The key lessons learnt from producing the ABC

programme Talking Heads a talk show/documentary

hybrid in a fast turnaround environment

Jack King

HND: Business Studies (Aston Birmingham)

This exegesis is submitted as the written component for the degree of

Master of Arts (Research)

Film and Television Production: Creative Industries

Queensland University of Technology

2009

Supervisors:

Associate Professor Geoff Portmann and Associate Professor Alan McKee

iii

Abstract

The following exegesis will detail the key advantages and disadvantages of

combining a traditional talk show genre with a linear documentary format

using a small production team and a limited budget in a fast turnaround

weekly environment.

It will deal with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation series Talking

Heads, broadcast weekly in the early evening schedule for the network at

18.30 with the presenter Peter Thompson.

As Executive Producer for the programme at its inception I was responsible

for setting it up for the ABC in Brisbane, a role that included selecting most

of the team to work on the series and commissioning the music, titles and

all other aspects required to bring the show to the screen.

What emerged when producing this generic hybrid will be examined at

length, including:

The talk show/documentary hybrid format needs longer than 26’30”

to be entirely successful.

The type of presenter ideally suited to the talk show/documentary

format requires someone who is genuinely interested in their guests

and flexible enough to maintain the format against tangential odds.

The use of illustrative footage shot in a documentary style narrative

improves the talk show format.

iv

The fast turnaround of the talk show/documentary hybrid puts

tremendous pressure on the time frames for archive research and

copyright clearance and therefore needs to be well-resourced.

In a fast turnaround talk show/documentary format the field components

are advantageous but require very low shooting ratios to be sustainable.

An intimate set works best for a talk show hybrid like this.

Also submitted are two DVDs of recordings of programmes I produced and

directed from the first and third series. These are for consideration in the

practical component of this project and reflect the changes that I made to

the series.

v

Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................................................ iii

Table of Contents ...................................................................... v

Statement of Original Authorship ................................................. vii

Acknowledgements ................................................................... ix

Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................1

Chapter 2: The Literature Review ................................................5

2.1 Changes in documentary ....................................................... 5

2.2 The emergence of the talk show ............................................. 7

2.3 Practice led research ......................................................... 11

Chapter 3: Why attempt to hybridise two formats? ......................... 15

3.1 The commissioning of the series ............................................ 15

3.2 The structure of the series .................................................. 16

Chapter 4: The key areas that emerged ....................................... 19

4.1 The talk show/documentary hybrid format needs longer than 26’30” to be entirely successful ............................................ 19

4.2 The type of presenter ideally suited to the talk show/documentary format needs to be someone who is genuinely interested in their guests and flexible enough to maintain the format against tangential odds ............................................. 21

4.3 The use of illustrative footage shot in a documentary style narrative improves talk show formats like this one ..................... 24

4.4 The fast turnaround talk show/documentary hybrid puts tremendous pressure on the time frames for archive research and copyright clearance. The budget in this area therefore needs to be very well-resourced ................................................................. 26

4.5 In a fast turnaround talk show/documentary format the field components are advantageous but require very low shooting ratios to be sustainable ................................................................... 31

4.6 An intimate set works best for a talk show hybrid like this ............ 33

Chapter 5: Conclusion ............................................................. 35

Bibliography .......................................................................... 39

Appendices ........................................................................... 43

Appendix 1: Talking Heads – Guest List and Audience Ratings 2007 ......... 43 Appendix 2: Producer’s Bible ...................................................... 45 DVD Examples .............................................................. Back Cover

vii

Statement of Original Authorship

This exegesis contains no material which has been accepted for any other

award for a degree or diploma in any other tertiary institution.

To the best of my knowledge and belief it contains no material previously

published or written by another person, except where due reference is

made in the text.

Name: Jack King

Signature:

Date:

ix

Acknowledgements

As a practising radio and television producer for the last thirty-nine years I

have entered the world of academia as an almost complete novice. Like all

professional environments the landscape was often difficult to understand

but, with the patience and guidance of an incredibly supportive staff I

have, I hope, learnt to adapt sufficiently to be worthy of an academic

award. It has been a fascinating journey, rewarding and frustrating in equal

parts but it has given me a much deeper understanding of the rigours of

intellectual scholarship and, in doing so, a much greater respect for the

discipline, learning and integrity of the university as an institution and a

place of learning.

For the opportunity to have been allowed to be part of this experience I am

profoundly grateful. I have been surprised at how hard the study has been

for me at times but, ironically, I feel I now have a much deeper

understanding of the media world that I have been committed to for most

of my working life. I would like to specifically thank Associate Professor

Geoff Portmann for offering me the chance to become involved with the

Creative Industries Faculty and for his advice and guidance. Helen Yeates

too has been a great support especially during my first year of lectures. I

would also like to pay tribute to the QUT library staff for their unfailing

helpfulness at all stages of my study. That also goes for Leanne Blazely, who

has since left, and her replacement Kate Symonds. Their constant

cheerfulness and understanding of the administrative system has been

invaluable to me. Finally, I would like to thank Associate Professor Alan

x

McKee for his constant enthusiasm and belief in me even when my own

insecurities and lack of academic understanding must have driven him mad.

I will miss our discussions and his unwavering confidence. For the time,

guidance and invaluable advice he has given me throughout this project, I

am incredibly grateful. To you all my heartfelt thanks.

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

This exegesis will explain the key lessons learnt when producing and

directing a generic hybrid that took an early evening talk show format and

combined it with field inserts shot in the traditional linear documentary

style. It was used in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s series Talking

Heads from its inception in 2005 until I left the show as Executive Producer

at the end of the third series in 2007. The intention was to profile

significant Australians from a variety of social and professional backgrounds

through three distinct phases of their lives: Early Life, Career Highlights,

and Current Situation. (See 2007 series guest list in Appendix 1.)

This study will examine in some detail this type of hybrid in the context of

a fast weekly turnaround of forty-two programmes per year in an

environment restricted by a limited budget and a very small production

team. The research is designed to give guidance to future production teams

that may be considering further experimentation in this programming area

and will examine some of the successes and pitfalls discovered along the

way.

In the modern television environment budgets are increasingly stretched

and network schedulers seem ever more reliant on the fast turnaround talk

and game show formats to provide weekly material over long runs at

minimum cost (Schattuc 1997, 66). The proliferation of channels coupled

with the worldwide economic downturn is likely to increase the pressure on

many practitioners to supply more for less (Dovey 2000, 72). This was

certainly the case in the scenario being examined with this project.

2

The intention here is to examine this alternative approach to the evening

talk show formula. This should subsequently prove useful to those

producers contemplating ways of developing interesting variations on this

form. In particular this research examines the practicalities involved in

producing a fast turnaround output with limited resources.

It should also help future productions to assess more accurately whether

these forms of hybrid are worth pursuing at all. Such decisions are rarely

easy. Many producers with a documentary background are unused to the

pressures of weekly television, current affairs journalists are frequently

unfamiliar with classical documentary approaches and fast turnaround

specialists from traditional magazine backgrounds do not necessarily

understand the style required for good concise documentary approaches.

This means that teams need to be put together with attention to the

flexibility of their skills. They also have to be able to get along together

effectively as weekly television has no space for prima donnas no matter

how talented. The make up of the production team is important in creating

a distinctive product in the ‘similar-yet–different’ landscape of broadcast

television (Newcombe quoted in Timberg 2002, xiii) something supported by

Sonia Livingstone and Peter Lunt in their research (Livingstone and Lunt

1994, 79).

