The Saccharine Offensive

Embarrassing ARD papers reveal how the licence fee funded institution wants to turn film makers into prime-time dummies

Sometimes the disaster begins in the conference room, without anyone outside being aware of what has taken place: after all, itŐs just another piece of paper signed off. In this case, it was at a private meeting of ARD director generals and programming directors held at the end of May in Berlin, to discuss how to bring their TV films more into line with current standards. Afterwards, there was a decision on "optimising production in the TV feature film/prime-time series section"; since then, it has been clear what format a German TV feature must take if it is to be broadcast on GermanyŐs first channel in the prime evening slot. It has to be "appealing", "thrilling and exciting", a "romantic comedy", above all, however, plain and simple.

The meeting decided that prime-time should be all about being "uncomplicated", "simple" and "clear". But what if life is more complicated than as described in the ARD document? Then life shouldnŐt be surprised if it no longer appears in an ARD TV film. After all, everything that isnŐt allowed has been set down on paper. So-called "token films" are strictly forbidden, the ones "the great prime-time audience" doesnŐt want to watch in large enough numbers, perhaps because - and this isnŐt allowed either Đ they contain hidden "didactic" messages or even "profundity", "intentional or accidental". The decisive factor is the "range targets" of "20 Đ 25% market share" which can be achieved by "strict monitoring and enforcement of the guidelinesÉ"

So it seems that the ARD has finally discovered that it is, in fact, a sweet factory: a business that is in strong competition with other confectionery manufacturers and, as such, has to set down in the strictest of terms exactly what a public standard jelly baby has to look like: colourful, uncomplicated, sticky. If someone doesnŐt toe the line, then they neednŐt ever go up to the directorsŐ offices again, where JŸrgen Kellermeier, TV drama co-ordinator for NDR, makes decisions on behalf of ARD about what it and its audiences like.

There were one or two reactions to this optimisation paper. It started with the Protestant Press Office criticising a sit-com with Juhnke and Wussow ("utter nonsense"). This was a sit-com that was broadcast shortly after the Berlin Conference and, oddly enough, came from NDRŐs TV film chief, who is Đ when sheŐs not writing scripts Đ one of four members of the ARD Commission that came up with this astonishing document, but also who decides which films should be broadcast in the prime slot. The ones that have been optimised, then, as if theyŐd been written by Doris J Heinze.

Shortly afterwards, there was grumbling amongst the old-school critics when it came out that a film directed by Norbert Kckelmann about young right extremists had had its original slot at 8:15pm on 25th July postponed until 11pm in October by the aforementioned Commission. Presumably, the subject matter was only of interest to interior ministers and not TV producers. Eventually it came out in a round about sort of way that the German Theatrical PublishersŐ Association had begun stirring up trouble because the sentence about the token productions had, according to the head of their media commission, "left a very bad taste in our mouths". Apart from all this, the rest of the country was yawning Đ who wants to have boring serious discussions about the ARDŐs TV films?

That used to be different, too. There were times where the audience and the critics used to argue about Eberhard FechnerŐs Tadellšser and the Wolf, about the prophetic Millionenspiel by Wolfgang Menge or about Edgar ReitzŐs Heimat Đ that TV history in the making, that epic about a youth spent in the HunsrŸck, later continued by the author in Die Zweite Heimat. Despite great success abroad, it was eyed with disdain by some programming directors who, in panel discussions, suddenly started publicly bemoaning the loss of every single viewer. But speaking of Reitz, wasnŐt there a Heimat 2000 project? One where the director, with his central figures, Clarissa maybe, or Hermann or SchŸsschen, wanted to risk taking another long look at the changes in his home after the countryŐs reunification? But how does an idea like that fit into the guidelines of the new, dynamic ARD which has long been trying to persuade its viewers into being bored by episodes of Tatort where there is no dead body within the first five minutes?

So, a phone call to Edgar Reitz and it is immediately apparent that he doesnŐt like talking about his plans. He really wanted to see it through, he said, and that he had already spent the last five years fighting for it, and that for GodŐs sake, he wanted to avoid any bad language that might ruin the whole thing. If you can sympathise with his worries, then you just have to look elsewhere for comments.

