):
always, particularly now, it's people under pressure trying to,
you know, do their jobs as well as they can and keep their jobs
and, you know, and make good telly in the meantime.
So it's yeah, but it. But it means that if you can't,
you know, if you don't have the means to get in there, or even
if you've got an agent and you know your agent gets whiff that
there might be work. You know they can put PU forward

(01:01:20):
for it. But that doesn't mean that you
know you'll get seen or that they'll give you a chance or so
it's but really are really are you?
Know for sure, for sure a few more questions actually for one
of them is and bin * asking. This is the first time I've
asked this question on the podcast, actually, but I'm going
to start asking guess about the worst advice they'd had because,
well, I always ask them about the best and actually this last
time, But watch me think. Where is a bit of advice you've

(01:01:42):
heard or you think it's out there for people?
It's a really, really difficult question.
And it isn't a difficult question because because I, I
don't want to say, because somebody gave me terrible advice
and put them. But I think actually, probably
this is kind of bobbing off the question, Jamie.
I think that the worst piece of advice I ever got was the one
thing that as a writer you don'twant to hear.

(01:02:02):
So I remember I, I, I, you know,I wrote my first play and I
completely, you know, poured myself heart and soul into this
play. And I really thought, this is
fantastic. This is amazing.
And I remember giving it to somebody who was a director I'd
work with as an actor. I said, I've wrote my first
player. I'd love you, love your
thoughts, thinking, you know, he's going to go, Oh my God,

(01:02:22):
you're an undiscovered genius. You're Harold Pinter.
We're going to put this on. You're going to be a star
talking about, you know, the star thing.
And and he read it and he went, yeah, it's really good.
Write another. And that was literally all he
said to me. You just went, it's really good.
Write another. And I was like, I was so totally
deflated. And I was like, what do you
mean? He went, well, you just have to
write another one now. And it's the worst piece of
advice. But it's actually, of course,
it's the best piece of advice because because that's the other

(01:02:44):
thing. We haven't even touched on AI in
any of. We haven't actually, which is a
surprise for me. My friend is sick of me banging
on about it. Man, I, I, I'm like AI, you
know, I'm like, like the touch paper, whenever it comes up,
people stand back. But you know, in a, in a time
when every time you go onto YouTube, you'll get a, you'll
get an advert for Grammarly or some sort, you know, going
writing can be difficult. So, you know, let AI do it.

(01:03:06):
And I go, yeah, it's supposed tobe difficult because we're human
beings and that's what creativity is, right?
It's supposed to be difficult. And actually, you know, I love
the difficulty. You know, I love banging my head
against the laptop. And then I'm going to get up and
go and walk the dog and just go,what the hell am I doing?
And then coming back and trying and being shit and then writing

(01:03:27):
some more and then eventually go, Oh my God, I've got it.
And then and then getting betterby by doing, you know, and in a
way, I think something of the risk aversion that we talk about
in our industry comes from that sense of people are desperately
afraid of having to get better by failing and learning by
failing and learning by not being very good.

(01:03:48):
You know, and I have conversations a lot, you know,
because I'm longer in the tooth than I might wish to be with
young people or younger people or people who are starting out
in the industry. And I know what they want is the
magic clue to the Kingdom. And, you know, as a script
editor, there isn't 1. The magic clue to the Kingdom is
write another draft. You may get lucky.

(01:04:09):
Just just write another draft orwrite another play.
So, yeah, so that's that was that was that was the biggest
deflation, you know, because there was me thinking I was
going to be the most out of playwrights and him just going,
yeah, it's good. Write another one.
We don't have time obviously to touch on a properly, but just a
very quickly thing. I think one of the risks of it
is you lose the skills. Again, we talked earlier, you
need to enjoy the journey. You don't have the journey at

(01:04:31):
all and you're not going to learn the resilience, blah,
blah, blah. I mean, there's going to be a
really interesting time with it and hopefully going to be doing
an episode all about AI soon as well.
So the listeners to look out for.
There's probably my favourite subject at the moment and I'm
dyslexic and dyspractic, so there is benefits there as well
and spell check and stuff. No one's denying that.
But is is a big worry. One of the last question I want