Ironically, although I had an extensive long-form documentary background

with the ABC working as a writer/producer/director on episodes of A Big

Country, The Bush Tucker Man, The Flying Vet, Compass, Dynasties and

numerous others, I had not worked on fast turnaround shows since my

earlier career at the BBC. This was with their twice-weekly live magazine

3

programme Blue Peter in the early 1980's. However, I was surprised at how

quickly the lessons I had learnt in this previous programming environment

returned.

At the end of this exegesis are two episodes from the first and third series

respectively; these programmes illustrate the changes that took place from

the first to the third series as we honed the process along the way.

It should be pointed out that throughout the series I was the Executive

Producer; however, because of the pressure of the exercise, the small team

and the limited resources I produced and directed an average of five to six

episodes per year myself.

The submitted work featuring the broadcaster Clive Robertson and the

singer and dancer Todd McKenney are therefore my own work as a producer

and director. These are submitted as the 70% practical component required

of this research project on the DVDs attached.

Although much has been written about both the documentary and the talk

show as separate genres there appears to be no production material that

specifically discusses the talk show being combined with other genres on a

purely practical basis. The issues of fast turnaround series with limited

production teams and resources are therefore areas that I will address in

detail in the following pages.

Before exploring the programme practicalities, however, it is useful to

examine the development of both the documentary and the talk show.

These forms help us place Talking Heads in context and understand how it

relates to the respective genres being discussed (Mittell 2004, 96). In this

4

context a review of the academic literature reflecting the changes that

have become apparent in the last 15 years, first in documentary and then

in the talk show, will now be examined.

5

Chapter 2: The Literature Review

This literature review is primarily focused on an examination of material

that has seemed particularly relevant to the first three Talking Heads

television series for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

2.1 Changes in documentary

Bill Nichols is a documentary theorist whose name repeatedly recurs when

examining the subject. In particular Nichols’ categorisations of various

documentary modes: poetic, expository, observational, interactive,

reflexive, and participatory seem to have been useful in helping to define

the genre (Ellis and McLane 2007, 334). However his chronology of linear

development has been disputed, most notably by Stella Bruzzi. She suggests

that any sort of documentary genealogy is misplaced (Bruzzi 2000, 2, 3).

That said, it is interesting to note that, even whilst complaining of this sort

of reductionism, she uses Nichols’ “observational mode” as her own

reference (Hight 2001, 7). Unlike Bruzzi, many other scholars, like Hight,

acknowledge the intrinsic usefulness of Nichols’ modes in defining much

documentary output (Corner 2001, 358).

In the face of a rapidly changing television environment many academics

are now reassessing the whole issue of genre in the face of the increased

mixing and matching of so many formats (Edgerton and Rose 2005, 7).

Nichols too has since recognised that a “shift of epistemological proportions

has occurred” causing him to revisit some of his earlier observations on

modes of documentary production (Nichols 1994, 1, 93). This shift coincides

6

with the arrival in the late 1980s and early 1990s of what have

subsequently been dubbed “reality television series” and “docu-soaps”

(Bruzzi 2000, 75-78; Dovey 2000, 133; Winston 1995, 54).

These changes were made possible by the widespread introduction of new

breakthrough technologies, firstly the highly versatile DV cameras and

then, a little later, fast non–linear editing suites introduced between 1995

and 1997.

Their increasing acceptance throughout the industry revolutionised the cost

of collecting and editing material to an extent that had previously been

unimaginable.

In particular the speed that material could now be viewed, edited and re-

edited in the cutting room made it possible to incorporate more complex

documentary styles. This economy and efficiency was breathtaking when

compared to previous eras. The result was an explosion of creativity where

the types of documentary modes outlined by Bill Nichols were integrated

with other genres and styles. A typical example is the soap opera with its

episodic structure; hence the widespread use of the phrase “docu-soap”.

In spite of the advantages of technology however, there are still significant

limitations on what can be achieved in a fast turnaround environment as

illustrated in section 4.4 of this exegesis.

Richard Kilborn raises the question of “what legitimacy the new hybrid

forms of the factual (which clearly may have generic affinities with the

talk-show and the game-show) can claim to be documentary?” He

acknowledges that what is apparent is that traditional documentary styles

7

are being increasingly integrated into other generic forms. This view is

supported by many of his academic colleagues (Kilborn 2003, 5-6, 61,194-

195; Scott 1998, 228-229; Dovey 2000, 2, 139). It can be argued that this

burgeoning of different approaches to programming and blurring of formats

can be misunderstood by the public, as anything too unusual runs the

danger of becoming confusing (Berger 2002, 46; Kilborn and Izod 1997, 39).

However, given the very established position of television in our global

culture it is reasonable to assume that audiences are now sophisticated

enough to accept many changes to genre boundaries which is why television

is continually looking for new styles of programming (Livingstone and Lunt

1994, 6 ,37).

There is an increasing view amongst postmodern theorists that because of

the inter-textual knowledge audiences have of television genres, they now

have “an understanding that transcends and cuts across genres” (Casey,

Casey, Calvert, French and Lewis 2002, 110; Fiske 1987, 37; Wilson 2004,

187; Ellis 2000, 25-38).

As the mixing of programme styles becomes increasingly popular it is

evident that many more of these blurred genres will emerge, and if

successful, will be here to stay (Berman 2000, 60-61).

2.2 The emergence of the talk show

What is clear is that three major genres of talk show have emerged: “The

Early Morning News Talk Magazine”; “The Daytime Audience-Participation

Show”; and “The Evening Talk Show” (Timberg 2002, 5-9). These American

templates have now been replicated on networks worldwide and whilst Phil

8

Donahue is credited with moving the daytime audience format into a

participatory mode in 1967, it is interesting to note that Steve Allen set a

template much earlier. As far back as 1948, while he was at KNX Los

Angeles, he invited listeners to join him in the studio to participate in his

radio show which transferred to television in 1954. It seems extraordinary

that the basic set devised by his producer Sylvester ‘Pat’ Weaver for that

evening chat show still largely prevails today, as does Allen’s style of

impromptu comedy. Even the Tonight Show style desk has been around

since then providing a boundary between the guest and host and

establishing the “authority of the host over the guests” (Butler 2002, 101).

The impact of the set on final programme outcomes cannot be

underestimated, as explained in section 4.6.

Given the consistency of look in most evening talk shows it is hard to agree

with Jonathan Bignal that the genre of the television talk show has

undergone “significant changes”. He provides little evidence to support this

(Bignal 2004, 123) although he quotes Graeme Turner’s assertion that “the

cumulative effect of repeated tweaking of the content amounts to a

change in the genre” (Neale and Turner 2001, 6). Such a claim seems hard

to justify in the context of the way these programmes are scheduled and

styled. Although morning, afternoon and evening talk shows are

significantly different in style from each other they remain remarkably

similar in generic content in their allocated time slots (Mittell 2004, 58).

