Celebrity infuses television. There are films about celebrities‚ ranging from hagiographies to series such as Celebrities Behaving Badly. There are programmes presented by celebrities, some of them unlikely pairings (Paul Merton on China), others more appropriate (Stephen Fry on depression). And there are programmes in which celebrities are interviewed. Many viewers must feel that the number of celebrity-related programmes has greatly increased in recent years. A recent "urgent" email that independent producers received from the Channel 4 documentary department, calling for on-screen talent ("WHO IS THE FACE FOR US?"), shows how broadcasters believe that no programme is complete without a famous face.
In the competitive multichannel world, there is a great emphasis on getting a presenter who will attract viewers—especially to subjects which, at first glance, may appear unpopular. But television has always used presenters to bring viewers to programmes and it has always been interested in celebrity. In the 1960s, the BBC showed a long and successful series about the history of western civilisation, Civilisation: A Personal View, presented by the famous historian Kenneth Clark. Earlier still, John Freeman, a politician and journalist, interviewed famous people live in Face to Face. Among those featured were comedian Tony Hancock, radio personality Gilbert Harding and pop singer Adam Faith.
Celebrity and documentary values can conflict. Kevin Macdonald, director of The Last King of Scotland, started as a documentary-maker but gave it up because, "I got frustrated after a while with… making films where you are trying to show how somebody is a genius." The 2001 television documentary Being Mick, which took Mick Jagger as its subject, finished it off for Macdonald. Jagger himself asked Macdonald to make the film. But filmmaker and subject struggled for control, and the experience was a disaster. "It didn't end happily," Macdonald said.
Conducting searching interviews with the likes of Jade Goody and Abi Titmuss is actually a very good idea. Our knowledge of these people and what motivates them is so driven by the lethal mixture of their PR machines and the tabloid press that it would be fascinating to get behind all this and to gain a real insight into their minds and characters. The question is whether Piers Morgan is the person to do it.
The central premise of the series is to take an event where the celebrity was either sacked or resigned, tell the story behind it and use it as part of a wider examination of his or her life. Of course, Morgan, as a former editor of the Daily Mirror, has often been intimately involved in covering—and in some cases breaking—these stories; he knows what it is to be part of the tabloid pack pursuing the celebrity.
The Morgan style of interviewing is a slightly edgy flirtiness. He teases, flatters, fences with, and sometimes puts the difficult question to, his interviewee, but rarely forces the point. Most of his subjects are well versed in batting off awkward questions. "It's a private matter" and "it's a boring old story" were stock phrases used by Naomi Campbell in her interview with Morgan, along with a descent into psychobabble. On many occasions, Morgan just seemed to give up too soon. When he asked Campbell about her drug habit, her first parry was, "I have an addictive personality." Morgan came back with, "How long have you been clean?" Campbell: "I've gone back and forth." Now this was a real opportunity for more probing—what exactly does this mean, how much, what drugs, how often? Instead, Morgan asked: "Is it a real struggle for you?"
On other occasions, just when Morgan looked as though he was about to secure a hit, the programme would cut away to a soundbite from someone else—people with titles like "Naomi's mentor" or "fashion expert," as well as editors of various magazines and, occasionally, someone actually involved in the story being investigated. I imagine that the producers felt that we needed this variety of voices to hold our attention. I think they are wrong. "The best television is two people in a room talking," someone once said. This is one of those phrases which is not the complete truth but that does contain a great truth. If the people in question are interesting, with something to say, or if something important is happening, such television can be riveting to watch. Morgan shows enough promise as an interrogator that you feel that 45 minutes of just him and his interviewee would have been much more revealing. This is the second series of this programme; if there is a third, the producers should be bold and give this idea a try.
