April 30, 2007
Foyle’s War and Michael Kitchen Posted by Alexander Burns at 11:40 AM EST I enjoyed Fred Smoler’s post this morning on Foyle’s War. I haven’t seen the series, but I am a great fan of its leading actor, Michael Kitchen. His face has been seen only infrequently by American audiences, except perhaps during the actor’s appearance in the James Bond film Goldeneye. I’ll admit that’s where I first encountered him. Reading over Mr. Smoler’s post, it occurred to me that Kitchen has made a rather successful career out of satirizing the British upper crust. In Foyle’s War he may do so only indirectly, as a detective who encounters sacrifice-averse elites. In another, earlier BBC series, however, Kitchen did so more directly and controversially. House of Cards, a BBC trilogy aired during the early 1990s, traces the rise of a fictional Conservative leader, Francis Urquhart, through the ranks of the House of Commons. The first portion of the trilogy, from which the entire series takes its name, was produced as a hypothetical rendering of the leadership contest after Margaret Thatcher’s retirement. In a remarkable instance of life imitating art, the original airing of the series coincided with the Michael Heseltine’s first challenge to Thatcher’s leadership—much, I imagine, to the surprise and joy of the House of Cards producers. Kitchen does not appear in the series until its second installment, “To Play the King,” in which he portrays a newly installed monarch struggling in his role as head of state. I’m not aware of much controversy surrounding Foyle’s War, although that may be a result of my own ignorance. But Kitchen’s portrayal of the unnamed, fictional king created something of a stir due to the character’s uncomfortable similarities to Prince Charles. In addition to having a slim, glamorous, blonde ex-wife, and an overweight, scandal-plagued former sister-in-law, Kitchen’s character also speaks in the same halting, wavering tones as the Prince of Wales. There are veiled suggestions that the king has had improper relationships with other men, as well as with prostitutes. While the impropriety and moral decay of the British royal family was already on full display in the early 1990s, some felt this sly impugning of Charles’s character was too much to tolerate. One Evening Standard contributor, Melvyn Bragg, declared, “If we have a flat portrayal of an historical figure then evidence is needed for any accusations which seek to smear him.” Calling on the show’s author, Michael Dobbs, to eliminate a few offensive lines, Bragg explained, “It is the gratuitousness of the matter which triggers the obstinate question—are you allowed to take any shot you want at a target which you know is simply not going to respond?” Britain’s free speech laws are famously different from those in the United States. Here, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell has stated that public figures cannot sue for emotional distress, or other such offenses, against those who satire them. The more curious of Bragg’s assertions, though, is that it is offensive to portray any historical figure, or even a fictionalized counterpart of a historical figure, in terms not wholly supported by fact. I suppose, by Bragg’s preferences, the producers of Citizen Kane should be liable to the estate of William Randolph Hearst for possible distortions of the man’s character. Maybe Bragg meant, “a living historical figure,” but, in any case, I can’t imagine how unbearably dry such a version of popular culture would be. I’m sure that I’m grateful to Michael Kitchen for offering an enjoyable alternative.
|