A useful contribution to the debate on the talk show comes from Louann

Haarman who argues that these programmes really have three important

9

sub–genres: “the audience discussion”; “social issues put in a personal

perspective”; and “personal and social issues as spectacle” (Haarman 2001,

31–65). This is not an unreasonable generalisation and would seem to refute

the changed genre view asserted by Turner. For every Oprah and Donahue in

America there is also a Tricia or Kilroy in Britain and a Kerri-Anne in

Australia. Indeed similar shows to these are replicated in most countries of

the world. The same can be said of the news talk shows. Indeed where

difference once existed there now seems increasing homogeneity; witness

the demise of most previously “serious” evening talk shows on British

television. BBC programmes like Face to Face ran from 1959 until 1962 and

featured many of the leading thinkers of the day. Shows such as this have

now largely been replaced by clones of American models like David

Letterman and Jay Leno.

These evening shows keep the emphasis firmly focused on entertainment

(Tolson 1996, 146). In this context it is significant to note that Barbara

Gaines, the Executive Producer of The Late Show with David Letterman,

refutes that it is a talk show at all, “I would most certainly call the show a

variety show not a talk show” (Kellison 2006, 232). This is interesting given

that the current trend for successful evening shows in Britain and Australia

emulates the style of Letterman’s programme right down to the set. Rove

McManus currently does it in Australia and before him, Steve Vizard.

Similarly, the most popular show of this type in the UK is currently

Jonathan Ross, again clearly a copy. Although dubbed talk or chat shows

they appear to reinforce Gaines’ opinion that they are really light

entertainment vehicles based around the personality of the host. It is this

10

importance of the interviewer’s role that I will examine in detail in

section 4.2.

It is hardly surprising that producing an obviously popular series for a

network brings with it its own rewards. Jeremy Tunstall discovered this

when he synthesised interviews with numerous working television

producers. It revealed their universal recognition that the better resources

and time slots inevitably went to the higher rating shows. The success of

Andrew Denton’s Enough Rope and Australian Story are cases in point at

the ABC. The importance of these programme resources and transmission

times will be discussed in further detail in section 4.1.

Tunstall also discovered that whilst the producers and hosts of these types

of show enjoyed a huge degree of autonomy in their choice of guests,

ultimately “they must live by the ratings” (Tunstall 1993, 151).

With the advent of “reality television” people from all walks of life are now

being given an increasing voice. This is something that has often been

denied them by the more traditional art forms (Corner 1995, 31; Scannell

1996; 141-152). Given this position John Hartley argues that the TV genres

including the chat show have increased the better qualities of our society

with “cultural citizenship on show”; he maintains these displays give us the

distinctions between what is, and what is not, culturally acceptable. These

are often colloquially referred to as “water cooler moments”. Even

deliberately extreme and provocative shows like Jerry Springer’s would

appear to serve only to expose behaviour that is patently not working for

its protagonists.

11

As Paddy Scannell points out, talk shows often offer society “a deepening

sense of its biography” (Hartley 1999,160; Scannell 1996,16; Scott 1996, 8).

We found this to be particularly true from the feed back we received from

many viewers and guests when we integrated historical footage into the

narrative as discussed in section 4.3.

2.3 Practice led research

The theoretical paradigm for this thesis is practice led research. This

methodology involves a practitioner working on creative practice and in the

course of doing so “returning to experience, attending to feelings, and

evaluating experience” (Boud et al. cited in Zwozdiak–Myers 2006, 18). This

allows the practice of creative work to become part of the data gathering

process. To achieve this end the data for analysis in this project was

triangulated from a number of different sources as a researcher-

practitioner. This approach allowed the project to be seen from a number

of different angles to form a “better picture” of the whole. (Gray and

Malins 2004, 121).

This was necessary to provide different perspectives in a situation where

personal involvement made absolute emotional and mental disengagement

impossible to achieve (White 2001, 1-14).

1. Reflection on experience.

In many careers the foundational skills are learnt almost by osmosis, by

actually doing the job involved on a day to day basis. This knowledge is

frequently taken for granted as it is often applied without having to

consciously reflect on the processes involved, something that can be

12

described as a “spontaneous knowing-in-action” (Schon 1987, 26). This

exegesis will follow the development of the programme Talking Heads, and

will analyse the gestation and development of the series in some detail. To

do this the adoption of practice led research methods offered the

opportunity to focus on the creative process itself, whilst being aware that

the “researcher-practitioner” must learn to become a “reflexive–

practitioner” (Johns 2000, 37). Self reflection was required to examine

practices built up over many years of application in both radio and

television environments. This knowledge rarely had any formal basis but

instead was often arrived at either through trial and error or the

compounded skills exchanged with other colleagues in the industry

(Cheetham and Chivers 2001, 270-292). In choosing the two programmes

submitted as practice led examples it was therefore necessary to examine

in detail the thinking behind them and the series as a whole. This is

explained in detail in Chapters three and four after reviewing the genres

involved and their place in the television industry. The limitations of self-

reflective research are the difficulties of bringing enough detachment to

the project being examined. Inevitably this is something that can never be

fully achieved (Schon 1983, 276–277). As a result it was also necessary to

adopt additional approaches to support this exegesis.

2. Programme requirements.

When a brand new series is mooted the expectations of the network

executives such as the Head of Television, the Chief Programmer and the

managerial accountants invariably set specific parameters for the

requirements of the output. Such demands influence structure and style

13

(Dillard and Solomon 2000, 167-175). Reflecting on these issues as part of

the research meant re-visiting notebooks and emails used to record

meetings before the transmission of Talking Heads began. There was also

subsequent material as the series progressed. The frequently didactic

nature of the discourse, both written and verbal, also provided useful

material when re-examined as part of this work. As executive producer for

the series my own dictates to the production team also bore examination.

This is why the “Producer’s Bible” I wrote for new field directors on the

series is included in Appendix 2. Similarly the guest list and comparative

viewing figures for the 2006–2007 series are included to illustrate the

intense scrutiny and monitoring that goes on. Even in the public sector

ratings, like budgets, have an enormous impact on the success or otherwise

of a television series. Again these areas are addressed in detail in the

subsequent chapters of this work.

3. Production paperwork.

The amount of paperwork generated by a weekly television programme is

enormous. Research notes, scripts, contracts, budget, transcripts,

copyright clearances and editing notes all proved to be useful sources of

reflection when re-examining the series and choosing the two programmes

to illustrate the practice being examined.

4. Emails and production meeting notebooks.

Looking back at various emails sent and received at different stages of the

series helped clarify the ongoing development of the show, as did the

weekly production meeting and post-mortem note books.

14

5. Viewers and critic’s responses.

Two useful sources for judging whether particular aspects of the

programme had worked were the feedback received from the viewers and

the comments of critics of the shows. Viewer reactions to broadcast

episodes of the programme on the website were immediate and often

insightful. These comments, coupled with the television critics’ more

analytical approach in the national press, allowed for a number of

viewpoints to be taken into account when working on the written

component of the practice. To this end both positive and negative

comments from some of their observations are included in later chapters.

6. Discussions with colleagues.

Like all professional organisations there is inevitably a hierarchical

structure. However, for television to really work successfully there has to

be a good team involved (Haseman 2005, 159) These team members need

to be prepared to work hard in their various roles for the overall good of

the programme and they need to be proud of it (Turnbull 2008, xi). As a

result, frequent conversations with my Series Producer, Presenter,

Researcher, Directors, Editors, Guests and Publicist all contributed to the

process with invaluable insights into the working practice.

Revisiting my own experiences, and the paperwork associated with the

project, allowed me to develop a number of insights into the creative

practice of producing a talk show/documentary hybrid in a fast turnaround

environment. These insights are presented in this thesis.