And then you will soon discover how unbelievably complicated it has become to get a demanding, multi-episode TV feature made within the public service broadcasting system. If you want to cut a long story short, the thing with Reitz was like this: First of all, the material was offered to the WDR, who didnŐt want it because of the disappointing figures for the second series. Then the SWR were contacted, and there followed four years of wrangling over the script, on which at some point even Thomas BrŸssig worked, the author who had already successfully written his own GDR and Wende experiences (Heroes like us). Of course there was a lot of trouble, also because Reitz, as an auteur, is himself more complicated than the optimisation paper can handle, but eventually an agreement was reached. ARD had committed DM 6m out of its main programmes budget, which meant that the finance for the six episodes was almost secure (including the contribution from the SWR as well as pledges from the BBC, RAI, Weltvertrieb). The only thing missing was the DM 1m from the Bavarian Film Council, but nothing came of that in the end because someone from the BR read the script and, as the saying goes, "got bored reading it". This, apparently, enraged ARD programming director GŸnter Struve and suddenly the six ARD millions had gone, too.

Afterwards, because Reitz himself put up resistance, the project ran into the bureaucracy of the public service sweet factory and its federalist structure, which could confound even the most uncomplicated of authors. The last thing to come was a real contact, someone the authors could rely on. ReitzŐs and BrŸssigŐs scripts were then sent to every director of programming, all of whom were to give their opinion on it, with the predictable result that each said something different about it. If one broadcaster thought Episode 4 was great, then the next one would find Episode 4 completely unbearable. So the whole thing looked like it was on the brink of failure because the programming directors of the nationŐs TV channels disagreed with the authors on whether the main characters from the east were too negatively drawn, whether the main character (a composer, i.e. an intellectual) was really prime-time material and whether it wouldnŐt be better to make him an organic wine-grower instead.

Then a final attempt was made after a forced link-up between the SWR and MDR. According to rumour, a detailed nine-page document issued by both broadcasters will be used to help ÔoptimiseŐ ReitzŐs and BrŸssigŐs scripts. Naturally, what else? Should a further compromise solution arise from this, which is not at all certain, then the new scripts will have to be judged by all of the ARD, as represented by those four single-minded female directorsÉ

If, in the meantime, Reitz might have been annoyed by all this, he certainly wouldnŐt let this show to a stranger. Other contacts are less reserved; they even call it a scandal, the way the ARD runs rings around world-famous writers. Perhaps the greater scandal, however, is that in doing so, it is going against the rule of the law. The ARD is not a sweet factory; itŐs not even a commercial business whose success might be measured in terms of profit, market share and the demand of the widest audience. Stuve and Kellermeier might be notorious for being enthusiastic about themselves and their institution when, yet again, they have succeeded with (without reflecting badly on the previously quite high-brow image of ARD) The best of the Musikantenstadl and ARD-Lachparade; managing to knock the competition into place. But their purpose isnŐt to make business.

Their purpose is set down in the regulations covering broadcasting and in international treaties and is cited by the constitutional court, as and when required, as a justification for the charging of licence fees and for their favourable tax conditions as compared to commercial broadcasters. These rulings state that the activities of the broadcaster "are not commercial" and that the public broadcasters have "a range of programmes on offer, which is independent of viewing figures and advertising income and which meets constitutional requirements governing representational and proportional variety."

In short, this means that itŐs not just a matter of KellermeierŐs and StruveŐs opinions and tastes as to whether TV drama is suitable for broadcast or not. Maybe the judges should watch a bit more television.

HERBERT RIEHL-HEYSE

Translated into English by Shona Spence. The original text of this article was published in German in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung on 5 August 2000 and can be accessed on the Internet at http://www.szarchiv.de/REGIS_A10903097

Letters to the Editor of the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, 14th August 2000

Heimat 2000 Đ a view of GermanyŐs awakening