Network star

What is the secret of AMC's success?

There may be more than one answer to the question "what do advertising executives have in common with drug dealers and the undead", but only one has three letters: AMC.

When the execs in question are those of award- munching series Mad Men, the drug dealers are led by Breaking Bad’s consecutive Emmy winning actor Bryan Cranston, and the undead are shuffling after former This Life star Andrew Lincoln in The Walking Dead, things start to make a little more sense. All of these shows have been - and continue to be - major successes in the UK whether on screen or through DVD sales, and they’re all from the stable of US cable channel AMC.

In a country where we’re used to consuming the latest products of HBO (think Sex and The City, The Sopranos, The Wire and, more recently, Boardwalk Empire or Game of Thrones) and Showtime (Dexter, Weeds, Homeland), while seeing those imports divided between our native channels, it’s easy to ignore where our favourite shows come from. However, the arrival of AMC’s latest original series, Hell On Wheels, illustrates just how far the channel has come in a few short years.

The network started life in 1984 as the American Movie Classics channel, designed to churn out films from the golden age of Hollywood all day long. It’s a bit ironic, then, that epic western series Hell On Wheels is the latest in a long line of original programming from a network that built its success on identikit Wild West movies. Perhaps even more so that it’ll be the first series on Turner Classic Movies who churn out . . . well, you guessed it.

AMC (who have conspicuously dropped the use of their full name) did dip their toe into original programming with Remember WENN in 1996, a series set at a fictional 1940s radio station, but it wasn’t until 2007 that they struck gold with a slow-moving period drama (allegedly rejected by both HBO and Showtime) that we now all know and love as Mad Men.

Charlie Collier, president and general manager of AMC, has overseen the network’s transformation, and has said that it’s precisely this desire to do things differently that has made AMC a success.

Five years ago, we had no scripted originals on our air. In the summer of 2007, we launched Mad Men and we followed that up with Breaking Bad. At the time, you had people saying, "Is AMC in this for the long haul?" We maintained, not only are we, but we are trying to do the kind of diverse projects that were really seen only on premium television. Our stated goal then, and it's still on my board now, is to produce premium television for basic cable.

The "premium" versus "basic" distinction is essentially the difference between subscriber-funded HBO and advertising-supported AMC, but, again, Collier would tell you that ignoring the conventional model is what has created some of the best television of recent times.

Here's a network that has questioned everything that networks have done conventionally and succeeded. Would anyone tell you to take a moody period piece and turn it into a serialised drama on cable? And then would they tell you to take a modern-day story about a high school chemistry teacher who deals crystal meth and make that you're follow up ad-supported lead? And the answer is no, but we did it.

Indeed they did, and after following up Mad Men with Breaking Bad, they had further success with The Walking Dead in 2010, before Hell On Wheels launched in the US in November as AMC’s second highest original series premiere with the all- important second series already in production.

That’s not to say it’s all been perfect, and, sandwiched between Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead, came a re- make of The Prisoner and then Rubicon, both of which died out over here on ITV1 and BBC4 respectively.

Furthermore, AMC’s commitment to doing things differently saw them bravely take on remake duties with international critics' favourite, Forbrydelsen  failing even to beat a repeat of Law & Order on Channel 5.

Still, a quick look at current TV schedules shows AMC’s impact, with Mad Men, The Killing and The Walking Dead all currently airing here and Breaking Bad season 3 arriving shortly on DVD (14 May). Hell on Wheels could well be another hit, with an impressively cinematic scope, scenery- chewing characters and the requisite balance of sharp dialogue, gore and intrigue. It’s even got an unknown actor as the steely- eyed lead with a mysterious past - now where have we seen that before? We’re looking at you, Jon Hamm.

As for why AMC’s shows have been so warmly received over here, it might be a little too easy to look to the network’s mantra of "story matters here", but it’s Hamm himself who articulates the secret: “There are a million different channels, and everyone is doing original programming now. But part of rising above the noise is having something different to say or a different approach.”

