|
|
 |
FIrst Among Equals (TV)
R2 - United Kingdom - Network Review written by and copyright: Paul Lewis (6th March 2009). |
|
The Show
 
Adapted from Jeffrey Archer’s 1984 novel, this ten-part miniseries was produced for Granada Television and broadcast on ITV between September and November of 1986. Drawing heavily on Archer’s own experiences as a Conservative backbencher (the MP for Louth) in the House of Commons, the narrative focuses on the careers of four backbenchers whose lives are traced through several decades, from 1964 to the then-present day. During this time, their paths intersect with those of a variety of key figures from the history of late-Twentieth Century British politics. The title is ironic in that from their introductions, the four protagonists are established as anything other than equals, not least in terms of their wildly different social backgrounds. Each short scene that introduces the character shows, via an onscreen title, their political allegiance, the constituency that they represent and the majority that they hold within that Borough. The first character to be introduced is Andrew Fraser (David Robb). Fraser is shown shooting grouse in Scotland; he is the Labour MP for Edinburgh Carlton, although his father is a Conservative man and Fraser is thereby shown as something of a rebel, an establishment figure who is willing to ‘go against the grain’. Fraser’s introduction is placed in juxtaposition with the first appearance of Simon Kerslake (James Faulkner). The Conservative Member of Parliament for Coventry Central, Kerslake’s arrogance is signalled from his first moments onscreen: at a petrol station, an attendant asks him, ‘Are you going to the House of Commons, sir?’ Tersely, Kerslake responds: ‘Further than that, I hope’. The Labour MP for Leeds North, Raymond Gould (Tom Wilkinson) is introduced as a man from humble roots with a strong code of ethics, although this aspect of the character is called into question during a later episode in which it is revealed that, although married, he has slept with a prostitute and has thereby left himself vulnerable to blackmail threats. (There is a wonderful sequence in episode three, when Gould visits his solicitor—played by the great T. P. McKenna—who discusses with honesty the ways in which this potential blackmail threat might resolve itself.) Travelling to Westminster via public transport after setting off from his flat above the family-owned butcher’s shop, Gould is the polar opposite of Charles Seymour (Jeremy Child). The Conservative MP for Sussex Downs, the toffish Seymour sets off for Westminster in his Jaguar and is constantly discussing his days at Oxford. On being shown his office, Seymour bitterly asserts, ‘Well, it’s a bit small, isn’t it? I suppose it’ll have to do’. In response to this act of hubristic assertion, Seymour is knocked down a peg or two when he is told, ‘It isn’t just yours: you’ll be sharing it with at least three others’. Through introducing the characters with a short sequence that quickly outlines them (and their social trappings) before introducing a title card announcing their name, their allegiance, their Borough and their majority, this sequence—which opens the first episode of the series—introduces the characters like the participants of a heist. It is a device that, during the 1990s, was used in a very reflexively postmodern way by films such as Reservoir Dogs (Quentin Tarantino, 1992) and Trainspotting (Danny Boyle, 1996). This method of introducing the characters via their own discrete sequences is a very masculine device, suggesting that these four ‘great men’ will at some point come together, much like the various participants of Kubrick’s The Killing (1956), Jean-Pierre Melville’s Le Cercle rouge (1970) or John Huston’s The Asphalt Jungle (1950). However, the series also has some surprisingly strong female characters. In fact, the male protagonists are shown both objectifying women (in the first episode, at an event thrown by the Prime Minister, Fraser dismisses his fiancée before ogling another woman) and being led and reinforced by the needs and demands of the women in their lives: whilst making a new, temporary home in a dingy bedsit in London, Gould is visited by his wife Joyce (Anita Carey) who confidently reorganises the flat for him and demands that he show a little more ambition in front of the Prime Minister. A recurring source of humour is the way in which the snobbish and authoritarian Seymour is consistently lashed by his wife’s (Jane Booker) sharp tongue: in episode three, in response to his dismissal of Albert Finney’s performance in Saturday Night and Sunday Morning (Karel Resiz, 1960), she sharply reminds Seymour that she married him because of his ambition