15

Chapter 3: Why attempt to hybridise two formats?

3.1 The commissioning of the series

Denise Erikson, then Head of Factual Television at the ABC, approached the

State Division in Queensland to tackle one of the ABC’s notoriously difficult

evening time slots at 18.30. However, the minimal budget she proposed for

the weekly thirty-minute show was considerably less than that of

Australian Story also based in Brisbane. The dilemma was how to deliver a

successful series outcome with the minimal resources on offer.

It was against this background that we addressed the setting up and

consequent delivery of the ABC series Talking Heads featuring profiles that

mixed the documentary form with the talk show environment.

As we have seen, the revolution in technology with the introduction of

extremely small, cheap digital cameras and editing suites has led to the

ability to shoot and recut material collected in the field at a pace

unimaginable two decades ago. Consequently Talking Heads was conceived

as an alternative way to profile interesting Australians. Profiles are not new

of course, but these styles of programme were usually either shot on

location or in the studio using a studio audience as a backdrop; the most

famous and ongoing example of this being This Is Your Life. The success of

Andrew Denton with Enough Rope led us to analyse his show’s popularity

and regular viewing confirmed our opinion that there were many instances

throughout his programme where visual illustrations, shot on location,

would have enhanced his interviews. Similarly George Negus Tonight had

16

previously had some success with a mixture of studio and location material,

leading us to commit to the subsequent Talking Heads format.

3.2 The structure of the series

The structure consisted of three 3-4 minute linear documentary-style

location sequences coupled with studio linking and traditional talk show

interviewing from the presenter Peter Thompson. As outlined, the

programme was split between three field sequences and the studio

component. The mini-documentaries always followed the same pattern:

Early Childhood, Career Highlights, and Current Situation. This format

proved invaluable for maintaining the linear progress of the narrative and

provided a simple but effective structure to cover background information

quickly. “This is a great device because it saves Thompson having to run

through routine questions” (Cuthbertson 2007, 30). “So much information is

packed in to the programme that it becomes not only biography but

Australian social history” (Hook 2007, 17).

However, not all critics found it to their liking. Matthew Condon claimed it

was confusing “like a televisual minotaur – half-documentary, half-

interview programme” (Condon 2006, 36). That said, we established an

average viewing figure of 350,000 to 450,000 and sometimes, depending on

the popularity of the guest, 500,000 plus. This translated into an average of

between nine to eleven percent of the viewing audience in its time slot.

This was a reasonably healthy figure for the ABC in the very competitive

early evening period traditionally dominated by commercial current affairs

and news shows. It quickly became apparent that the more familiar the

17

‘name’ of the guest the more likely the viewing figures were to go up but,

although the programme was attracting critical acclaim in many quarters,

it remained “something of a buried treasure in this timeslot” (Brown 2006,

15). These figures stood up well against Australian Story which had an

average of 800,000 to 900,000 at the prime time of 20.00 after heavy

network promotion.

I will now focus on the key lessons learnt when producing Talking Heads.

19

Chapter 4: The key areas that emerged

4.1 The talk show/documentary hybrid format needs longer than 26’30” to be entirely successful

Television is one of the most inflexible mediums to work in and

programmers are almost completely unforgiving if the allotted scheduled

time is exceeded by more than a few seconds. In most cases this can be

considered a good thing; it means that the final programme that ends up on

the screen has been honed and edited to the very best that it can be.

However, this is not always the case as episodes of Talking Heads revealed.

The programme length was a maximum of 26’30” and it rapidly became

apparent that this was not long enough to develop this format to its best

advantage. To elaborate, allowing for two thirty-second spots to top and

tail the programme, the body of the content was immediately reduced to

25'30. The three inserts based on Early Life, Career Highlights and Current

Situation ran, in total, for an average of 12'00” leaving the host, Peter

Thompson, a mere 13'30” to establish an on-screen empathy with the

guest. This led some critics, like Emma Sutherland, to complain that he

covered too much too quickly. Although she did acknowledge that, “given

the half hour time restraint, quite a lot of ground is covered” (Sutherland

2006, 17). Inevitably most guests had entertaining anecdotes that

frequently took several minutes to relate creating headaches in the cutting

room. We had to struggle to abbreviate the longer stories whilst

maintaining the integrity of their meaning. This became even more

frustrating when skilled raconteurs often revealed fascinating and very

20

amusing insights about themselves. This was excellent entertainment,

however, because of the limited length of the programme these

reminiscences often had to be either cut out altogether or severely

truncated.

In addition all good interviewers can identify insightful revelations when

they occur in a discourse and, quite correctly, use their instincts to follow

them. This we almost always allowed Peter to do during the recording but

frequently had to cut the material short for the broadcast. Naturally this

frustrated all of us, but in particular Peter as it often made him appear less

capable than he actually was. As reviewer Ann Maree Bellman observed

‘‘unpursued lines of inquiry can leave you feeling unsatisfied’’ (Bellman

2007, 24). Consequently many of the public and even the odd professional

critic, such as Scott Jenkins, lobbied for a new and longer time slot as a

“half an hour just isn't enough” (Jenkins 2007, 17; Butler 2009, 14). I would

advise any producers planning on developing this format to decline it unless

offered 45 – 55 minutes. It is my experience that once schedulers are

satisfied with the viewing figures they are less concerned with the

production team’s practical and aesthetic problems. This is particularly

true if these problems are primarily caused by limitations on budget,

allocated time and slot. Needless to say over three series there was

repeated lobbying for increased budget, length and scheduling changes but

they were never forthcoming. Interestingly, as the number of viewing

sources proliferate, scheduling is likely to become increasingly less

important, whilst the rigidity of the half hour and hour time formats

appears to be increasingly the norm. This is to allow the viewer an easier

21

selection method when viewing programming menus that now often run

into hundreds of choices. Most channels now start their programming on

the hour and half hour to allow for this (Lury 2005, 105). Whether the

increasing popularity of the web and YouTube in particular, will result in a

generational shift that will change this paradigm, remains to be seen.

4.2 The type of presenter ideally suited to the talk show/documentary format needs to be someone who is genuinely interested in their guests and flexible enough to maintain the format against tangential odds

In a talk show environment the role of the presenter is crucial to the

success of the project. If the public decide that the on-screen

representative is not to their liking the show will fail no matter how strong

the content. The challenge with this format is to find a television

personality who has a big enough on-screen presence to make an impact

whilst, at the same time, being empathetic enough to let the guest and the

documentary material breathe. This was particularly the case when the

studio components of the interview got split by the Early Life, Career

Highlights and Current Situation segments thus taking up nearly 50% of the

show.

The biggest problem in combining the two formats for the presenter

emerged very rapidly and in retrospect should have been obvious. It was

this – the viewer, looking at linear illustrations shot in the field, naturally

expected the interviewer to pick up on the last visual signpost they had

seen. That is inevitably what happened, but it then became necessary to

return the audience to earlier material in the “documentary” sequence to

develop the narrative properly. Introducing the sequences was easy enough

22

with variants on the traditional “well let’s see what happened to you next”

approach, but coming out of these sequences proved much trickier for

Peter from a continuity point of view.

Producers preparing to develop this format are advised to pilot several

presenters without auto cue, using pre-recorded inserts and enthusiastic

guests. This will rapidly reveal the hosts who can maintain the sense of

linear history even when distracted by guests who may be determined to

discuss a future segment before the previous one has been properly

explored.