The cast and crew of AMC's Mad Men at the 2011 Emmy Awards (Photo: Getty Images)
Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: The unresolved Eurozone crisis

The continent that once aspired to be a rival superpower to the US is now a byword for decline, and ethnic nationalism and right-wing populism are thriving.

The eurozone crisis was never resolved. It was merely conveniently forgotten. The vote for Brexit, the terrible war in Syria and Donald Trump’s election as US president all distracted from the single currency’s woes. Yet its contradictions endure, a permanent threat to continental European stability and the future cohesion of the European Union.

The resignation of the Italian prime minister Matteo Renzi, following defeat in a constitutional referendum on 4 December, was the moment at which some believed that Europe would be overwhelmed. Among the champions of the No campaign were the anti-euro Five Star Movement (which has led in some recent opinion polls) and the separatist Lega Nord. Opponents of the EU, such as Nigel Farage, hailed the result as a rejection of the single currency.

An Italian exit, if not unthinkable, is far from inevitable, however. The No campaign comprised not only Eurosceptics but pro-Europeans such as the former prime minister Mario Monti and members of Mr Renzi’s liberal-centrist Democratic Party. Few voters treated the referendum as a judgement on the monetary union.

To achieve withdrawal from the euro, the populist Five Star Movement would need first to form a government (no easy task under Italy’s complex multiparty system), then amend the constitution to allow a public vote on Italy’s membership of the currency. Opinion polls continue to show a majority opposed to the return of the lira.

But Europe faces far more immediate dangers. Italy’s fragile banking system has been imperilled by the referendum result and the accompanying fall in investor confidence. In the absence of state aid, the Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena, the world’s oldest bank, could soon face ruin. Italy’s national debt stands at 132 per cent of GDP, severely limiting its firepower, and its financial sector has amassed $360bn of bad loans. The risk is of a new financial crisis that spreads across the eurozone.

EU leaders’ record to date does not encourage optimism. Seven years after the Greek crisis began, the German government is continuing to advocate the failed path of austerity. On 4 December, Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, declared that Greece must choose between unpopular “structural reforms” (a euphemism for austerity) or withdrawal from the euro. He insisted that debt relief “would not help” the immiserated country.

Yet the argument that austerity is unsustainable is now heard far beyond the Syriza government. The International Monetary Fund is among those that have demanded “unconditional” debt relief. Under the current bailout terms, Greece’s interest payments on its debt (roughly €330bn) will continually rise, consuming 60 per cent of its budget by 2060. The IMF has rightly proposed an extended repayment period and a fixed interest rate of 1.5 per cent. Faced with German intransigence, it is refusing to provide further funding.

Ever since the European Central Bank president, Mario Draghi, declared in 2012 that he was prepared to do “whatever it takes” to preserve the single currency, EU member states have relied on monetary policy to contain the crisis. This complacent approach could unravel. From the euro’s inception, economists have warned of the dangers of a monetary union that is unmatched by fiscal and political union. The UK, partly for these reasons, wisely rejected membership, but other states have been condemned to stagnation. As Felix Martin writes on page 15, “Italy today is worse off than it was not just in 2007, but in 1997. National output per head has stagnated for 20 years – an astonishing . . . statistic.”

Germany’s refusal to support demand (having benefited from a fixed exchange rate) undermined the principles of European solidarity and shared prosperity. German unemployment has fallen to 4.1 per cent, the lowest level since 1981, but joblessness is at 23.4 per cent in Greece, 19 per cent in Spain and 11.6 per cent in Italy. The youngest have suffered most. Youth unemployment is 46.5 per cent in Greece, 42.6 per cent in Spain and 36.4 per cent in Italy. No social model should tolerate such waste.

“If the euro fails, then Europe fails,” the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has often asserted. Yet it does not follow that Europe will succeed if the euro survives. The continent that once aspired to be a rival superpower to the US is now a byword for decline, and ethnic nationalism and right-wing populism are thriving. In these circumstances, the surprise has been not voters’ intemperance, but their patience.

This article first appeared in the 08 December 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Brexit to Trump