On Sunday evening, Channel 4 screened Charlie Brooker's The National Anthem. I'm glad they did; the quality of the network's programming has eroded to such an extent that it should be applauded for taking risks. However, I didn't enjoy the show, and the outpourings of critical praise that have been lavished upon it baffle me. To my mind, it was both a bold endeavour and an absolute failure.
Naturally (and in keeping with the show's premise) I took to Twitter to air my opinion. In response to one of my more biting critiques, an individual responded by claiming that "it was a great commentary about the power of social media and how much more powerful it becomes when it concerns one person," a statement I entirely disagree with. Certainly, that's what the show set out to be, but in practise it was nothing of the sort, simply because the social media angle was never fully developed. Which is a pretty big oversight considering the denouement was premised upon the fictional public influencing events from their computers.
Unfortunately, rather than exploring how Twitter et al affect the way individuals interact with the world and impact upon current events, The National Anthem expected us to take it as read. That's fine, to an extent, as I'm sure we can all agree that social media has a massive impact on modern communication. But if your finale is a facsimile David Cameron fucking a pig, then the buildup to that moment needs to convince the viewer that such an outcome is believable. Having political advisors mumble something about public opinion shifting is not enough.
What it boils down to, for me, is suspension of disbelief. I'll go along with any narrative you put in front of me, no matter how ridiculous it may seem, as long as the execution is strong. It's up to the writer to convince the audience that the world they have created is plausible, that the situations presented could conceivably happen within that world, and that cause and effect is consistent within the parameters the writer has established.
The National Anthem portrayed the Great British public as slack-jawed morons staring at their telly boxes, eagerly anticipating a spot of bestiality featuring the prime minister. That's entirely believable - damn near everyone would watch such a spectacle, or at the very least try to before turning away in disgust. But then, by the internal logic the programme has embraced, wouldn't those same people be just as enthralled by the death of a princess? If the answer is "no," then the narrative needs to explain why that is the case. Once again, vague mutterings about "public sympathy" do not suffice.
Compounding this problem is the lip service paid to why the PM absolutely must go through with the act. Following a shift in public opinion, one of his advisors suggests that were the princess to die, his own safety and that of his family could not be guaranteed. On what grounds? What exactly are the social media-obsessed masses likely to do, other than tweet their condolences and create Facebook groups? Wouldn't these people just vent their anger impotently for a week or so, and then move onto the next big news story? Couldn't the likes of Facebook and Twitter be manipulated so as to get the public back on the prime minister's side? Surely The National Anthem should have answered these questions; instead, it was far too enamoured with its half-baked political satire to explore them.
It would be easier to forgive these flaws had it been a riotously entertaining hour of television, but following a strong start it tailed off badly, and completely fell apart in the final act. Once it became obvious that the tale was only going to end one way, it made for uncomfortable viewing. Which is fine in theory, as long as the discomfort is aligned to something else. But it wasn't. In the end, The National Anthem wasn't a though-provoking discourse on social media, it wasn't a blow struck to the political establishment, and it wasn't even particularly funny. It was nothing more than a one-note joke dressed up as social commentary, and the only insight gleaned was that Brooker might be losing his touch.