(01:04:51):
to ask you is actually is there anything that I've missed and I
felt that you maybe want to quickly speak on apart from AI
or anything you'd like to to addto our conversation?
I don't think so. I always, I find I was so kind
of anxious and nervous before coming on thinking I've got
nothing to say to Jamie. And then I discovered that I've
rambled on for ages. No, I mean, you know, I suppose.
I suppose, you know, just to reiterate, I feel like I am, I

(01:05:14):
am TV's Mick Lynch. But which which my partner will
think is absolutely hilarious, Ihave to tell you.
But if I am TV's Mick Lynch, like him or like I perceive him
to be, it's because I'm so passionate about it.
And I'm so passionate about the brilliant stories that aren't
being told because of the the way that the industry is

(01:05:36):
currently operating and the austerity that is just awash in
the industry. And so I just really, really
want those who have any degree of power to be a little bit
braver and just go actually the only way this industry will
survive is if we is if we investin it is if we risk, if we try
new things, if we if we maybe take the pressure off to be the

(01:06:00):
next adolescence, because then eventually we will get the next
adolescence and it will be amazing.
But we won't get there if we don't invest.
So yeah, that's my. Yeah.
Well, last question for you, Phil, but give us, have we got a
reason to 1st to be optimistic about the future of in any way?
So it does, you know, I know I talk about this issue a lot on

(01:06:23):
the podcast and I've had a few friends go, bloody hell, you're
measurable, aren't you know, I think this is important though,
and I think we are. I hope we talk about this in an
entertaining and balanced enoughway as well, because, you know,
it's the reality and I think people find it really cathartic
and they need to hear the honestand they need to hear what it's
really like on the ground. But have you got any reasons for
us to be optimist? I mean, I think if I, if I've

(01:06:43):
got reasons to be optimistic, it's because because I think
enough people recognise that thecurrent situation is not
sustainable. So actually with my other hat
on, what I do when I'm not screen writing is I run with my
partner. This isn't an advert by the way.
I run with my partner a little retreat centre in our home in
Wales. And we do the rites of passage

(01:07:05):
retreats. So we take people, we, we help
people navigate change, which basically all stories are
change, right? And and so in doing that, I'm
really, I'm really interested and passionate in how we go
through change. And change is really painful
because we have to sever from the old way of doing things.
We have to move away from that. You know, if you think about

(01:07:26):
Lord of the Rings, it's Frodo leaving Hobbiton to have to go
to Mount Do. And then there's this horrible,
sticky, shitty bit in the middlewhere we don't know what we're
doing, we don't know where we'regoing, we don't know who we are.
Nothing works. It's all messy.
And then eventually you arrive at a point where you where all
of it comes into its own and youbecome this new person.

(01:07:47):
You navigate your way through. And for me, I think TV is right
in that sticky, shitty middle bit.
But I do trust that there are enough tools and there are
enough brilliant storytellers and enough people to go
actually, we can't keep doing things in the way that we've
been doing them. You know, if you always do what
you've always done, you'll always get what you always had.
Things have to change, and I know they'll change for the

(01:08:09):
better eventually. So yeah, that's that's my.
Optimism. I'm going to keep talking about
them until they do. So I think that's a great place
to end things on. You know, I could easily talk to
you all night. It's always a pleasure having
you on the show. And as I did the first time in
the second time, I've loved our third conversation.
And I genuinely really appreciate the work you're
continuing to do. I hope the keynote goes well.

(01:08:30):
And honestly, thank you so much for everything you're doing in
the industry. And it's just all such a
pleasure to talk to. You always leave our
conversations just, you know, happy and buzzing.
And, you know, This is why I do the podcast.
I get to have great conversations like this.
So thank you very much. It's really my pleasure.
Thank you for inviting me on again.
And also, you know, not to kind of blow smoke up your arse, but
I think it's fantastic that you're doing this podcast and

(01:08:52):
continuing to do it and have these conversations that I think
the industry so needs. So yeah, right back.
Thank you man.

All Episodes

EP. 178 - 'How TV Is Failing the Working Class' with Philip Ralph

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist

Crime Junkie

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}EP. 178 - 'How TV Is Failing the Working Class' with Philip Ralph