The paper addresses contemporary television sequences and raises new questions about such issues in adaptation.
The importance of the content lies in its attempt to place British television at the centre of late twentieth century British culture and to relate the criticism of television drama to a wider history of aesthetic debates and arguments.
The study does not proposes a theory of everything or a new general theory of television, but enlightens with historical and critical analysis of one bit of television, a particular corner of the field of dramatic narrative which has a particular political, cultural and aesthetic efficacy of its own, at the same time, it shares the efficacy of the ‘television’ itself.
According to Dennis Potter, a professional writer for television as well as a creative artist, most television ends up offering its viewers a means of orienting themselves towards the generally received notions of ‘reality’. The best naturalist of realist drama, of the Loach-Garnett-Allen school for instance, breaks out of this cosy habit by the vigour, clarity, originality and depth of perceptions of a more comprehensive reality.
The best non-naturalist drama, in its very structures disorientates the viewer smack in the middle of the orientation process which television perpetually uses. It disrupts the patterns that are endemic to television, and upsets or exposes the narrative styles of so many of the other allegedly non-fiction programme. It shows “the frame in the picture when most television is busy showing the picture in the frame”. It is potentially the more valuable of the two approaches.
Naturalism and realism have had a history of disagreement since nineteenth century. ‘Non-naturalism’, then is shorthand founded on shorthand. The critic or professional has ever referred to naturalism in television drama as a term of approval, something