small>Benedict Cumberbatch as Stephen Ezard in The Last Enemy. Photograph: BBC
Is it wrong to judge a drama on its first episode? I only ask as, much as I applaud its ambition (and I do), The Last Enemy failed to deliver in its debut - and its debut was only half an hour short of the whole of The Silence of the Lambs.
This not the only reason I ask, of course. BBC3 is currently in the middle of broadcasting the six drama pilots it commissioned: Phoo Action and Being Human have been and gone, and there are four to go. The commissioning of pilots, five without the prospect of a series to tell the rest of the story, also raises the question of judging a drama solely on its first ep. With the exception of Phoo Action, which is getting a series, the "difficult first episode" is all there is to judge with this lot. (It's another blog entirely that questions the wisdom of commissioning a series of Phoo Action when the others - including my personal favourite, The Things I Haven't Told You - are yet to be broadcast.)
But I digress. First episodes are notoriously difficult: all that set-up - trying to establish the characters, the concept, the world contained therein - is a feat-and-a-half. (Which makes it 90 inches, no?) And there are plenty of reasons for this. Many first episodes are written to get a commission, before the hard work starts in earnest and the whole creative process kicks off properly. Some are rewritten, rewritten and rewritten again and bear no relation to the original idea that was, perhaps, dazzling, daring and absolutely compelling. In fact, some are so soiled by the fingerprints of commissioners and execs that the zing of the original idea is gone and all that remains is a limp compromise. (Indeed, many writers say that it's the broadcasters who, more often that not, ruin first eps, imagining the audience need to be spoonfed as to what's going on and who is who, so that they drag by, the audience simply getting bored at the TV equivalent of soggy rusks with which they are confronted. But then, writers would say that, wouldn't they?)
Whatever the reasons, when a show hits the ground running, it's exceptionally rewarding to watch. If you look at the first episode of ER, in which Carol Hathaway attempts suicide, or The West Wing, in which Sam accidentally sleeps with a prostitute, they are masterclasses in set-up, immediately involving and thoroughly gripping.
But I return to my original question: should you judge a drama on the first episode? Something like Blackadder didn't hit its stride until the second series - the same applies with Skins and This Life. There isn't the will in TV these days to give shows time to establish themselves or to find their feet/an audience.
And in a way, why should an audience give programme-makers the benefit of the doubt? Most of us have lives (most of us) and it's not as if there aren't plenty of other things to do instead of hanging out week after week just in case a drama hits its stride. Or perhaps there is and patience is indeed its own reward.
Because the third reason I ask if you shouldn't judge a drama by its first episode is that I have the season one boxset of The Wire sitting on my desk and I've heard the first ep is not-so-great. Yes, I am mentioning The Wire...