In the absence of any credible analysis of what makes a good presenter I

offer these purely personal observations after 39 years of working closely

with them in both radio and television. In my experience almost all

presenters are a strange mixture of ego and insecurity. Observations lead

me to believe that, in the main, the most egocentric are those working in

the entertainment area of television. This can, of course, be a major

advantage in certain styles of show but for the purposes of a hybrid like

this they are far from ideal. This is because an ego driven host will resent

the intrusion of the field sequences and will not be genuinely interested in

the guests who they will see primarily as mere adjuncts to their own

personality.

As a case in point it has been noticed that David Letterman often shows a

“visible lack of interest in many guests” (Weinmans, 2008, 57). Presenters

who have come out of a serious radio environment, as opposed to disc

jockeys, are usually genuinely interested in people, living as they do in the

23

much less rarefied atmosphere of a radio studio. Also, because of their

length of time on air everyday, they are usually much better at “thinking on

their feet” without the crutch of a script on autocue. The range and variety

of material they have to handle on most shifts, especially “drive”, usually

means that they are also used to making very rapid “gear changes” look

natural. In addition, the best of them can interview extremely effectively.

The problem is that few make a successful transition to television, unused

as they are to all its restrictions and the technical demands put on them by

the new medium. Many dislike this environment after the more casual and

flexible atmosphere of radio.

In the case of Talking Heads the appointment of Peter Thompson, a former

current affairs radio anchor with some television experience, was

fortunate.

He was used to a wide range of interviewing, could take frequent earpiece

direction and was genuinely interested in the guests’ wellbeing over his

own: “though he may lack Denton’s wit and Parkinson’s warmth, Thompson

is among the very few interviewers who keep the focus on the subject”

(Cuthbertson, 2007, 30). Therefore, to try and maximise smooth transitions

back and forth between the location items and studio sequences we worked

with Peter before every show. We anticipated likely responses from the

guest to the specific questions coming out of each insert sequence. We

then fashioned some potential ways to return to the start of the field

material. This was not always necessary but it was a concern that we were

always aware of and something Peter was always prepared for. The mini-

documentary elements also provided unexpected bonuses for the presenter.

24

As the inserts were never shown to the participants before the recorded

interview, their impact, when seen for the first time, was consequently,

often mesmerising for the guest. Our research often unearthed material

from their past that many had forgotten about or not seen before. This

meant that there was often a surprised response from the subject in much

the same way that many of us react when discovering old family

photographs or artefacts. As Peter Thompson observed, “I believe you don't

really understand someone until you come to grips with where they come

from and what happened in their childhood” (Phillips 2005, 5). This had the

unexpected advantage of immediately opening them up emotionally to

Peter’s questioning and was, I believe, one of the major strengths of this

format. In addition, because Peter had already seen the inserts, we were

able to more closely fashion his questioning to suit the likely responses of

the guests.

4.3 The use of illustrative footage shot in a documentary style narrative improves talk show formats like this one

The biggest problem with the opening field sequence was accessing

relevant illustrative film of events and situations when guests spoke

passionately about school, landscapes, jobs or events from childhood.

Getting relevant archival material to match their anecdotes in a quick

turnaround environment put enormous pressure on our producers and

archivists. In traditional long-form documentary this is less of a problem

because the production time frames are far more generous. In spite of our

archivists best efforts we often had to rely on sequences of film that,

although historically accurate, did not directly depict the guest in every

25

situation. Thus Normie Rowe, Clive Robertson and Max Walker all shared

the same junior school footage. Major Les Hiddins and General Peter

Cosgrove were present at some of the same Vietnamese action sites and

several guests migrated to Australia on the same ship. At first we expected

vociferous protests from our interviewees but we were astonished to learn

that, providing the footage we had acquired had the right historical

context, they did not mind at all. In fact their usual reaction was that of

being transported back to a time that they had forgotten and now believed

to be almost part of their real experience. In other words, they became

almost as convinced as the unaware viewer that our stock footage was part

of their real history. This, in turn, quite frequently seemed to lead many of

the interviewees into their own memory banks in a much more effective

way than mere face-to-face questioning was able to achieve, another

unexpected benefit of this format. We also found it useful for the guests to

see their edited inserts for the first time at the recorded interview with

Peter. Their obvious delight and surprise at what they saw paid real

dividends in the subsequent interview sequences.

In some of the early programmes we trained a camera on their faces and

inserted their expressions in a small window over a corner of the field

material but soon dropped it as an unnecessary distraction.

There are ethical issues that this raises of course; how much should

programme makers lead the viewer to believe that the archival footage

they are seeing is the actual footage of the guest’s life? After all,

documentarists are often manipulative “in their attempts to represent the

real” (Kilborn 2003, 129). Interestingly in over 120 programmes it was

26

never raised as an issue by either the interviewee or the public. We

therefore concluded that, providing every effort is made to establish the

historical authenticity of the footage, the specific detail was less important

than the illusion of specificity. These were the major points that arose in

the first segments of the profile.

4.4 The fast turnaround talk show/documentary hybrid puts tremendous pressure on the time frames for archive research and copyright clearance. The budget in this area therefore needs to be very well-resourced

The “career highlights” sequences caused a completely different set of

problems invariably revolving around copyright. The most frequent request

from the public during the run of each series was for profiles of famous

Olympians and, quite specifically, Cathy Freeman. Although we tried on

more than one occasion to broker a “special” rate for Olympic footage the

fees asked for were always so high that our budget could not afford them.

To profile a world class sports person without being able to show the apex

of their sporting achievement is obviously something the public would have

found untenable. Consequently our most recent Olympians remained the

one group never profiled.

Indeed, copyright continues to become an increasingly complex issue as the

Internet, DVD, mobile telephone and digital outlets as well as the more

traditional publishing routes proliferate. Negotiating copyright clearances

therefore becomes ever more complicated.

Our attempt to combine the two genres of linear documentary and talk

show into one for Talking Heads presented its own quite specific copyright

27

problems. Traditional documentary practice on a fairly straightforward

series in a similar vein to the ABC’s Dynasties, which I also worked on,

would allow at least six weeks for the production of each episode. In

comparison, a network would reasonably expect a maximum of two to

three weeks to assemble an episode of a successful talk show. Talk-show

production, although complex in its own way, is a far more straightforward

process.

The basic requirements are to research and book the guests, look after an

audience when required and record and edit the event. If a documentary

component is added all sorts of other considerations immediately come into

play. Time must be added for field recording and editing including the

typing of transcripts if the dialogue or location interviews are to be used

for voice over. Archive footage to illustrate the narrative has to be located,

negotiated and cleared for use before serious editing can begin. This is, of

course, all achievable. However, in the context of a forty-two week series

with an eleven-day turnaround and a small budget, even by traditional chat

show standards what we were attempting was ambitious. Not surprisingly,

it transpired that the complexity of copyright locations, ownership and

clearances took up much of our time. To try and alleviate the problem we

dropped one of our two researcher positions from the budget and instead

used the saving to employ a full time copyright clearance specialist.