and his desire for power, not his looks (‘When I married you, I knew you weren’t the most handsome man in the world, but you had something that was the best aphrodisiac of them all: you were hungry for power […] Somewhere along the line, you lost it; now’s your chance to find it again’). However, it has to be said that the series tries a little too hard to depict its principle characters as ‘alpha males’ by framing them through the archetype of the heavy-drinking, womanising politician. (This is probably more noticeable since the American television series Mad Men, HBO 2007- , has offered an open deconstruction of this frequently-used character type.) First Among Equals depicts the life of an MP as a complicated and thankless task: early in the series, Gould is told by a member of the ‘old guard’ that ‘We abandon our wives, our children and homes, and what do we get in return? Seventeen-fifty a year and indigestion’. Further to this, the world of politics is also depicted as still dependent on cliques and the concept of the ‘old school tie’: MPs are shown bonding due to sharing a similar university background; the committees are defined by their affiliations with either Oxford or Cambridge, and there is the suggestion that those who don’t fit in are ostracised, as evidenced by the treatment that Gould receives throughout the series. The series feels very authentic in its representation of the behind-the-scenes wranglings of backbenchers of both major parties, and the sequences set in the House of Commons are strikingly realistic. There is clearly much of Archer’s own life as a backbencher in the basic narrative outline. The series depicts several decades of social and political change (from debates about the European common market to the Troubles in Northern Ireland) in a similar manner to the BBC’s nine-part adaptation of Peter Flannery’s play Our Friends in the North (1996). Like Our Friends in the North, First Among Equals essentially takes a view of politics that is tinted by the conventions of the soap opera and its focus on interpersonal relationships as a microcosm of broader social changes. In 1987, when the series was first screened in America, The New York Times suggested that the series ‘strives for, and generally attains, the slickness of a ''Dallas'' or ''Dynasty.'' Even the opening credits are done in a style paying obvious homage to the American prime-time soaps. The rest, as usual, is sex and power’ (O’Connor, 1987: en). It is a credit to the dramatists and performers (and to Archer’s source novel) that the series never patronises this group of relatively diverse characters, nor resorts to easy class stereotypes. Thanks to a great performance by Tom Wilkinson, Gould is arguably the heart and soul of the drama; playing the downtrodden Gould as a man from humble beginnings who has ‘done good’, Wilkinson invests the character with a nervous lack of confidence but an utter sense of conviction. Neither does the text play political favourites: the series exposes the hypocrisies and machinations within both major political parties. Episode Breakdown: Disc One: Episode One (51:31) Episode Two (50:57) Episode Three (48:02) Disc Two: Episode Four (49:57) Episode Five (48:57) Episode Six (51:36) Episode Seven (49:28) Disc Three: Episode Eight (52:01) Episode Nine (51:23) Episode Ten (48:56) Alternative ending to episode ten (14:19)
Video
Shot on video, the series is presented with an image that is very crisp and detailed. There do not appear to be any edits.
Audio
Audio is presented via a two-channel stereo track. This is clear and always audible. There are no subtitles.
Extras
The fourth disc contains an alternate ending (14:19) for the tenth episode. This alternate ending was prepared for the series’ b broadcast on American television. When the series was first screened in the US, viewers were encouraged to register a telephone vote for the candidate that they wished to become Prime Minister, and the results of this telephone vote dictated the ending that was screened (see O’Conner, 1987).
Overall
Essentially a soap opera set in the world of politics, First Among Equals is engaging viewing. The narrative sags a little during the last few episodes and the series struggles to maintain some of the momentum it establishes in the first couple of episodes, but the insight into the ways in which the House of Commons operates feels very authentic. The show manages to cover several decades of social and political change, and as noted above it isn’t prejudicial in its representation of the two major political parties. References: O’Connor, John J., 1987: ‘First Among Equals’. The New York Times (25 June, 1987): en For more information, please visit the homepage of Network DVD.
|
|||||
|