Narrative In TV Drama

A couple wake up and go downstairs to breakfast. They do not realise that they are being watched by terrorists. While at work, the woman (Fiona) and her colleague (Danny) are captured by the terrorists; who then contact her husband (Adam) demanding that the PM must withdraw the troops in Iraq if the hostages are to be released. A failed escape attempt by Danny and Fiona leads to Adam having to choose which one would be killed; however, after insulting one of the terrorists (in order to essentially choose for Adam) Danny is shot and killed. The team soon realise that the female terrorist with Adam is in fact a suicide bomber, planning to kill the PM and other Gov officials at the dinner event that he and Khatera are attending. Fortunately, Adam manages to play on her doubts and persuade her otherwise, obtaining the detonator and alerting everyone in the building. Fiona’s location is discovered and she is rescued just in time, before being burnt alive by the terrorist.

Narrative Convention:

Follows a classic 3-part narrative pattern, as described by Todorov, consisting of: An equilibrium, disruption and restoration of/creation of new equilibrium.

BEGINNING – The start shows a young couple; they are happy and clearly in love. They are waking up, going to work – a usual day in their life, nothing’s different. EQUILIBRIUM

MIDDLE – Officers are taken hostage; emphasis is on their release; we wait to see whether she will return to her husband and whether the terrorists’ demands will be given in to by the Government. DISRUPTION

END – The terrorists are caught and their plans are stopped, Fiona is rescued. There is a sense of a new EQUILIBRIUM, though Danny has been killed.

Most stories have happy endings to please the viewers. The sense of restoration of peace comforts the audience, and allows them to escape from the harsh realities of everyday life. Most stories are read/watched by the viewer for enjoyment and pleasure purposes; if the story were to have an unhappy ending, the viewer may find this less pleasing, if not a little upsetting. Through certain stories, we are able to suspend our belief long enough to empathise with the characters; we feel what they feel, therefore we want to experience a happy resolution with them too.

What starts as an ordinary, everyday morning, is suddenly threatened; this is a standard way of beginning a narrative because it establishes the equilibrium, so the viewer can see what the norm is and how the threat of disruption leads on to disorder and interference later on. Relationships between characters are established; in this case, we see the loving couple, happy together. We also see the two terrorists watching them form outside; this gives the viewer a sense of foresight in to what is likely to happen and we have to watch the rest of the programme to find out how/if equilibrium is restored at the end.

The audience are automatically being encouraged to take sides in this fight of ‘good’ vs. ‘evil’ (Levi-Strauss’ binary oppositions). The viewer sees Adam and Fiona together; they see how in love they are and instantly recognise them as the ‘good guys’. The fact that they are also Mi5 agents, fighting crime and evil, reinforces the likeability factor of these characters which adds to the empathy the audience have for them – they are innocent civilians, who do not deserve what is about to happen to them. When we see the terrorists in the car, spying on Adam and Fiona, we assume that they are the ‘bad guys’. We see them as outsiders (because they are foreign and are speaking in a different language), creating a subconscious barrier between them and the audience; we find it easier to relate to the loving couple rather than the terrorists. It is not until the characters’ stories are revealed that we might actually change our perception on who we initially thought was ‘good’ or ‘bad’.