With an approximate budget of A$1,000 per episode and commercial

copyright purchases from other networks running at an average of A$1,000

for thirty seconds for four runs over two years, it was crucial to make sure

the material we were purchasing was the best available. Extra material

28

could be used under the rules of “Review and Criticism” and “Illustrative”

if we made sure Peter phrased his questions carefully during the studio

interview. These are notoriously vague definitions and although this is

potentially cost free it can be extremely restrictive, risky and sometimes

time consuming using footage in this way. As an example, in the Todd

McKenney programme submitted, we could not afford to buy his dance

sequence from Singing in the Rain. Fortunately, by judicious editing we

were able to build most of the sequence by collecting legitimately shot

rehearsal material that had been taken by ABC news crews from around the

country. Careful observers will note that the shots of the conductor in

yellow oil skins have no audience as a result.

Although techniques such as these enabled us to stretch our budget it was

also a difficult and lengthy exercise given the constant demands of the

weekly format. The copyright clearance assistant therefore needed to work

closely alongside the programme researcher to prevent the emergence of

shooting suggestions that were unlikely to be viable from a copyright

perspective. Typical examples that arose from the outset were extracts of

footage supplied by the guests on old VHS tapes recorded off air. These

tapes would often contain extremely useful material but the guests

frequently had little or no idea where the original material had come from

and tracking down sources and establishing correct ownership often

resulted in editorial brinkmanship. Ironically, individual photographs often

proved an even bigger problem as establishing the works of professional, as

opposed to amateur photographers, was often more difficult than we

anticipated.

29

As some of the costs had the potential to be as high as A$250 per picture

this meant that their use often had to be limited to say the least.

There is also a public expectation that virtually every programme made by

the ABC will now be downloadable. Each programme is accompanied by its

own website complete with guest book. The time when the production

team waited for audience reaction is long gone. Now viewer response is not

just by letter or telephone but by guest book entry, often immediately

after the show. Whilst being a marvellous tool for gauging the success of a

programme it also adds considerably to the work load if the production

team is as small as ours was. It also stretches audience goodwill when

repeated requests for downloads of favourite episodes are refused on the

basis of copyright restrictions.

Many people obviously saw this as an excuse and an example of bloody-

mindedness on the part of the Talking Heads’ team. They often could not

understand why they could download other ABC-made programmes but not

this one.

There are also sound economic reasons why a realistic copyright budget

should be far higher on the agenda at the planning stage of a series like this

and that is the spin off marketing afforded through the repackaging of the

material for books (two from Talking Heads have subsequently been

released) and DVD retail sales. In addition, given the voracious appetite for

repeats on digital and cable channels now and in the long-term future it is,

in my view, short sighted to restrict the exposure of many episodes to a

mere four runs over two years. This is particularly true of a series of this

30

type designed, as it is, to profile a who’s who of iconic Australians. For the

sake of thirty seconds of restrictive copyright most of the programmes will

be unable to be seen in the future without either considerable re-editing or

renegotiation.

A typical example of the importance of this came after the tragic death of

the rally driver, Peter Brock. He had been the featured guest on the show

just a few weeks before he was killed in a serious car accident.

Consequently, every network in the country was desperate for copies of the

episode as word spread about the comprehensive nature of our profile on

him. We were also inundated with requests from fans to release the

programme as a DVD. Needless to say copyright restrictions prevailed.

The expansion of ABC2 also meant that of the four runs over two years

negotiated, two were immediately accounted for within the first 24 hours

of the programme’s broadcast. This was because it was repeated the

following day as part of the ABC’s digital network.

As the series progressed I became increasingly convinced that, for a hybrid

like this to succeed, a realistic copyright budget is an essential.

My advice to any production team contemplating following our route is to

ensure at the outset that the series is properly resourced. This is easier said

than done in an increasingly tough economic climate but on reflection I

would not now attempt to accept the challenge of making this style of

programme on the resources we were given. To put this in context we

operated on a fraction of the Australian Story budget. They also worked on

a 6-8 week turnaround per episode compared to our 11 days.

31

4.5 In a fast turnaround talk show/documentary format the field components are advantageous but require very low shooting ratios to be sustainable

The final sequence of each programme featuring the guest’s current

situation was invariably where the format paid repeated dividends and was,

arguably, the most revelatory part of the show as a whole. There are

several reasons for this: shoots usually included a sequence inside the

guest’s house allowing an astute producer to pick up on the visual clues

around the place. They were then able to tip off Peter Thompson about

potential lines of questioning before the studio interview.

The film director Bruce Beresford’s study comes to mind where signed

photographs of country music stars lining his walls revealed his passion for

the music of Willie Nelson. Similarly, Diane Cilento’s meditation room

prompted questions on her Sufi beliefs and businessman Dick Smith’s

detestation of computers was revealed when he showed the crew around

his office. These and many other examples are illustrations of the success

of the combined format’s ability to reveal deeper insights than would

normally be uncovered in a straight talk show environment. Field

recordings also gave opportunities to friends, family and acquaintances to

give their insights into the guest’s life.

As with all good documentary filmmakers, our field producers were

deliberately chosen for their ability to reflect the guest’s personality

through the location recordings.

By way of illustration, in the two episodes submitted that I shot with Clive

Robertson and Todd McKenney I tried to reveal facets of their personalities

that would, hopefully, be surprising to many viewers. However, we had

32

little time to do this and therefore frequently had to short-hand the visual

language. Thus, Clive’s lost dreams of railways are reflected in the broken

carriages and Todd’s commitment to sign language and the deaf is shown at

a brief rehearsal.

This is no easy feat with a maximum of three days allocated for shooting on

location. Although the producers all had a history of long-form documentary

the general consensus was that the shortness of the sequences and the

limitations on time and travel made these some of the most challenging

programmes they had ever worked on.

The producers had to be extremely focused on their content, directing

efficiently with very tight shooting ratios rather than following an

increasingly common trend of “wallpapering” everything and then letting

the editor sort it out in the cutting room. Shooting ratios were expected to

be between 7:1 and 10:1. As my BBC training led me to believe when

shooting on film “it is dangerous to specify maximum shooting ratios, but

for the average documentary 8:1 ought to be a generous figure” (Croton

1986, 27). This may have been true in an era where film stock was

expensive but with the advent of tape and now hard drives things have

changed substantially. In my experience most documentary makers are now

coming in with shooting ratios considerably in excess of 15:1. This was

confirmed by conversations with editors working with our colleagues on

other projects in the adjoining editing suites. Our team was expected to

return to the efficiencies of film ratios and some, at first, found this

difficult. Transfer, shot listing, transcripts and viewing time all eat into a

programme budget very rapidly. There is also a considerable fatigue factor

33

placed on editors who have to work through large quantities of unnecessary

material, so the shoots were heavily planned.

Given the time limitations, locations also had to be within practical

travelling distances. Producers had to quickly form empathetic

relationships with both crews and guests and have a generosity of purpose

that allowed them to hand over revelations to the host, Peter Thompson,

that ordinarily their instincts as experienced documentary makers would

have inclined them towards shooting on location (see the “Producer’s

Bible” notes in Appendix 2). What is clear from this is that the documentary

component will be much more pressurised on a high turnaround series like

this and many long-form documentary makers will find it very difficult to

adapt, used as they are, to time frames of weeks rather than days.

4.6 An intimate set works best for a talk show hybrid like this

Anyone familiar with Brisbane will be well aware that the renovated

Powerhouse Arts Centre overlooking the river is a spectacular venue. In

particular, the former turbine hall now forms a three-storey high atrium of

enormous proportions. Ever since its opening I had wanted to use it as a

television location and in keeping with my desire to test the boundaries of

the standard talk show set, I now saw my opportunity through this new

series. In addition, the branch had an under-utilised outside broadcast van

and local crew, so the combination of the two seemed ideal. Thus

negotiated we started recording the first series using the massive open

space as a backdrop for the programme.

