Production values

I often hear "production values" being cited in the review of a programme. Most often, I find, in terms of criticising sitcoms for having "low production values" (particularly 70s/80s ITV sitcoms).

So what does it actually MEAN? And why's it a bad thing? Everything has its place. I wouldn't expect (or necessarily want) Hollywood-esque graphics in a British sitcom. As long as the programme doesn't look like it was filmed by a 13 year old on her webcam or mobile phone, all I care about is that it's FUNNY. The sleek, sophisticated appearance of anything else is pretty irrelevant.

Just to deviate from sitcom for a moment, I've recently been watching Paramount 2's repeats of The Kenny Everett Television Show. Funniest sketch show I've seen in a long time, and it's quite clear that they've concentrated on good writing and good performances rather than making everything spot-on, deadly serious perfectionist comedy. And I'm sure we've all seen at least the clips of Kenny's sketches with the studio crew literally in hysterics. Those seem pretty "low production values" to me, if I'm forced to use the term. But it's bloody funny stuff.

We've got a few reviews on the BSG proper which use "low production values" as a criticism (of immensely successful series', too). The Sid James sitcom Bless This House is in receipt of the comment, as is The Army Game. But both were hugely popular long-running comedies, and not any different from any other show around at the time. I admit I've not watched much of The Army Game, but I can't think that I've ever seen wobbly sets in Bless This House, nor the shadow of studio microphones.

Unlike a certain hotel-based comedy.

So what does it mean? Why is it used? Why is it such a bad thing? Why are some shows in receipt of it, and yet others with even more apparent "low values" get constant praise?

Is it not just the last fall-back of snobbish comedy critic, trying to find something scathing to say about a show that they don't - or feel that they shouldn't - like?

Comedy at the end of the day should be funny no matter how it is presented. That said, I do think a certain level of production is required - otherwise you spend more time distracted by the dodgy props than you do actually concentrating on the programme.

I'd also argue though that you can indeed have too big a budget. There's loads of shows that have suffered from having money to splash about (e.g. the expensive last specials of Little Britain were a bit of a shambles).

Interestingly one of the most costly things to do is to have deliberately bad production values. Channel 4 spent millions on the dodgy props and wobbly sets for Darkplace.

I have no problems with a show looking cheap, as long as its funny. i think the people who do might very well be producers, as they obviously want to deliver a slick, glossy looking show; not something that looks like they filmed it on a dodgy camcorder in their dads shed. I just think that producers and the channels themselves think an audience expects a glossy looking product these days. I certainly wouldnt criticise a show just if it looked a bit cheap; but would the independent production company who made it get many more commisions?

'Production values' is not just referring to how something ends up looking as the money that's spent on investing time in proper development, experienced crew and having the time to really get things as good as possible during the filming process. And at the end of the day I think that does have an effect on how funny the comedy comes across. One of the best examples is The League Of Gentlemen. Think of some of those set pieces like Papa Lazarou's circus, the multiple crane shots, those beautiful bleak panaromic backdrops. A lot of 'production values' was invested in giving its own quite unique look. You may say none of that makes it funnier, but personally I think it does. It also helps to identify the show and give its own personality as a generally darker, atypical sketch show. If the BBC had not invested as much time and money into these production values, sure the show would still have been funny, but the characters wouldn't necessarily have become so well-developed, nor Royston Vasey such its own world.

That's true, Tim. Very true. But then one could argue that that's a weakness in the writing, that they relied on a particular visual style of presentation to make the comedy work, I suppose.

(I'm not saying that, just pointing out that it could be argued.)

I think that the thing with Kenny Everett is that he was so much a phenonom in his own right (along with say Spike Milligan) that it any scene it was only him that mattered, the whole paraphenalia surrounding him, props. costume, scenery etc. were largely irrevelant; whatever he did was funny because it was Kenny Everett doing it.

I think the argument about production values boils down to what effect you are trying to achieve. To take the most hackneyed of examples; Ye Olde Star Trekke sketch; if you film a sketch with wobbly scenerey and bad special effects then these become the whole point of the sketch and you are saying ha! ha! look at the bad effects and props. If you want to make a different point with the Star Trek sketch (e.g. what would Star Trek look like if directed by Quentin Tarantino), then I would argue that the production values need to be good enough that the idea can work, otherwise you end up being distracted by the bad special effects etc.

Just as an example, I remember a sketch of Alistair MacGowan's, which was a Harry Potter parody with Harry Potter portrayed by Alistair as Louis Theroux. The point is that the production values where sufficiently good to make it look like an actual scene from a Harry Potter movie which allowed us to suspend disbelief and concentrate on the central joke.

And sometimes some producers are better at spending the money.

Red Dwarf 7/8 had a same budget per episode as dinnerladies! I think it's fair to say who spent it better. Obviously totally different shows, but RD for what was quite an average budget made the show looked big.

LoG looked glorious, and the make up and costumes were brilliant, and it was all original music used too. They got real value for money.

Quote: Culfy @ March 2, 2008, 3:41 PM

Just as an example, I remember a sketch of Alistair MacGowan's, which was a Harry Potter parody with Harry Potter portrayed by Alistair as Louis Theroux. The point is that the production values where sufficiently good to make it look like an actual scene from a Harry Potter movie which allowed us to suspend disbelief and concentrate on the central joke.

View original

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Scone. That was great.

"I should not have said that. I should not have said that."