34

Although this multi-camera outside broadcast set up was useful in allowing

us to do most of the interview assembly in the van, the sheer size of the

venue tended to detract from the intimacy between Peter and his guests

(see the Clive Robertson interview). In addition we used separate single

chairs rather than a couch to start with, further emphasising the distance

between interviewer and interviewee. It was only when renovations forced

us to move to the much smaller space at the Judith Wright Arts Centre in

Brisbane that we realised how much better the more intimate surroundings

were in helping Peter and his guests to relate to each other. As Peter

pointed out in a newspaper interview, “the new location has changed the

nature of the show” (Nicholson 2007, 3). At this location we used two

cameras in the traditional cross shooting set up and post produced from the

camera tapes back in the edit suite. By now a couch had also been adopted

which paid further dividends. Not only did it look better on set, but it also

allowed the guests more space to relax. These things are, of course

important, and I should have given them considerably more thought beyond

the desire to use an impressive televisual space.

35

Chapter 5: Conclusion

There are innumerable books and papers from both academics and

practitioners on the documentary and talk show formats as separate

entities and although many of them are good, useful contributions to the

canon on their respective genres, none deal with the specific practicalities

of mixing these two formats. What I have tried to achieve here is a realistic

assessment of the potential advantages and disadvantages of trying to

combine the two in an entertaining way for a mainstream audience. What I

find surprising is that it has not already occurred more often as the two

styles seem, in many ways, to be complementary bedfellows. It is a hybrid

format that I believe lends itself superbly to the personality profile in

particular. The ongoing longevity of This Is Your Life is a testament to the

public’s continuing obsession with people in the public eye which; rather

than abating, seems to be gathering momentum. Instead of dwelling on

interminable practised anecdotes, tired jokes and plugs for current

projects this format allows for a very real look at a guest’s life and offers

the opportunity to discuss a whole range of topics raised by the

documentary component.

In addition, it allows the programme team to better analyse the direction

studio questioning should take. As an example family photographs,

favourite objects, hobbies, and surrounding environments shot in the field

can often bring real insights or raise questions that a straightforward studio

interview would not immediately discover.

36

An obvious disadvantage is the fact that to shoot with a field crew is a

more expensive enterprise than a straightforward studio discussion, but

given the likely benefits of increased audiences and a better quality of

discourse it is my view that these extra costs would be worth it.

If I had the opportunity to start such a series again I would insist on

minimum programme duration of forty-five minutes but would suggest that

the ideal time would be one hour. Most programmes benefit from rigorous

editing, however, in the case of this series I remain convinced that the time

restraints of the half hour on the format had a deleterious effect on the

quality of the finished programmes. Themes and revealing anecdotes

continually had to be cut to fit into the limited programme length.

The personality of the presenter needs to be carefully considered. Many

television presenters are used to working almost exclusively from scripts

and autocue and this does not make them good interviewers. Also many

have such narcissistic tendencies that they are only superficially interested

in the guest whom they can regard as merely a cipher for their own self

aggrandisement.

In my experience presenters with a solid grounding in radio broadcasting

early in their careers are more likely to be better at this format. Most radio

work requires the anchor to have to continually think on their feet. It is

also essential that the host of a programme like this has a good retentive

memory and can make time-shifting around material seem natural and

sequential.

37

The guest list needs to feature personalities with enough history and

interest to sustain the three segments of Early Life, Career Highlights and

Current Situation. The one-hit wonder, flavour-of–the-month icon is unlikely

to be able to hold an audience in this type of format for too long, lacking

as they do any longevity.

The programme budget needs to reflect the extra effort required to

maintain sufficient time for adequate research, proper field recordings,

archive assistance, copyright clearances and extra editing. In my view,

although we managed to make the format succeed the strain on staff and

resources was considerable and far too testing for comfort.

The use of a smaller, more intimate venue yielded far better results from

an interviewing perspective than a larger multi-camera set up in a bigger

environment. The traditional two-camera shoot with reframed introductions

and links worked well, was liked by the guests and took less time to set up.

I am also convinced that the introduction of the couch, as opposed to

separate chairs achieved the beneficial effect of reinforcing the connection

between the guest and Peter, although I have no concrete evidence to

support this.

Subsequent series, after I left, featured recordings on location in various

people’s houses. We did this occasionally when necessity demanded it but I

took the view, which I still maintain, that the viewer should be given a

consistent look during the interview segments of the programme to firmly

anchor the style. Similarly, the latest series, now made in Adelaide, has

dispensed with the linear documentary style using a more random approach

38

instead. Some viewers do not seem to like this style as this typical

comment on the Talking Heads website reflects, “The production quality

has been compromised this year...intrusive transitions and more shot styles

than the Iraqi conflict” (Atkins 2008). Again, I believe this to be a step

backwards but suspect that it reflects the extraordinary pressure that this

format puts on limited resources and time frames.

To sum up I find it surprising that there have not been more attempts to

mix the two genres of documentary and talk show. The advice offered here

along with the programme examples attached will, I hope, help future

productions clarify the style and move this type of integration further

along.

I leave the last comment to television critic, Karen Bishop, writing in the

Sydney Morning Herald when reviewing the second series end-of-year

compilation. She wrote, “This show has quietly gone from strength to

strength over the past year...the list is starting to read like a top notch

who’s who in Australian entertainment, medicine, culture and inevitably,

society...I look forward to its return next year” (Bishop 2006, 10).

39

Bibliography

Atkins, E. 2008. Talking Heads discussion forum. http://www.abc.net.au (March 21, 2008).

Bellman, A. M. 2007. Talking Heads: Iain Hewitson. The Age Green Guide. March 5.

Berger, A. A. 2002. Popular culture genres: Theories and texts. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.

Berman, R. 2000. How television sees its audience: A look at the looking glass. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.

Bignall, J. 2004. An introduction to television studies. London: Routledge.

Bishop, K. 2006. TV Previews. Sydney Morning Herald. November 27.

Brown, P. 2006. Idol Chatter. Brisbane News. April 5.

Bruzzi, S. 2000. New documentary: A critical introduction. London: Routledge.

Butler, D. 2009. Television review. Courier Mail. March 23.

Butler, J. G. 2002. Television: Critical methods and applications. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Casey, B., et al. 2002. Television studies: The key concepts. London: Routledge.

Ceiko, A. 2007. Genre television reviewed. Quarterly Review of Film and Video 24 (41): 81-83.

Chivers, G. and G. Cheetham. 2001. How professionals learn in practise! What the empirical research found. Journal of Industrial Training 25 (5): 270-292.

Condon, M. 2006. Talking Heads: as ordinary as they come, Bryce Courtenay. Courier Mail. May 8.

Corner, A. R. J. 1988. New challenges for documentary. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Corner, J. 1995. Television form and public address. London: Hodder Arnold.

Corner, J. 1996. The art of record: A critical introduction to documentary. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Corner, J. 2000. What can we say about documentary? Media, Culture and Society 22 (6): 681-688.

40

Corner, J. R. 2001. Documentary in dispute. International Journal of Cultural Studies 4 (3): 358.

Croton, G. 1986. From script to screen: BBC Television Training Manual. London: BBC.

Cuthbertson, I. 2007. Talking the talk with dignity and warmth. The Weekend Australian. July 30.

Dovey, J. 2000. Freakshow: First person media and factual television. London: Pluto Press.

Eberhart, G. M. 2003. Television talk: A history of the TV talk show. College and Research Libraries News 64 (2): 121.

Edgerton, G. R. and B. G. Rose. 2005. Thinking outside the box: A contemporary television genre reader. Kentucky: University of Kentucky Press.

Ellis, J. C. and B. A. Mclane. 2007. A new history of documentary film. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd.

Fiske, J. 1987. Television culture. London: Routledge.

Haarman, L. 2001. Performing talk. In Television talk shows: Discourse, performance, spectacle, ed. A. Tolson, 31-64. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Habermas, J. 1989. The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hartley, J. 1999. Uses of television. London: Routledge.

Hight, C. 2001. Debating reality. TV Journal of Media and Cultural Studies 15 (3): 393.

Hook, C. 2007. Talking Heads: Glenn A. Baker. Daily Telegraph. September 4.

Jenkins, S. 2007. Seven Days: General Peter Cosgrove. Daily Telegraph. July 2.

Johns, G. 2000. Being and becoming a reflective practitioner. London: Blackwell.

Kellison, C. 2006. Producing for TV and video: A real-world approach. Oxford: Focal Press.

Kilborn, R. 2003. Staging the real: Factual TV programming in the age of Big Brother. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

41

Kilborn, R. and J. Izod. 1997. An introduction to television: Confronting reality. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Kozloff, S. R. 1990. Narrative theory. In Channels of discourse: Television and contemporary criticism, ed. R. C. Allen, 42-73. London: Routledge.

Livingstone, S. and P. Lunt. 1994. Talk on television: Audience participation and public debate. London: Routledge.

Lury, K. 2005. Interpreting the real. London: Hodder Education.

Malins, C. and J. Gray. 2004. Visualizing research: A guide to the research process in art and design. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Mascarenhas, A. 2005. The Guide: Bye George. Sydney Morning Herald. March 21.

Minh-Ha, T. T. 1993. The totalizing quest of meaning. In Theorizing documentary, ed. M. Renov, 90-107. New York: Routledge.

Mittell, J. 2001. A cultural approach to television genre theory. Cinema Journal 40 (3): 3-24.

Mittell, J. 2004. Genre and Television. New York: Routledge.

Myers, P. Z. 2006. The reflective practitioner. In A practical guide to teaching physical education in secondary schools, eds. P. B. S. Capel and J. O’Neil, 18-27. London & New York: Routledge.

Neale, S. and G. Turner. 2001. Introduction: What is genre? In The television genre book, ed. G. Creeber. London: British Film Institute.

Nichols, B. 1993. “Getting to know you…”: Knowledge, power, and the body. In Theorizing documentary, ed. M. Renov, 174-192. New York: Routledge.

Nichols, B. 1994. Blurred boundaries. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Nicholson, S. 2007. The many faces of Thompson’s Third Degree. Courier Mail: 3. Brisbane: News Limited.

Phillips, L. 2005. Television: A public peek at private lives. The West Australian Today. Perth: News Corporation.

Renov, M. 1993. Theorizing documentary. New York: Routledge.

Renov, M. 2004. The subject of documentary. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Scannell, P. 1996. Radio, television and modern life. Oxford: Blackwell.

42

Schon, D. A. 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Schon, D. A. 1987. Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Scott, G. G. 1998. Can we talk? The power and influence of talk shows. New York: Plenum Press.

Soloman, J. D. D. 2000. Conceptualizing context in message-production research. Communication Theory 10: 167-175.

Sutherland, E. 2006. Talking Heads: Bryce Courtenay. Daily Telegraph: 17. Sydney: News Corporation.

Timberg, B. M. 2002. Television talk: A history of the TV talk show. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Tolson, A. 1985. Anecdotal television. Screen 26 (2): 18-27.

Tolson, A. 1996. Mediations: Text and discourse in media studies. London: Hodder Headline Group.

Tolson, A. 2006. Media talk. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Tsiokos, B. 2009. Good advice, documentary do’s and don’ts from a veteran programmer. IndieWire 23 (6): 8.

Tunstall, J. 1993. Television producers. London: Routledge.

Turnbull, P., Ed. 2008. Talking Heads: The best interviews from the TV show. Sydney: Australian Broadcasting.

Weiman, J. J. 2008. Tonight’s guests who cares? Macleans 121 (3): 57.

White, M. 1989. Ideological analysis and television. In Channels of discourse: Television and contemporary criticism, ed. R. C. Allen, 134-171. London: Routledge.

White, S. 2001. Auto-ethnography as reflexive inquiry: The research act as self surveillance. Qualitative research in social work, ed. I. N. G. Gould, 14. London: Sage.

Wilson, T. 2004. The playful audience: From talk show to internet users. New Jersey: Hampton Press Inc.

Winston, B. 1993. The documentary film as scientific inscription. In Theorizing documentary, ed. M. Renov, 37-57. New York: Routledge.

Winston, B. 1995. Claiming the real: The documentary film revisited. London: British Film Institute.

43

Appendices

Appendix 1: Talking Heads – Guest List and Audience Ratings 2007

45

Appendix 2: Producer’s Bible

Producer's Bible.

We thought this programme on Stuart Wagstaff in the new series might

be a useful template to see what our essential "Talking Heads" style is.

It is not our best programme but it is a very good example of efficient

use of limited time and resources in the field and how to get the best out

of what you've got. With the exception of our production support team

every one of us has a shot a story we all know it's not easy in the time

frame and we really do understand the problems.

The first thing to note is that the guest was able to supply very few fam·

ily photo's and yet I suspect you hardly notice this given the way it's

edited. Similarly with a guest who was 80 and with our tight schedule (it

was shot in two days) the Producer had very limited locations to hand

but has used what she did have wisely.

The interview is slightly off camera as if Stuart was talking to Peter on

location, terrific. Please do the main Interview on location this way.

Secondly because the guest is used to TV there are plenty of good pieces

to camera. If your talent can handle it that's exactly what we want in

the other segments when they're doing things on location.

Thirdly if you look carefully there are hardly any locations, his house,

garden, theatre and the variety club office and yet it doesn't feeL that

way.

SimilarLy we could only afford one insert, the "BLankety Blank", however

it shows Stuart to his best advantage and its cut in such a way as to get

46

us back to the OB with Peter in a natural and strong way Le. the Giraffe

story. From an archive point of view the rest discusses his long career

using stock shots and some free "pilot" and award ceremony footage but

it looks very comprehensive.

We believe the "Talking Heads" insets are of an amazingly high standard

given the very tight time frames our budget allows. T hank you all for

your work so far. Try and give yourselves a break by not shooting too

much . Ratios are expected to be within 15:1 at the most. Remember if

your stories go over 3'30" 14'400" max we'll butcher them anyway!

Don't forget there are three distinct sections to be covered:

1. Early life, parents, influences, etc.

2. The glory years, impact of career, highs and lows, cross roads etc.

3. Where they are now, lessons learnt, the future, aspirations, & dreams.

Every good Producers instinct is to ten the fully story, however, in the

case of this show, the trick is knOwing when to stop to allow the narra­

tive to be picked up by Peter in the studio interview.

Your stories are the springboard; Peter's interview is the pool.

We hope this helps and once again thank you all for your efforts.