by DAVID ROLINSON

Dirty Business (2026),¹ a docudrama about sewage pollution by private water companies and the failures of the Environment Agency, cites sources and provides corroborating information through the use of on-screen captions. For example, when a whistleblower alleges that huge profits have been made whilst using “cuts as a smokescreen” for inaction, the information is cited via an on-screen caption led by an asterisk: the information comes from the “2015-2023 Funding Totals for Environment & Business, The Environment Agency” and that information was accessed due to a “Freedom of Information Request”. Through devices such as these “television footnotes”,² Dirty Business provides a reminder of the importance of “captioning”, which, as Derek Paget observed, “consists in direct address to an audience whether in the form of speech in voice-over, or of on-screen graphical patterns of words (still and rolling), or of both these things simultaneously”.³ Paget argued that captions have various functions, serving to “set the scene, put the audience in touch with ‘out-of-story’ events and characters, negotiate representation codes, guard against legal repercussions and pitch claims for authenticity of varying kinds”.⁴ The caption is a form of “label”, or “signpost”, providing “weight” or the “anchoring of images”.⁵

It is unusual for a docudrama to use on-screen captions during scenes to provide such footnotes. However, a more familiar form of captioning appeared at the start of Dirty Business. The episode begins with two successive captions. The first one states that “This drama is based on real events, extensive interviews and research”. The second states that “Some dialogue, characters and scenes – including some depictions of pollution – have been recreated for the purposes of dramatisation”.⁶ Such opening captions are disclaimers, which, as Paget argued, are a “specialised kind” of caption.⁷ This article explores a wide range of docudramas to discuss what disclaimers do and how they do this: for example, when a disclaimer warns that a docudrama is “based on a true story”, what does this claim mean and how does the visual presentation of that claim reinforce it? The article builds on the discussion of disclaimers in my new book, An Adventure in Space and Time (2026), reproducing some of that discussion but substantially extending it and providing many more examples.⁸

1. Dirty Business, wr./dr. Joseph Bullman, tx. Channel 4, 23-25 February 2026. The images in this article come from episode 3, tx. Channel 4, 25 February 2026. ↩

2. This phrase will be discussed later in this article. It comes from Leslie Woodhead, ‘The Guardian Lecture’, in Alan Rosenthal (editor), Why Docudrama? Fact-Fiction on Film and TV (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1999), p. 109. ↩

3. Derek Paget, ‘Disclaimers, Denials and Direct Address: Captioning in Docudrama’, in John Izod and Richard Kilborn, with Matthew Hibberd (editors), From Grierson to the Docu-Soap: Breaking the Boundaries (Luton: University of Luton Press, 2000), p. 199. ↩

4. Derek Paget, No Other Way to Tell It: Docudrama on Film and Television (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2011), p. 103. Second Edition. ↩

5. Paget, ‘Disclaimers, Denials and Direct Address’, p. 199. Paget is replying to phrases from (respectively) John Willis, ‘Tainted by the Fiction Faction’, Guardian Media Supplement, 16 November 1998, p. 9 and John Tagg, The Burden of Representation: Essays on Photographies and Histories (London: Macmillan, 1988). ↩

6. The final sentence in this disclaimer will be discussed later in this article. ↩

7. Paget, No Other Way to Tell It, p. 103. Second Edition. Paget referred to the disclaimer as a “specialised kind of opening or closing caption”, but this article focuses on opening captions. ↩

8. David Rolinson, An Adventure in Space and Time (Edinburgh: Obverse, 2026). Some of the discussion in this article, and that book, also returns to David Rolinson, ‘British Docudrama: New Directions in Reflexivity’, in Tobias Ebbrecht-Hartmann and Derek Paget (editors), Docudrama on European Television: A Selective Survey. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), pp. 199-227. ↩

by DAVID ROLINSON<\/h4>\n

Dirty Business<\/em> (2026),^{1<\/a><\/sup> a docudrama about sewage pollution by private water companies and the failures of the Environment Agency, cites sources and provides corroborating information through the use of on-screen captions. For example, when a whistleblower alleges that huge profits have been made whilst using \u201ccuts as a smokescreen\u201d for inaction, the information is cited via an on-screen caption led by an asterisk: the information comes from the \u201c2015-2023 Funding Totals for Environment & Business, The Environment Agency\u201d and that information was accessed due to a \u201cFreedom of Information Request\u201d. Through devices such as these \u201ctelevision footnotes\u201d,2<\/a><\/sup> Dirty Business<\/em> provides a reminder of the importance of \u201ccaptioning\u201d, which, as Derek Paget observed, \u201cconsists in direct address<\/em> to an audience whether in the form of speech in voice-over, or of on-screen graphical patterns of words (still and rolling), or of both these things simultaneously\u201d.3<\/a><\/sup> Paget argued that captions have various functions, serving to \u201cset the scene, put the audience in touch with \u2018out-of-story\u2019 events and characters, negotiate representation codes, guard against legal repercussions and pitch claims for authenticity of varying kinds\u201d.4<\/a><\/sup> The caption is a form of \u201clabel\u201d, or \u201csignpost\u201d, providing \u201cweight\u201d or the \u201canchoring of images\u201d.5<\/a><\/sup> <\/p>\n}

It is unusual for a docudrama to use on-screen captions during scenes to provide such footnotes. However, a more familiar form of captioning appeared at the start of Dirty Business<\/em>. The episode begins with two successive captions. The first one states that \u201cThis drama is based on real events, extensive interviews and research\u201d. The second states that \u201cSome dialogue, characters and scenes \u2013 including some depictions of pollution \u2013 have been recreated for the purposes of dramatisation\u201d.6<\/a><\/sup> Such opening captions are disclaimers, which, as Paget argued, are a \u201cspecialised kind\u201d of caption.7<\/a><\/sup> This article explores a wide range of docudramas to discuss what disclaimers do and how they do this: for example, when a disclaimer warns that a docudrama is \u201cbased on a true story\u201d, what does this claim mean and how does the visual presentation of that claim reinforce it? The article builds on the discussion of disclaimers in my new book, An Adventure in Space and Time<\/em> (2026), reproducing some of that discussion but substantially extending it and providing many more examples.8<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

What do disclaimers do?<\/strong><\/center><\/p>\n

The disclaimer emphasises the fact that some creative treatment is inevitable in the process of dramatising research: this signposts docudrama\u2019s mediating strategies but it also emphasises the documentary value of docudrama. As Paget observed, \u201cthe failsafe mechanism of \u2018labelling\u2019\u201d was developed by programme makers at Granada and \u201ctaken up by British regulators and policy makers\u201d.9<\/a><\/sup> One Granada programme maker, Leslie Woodhead, noted \u201cthe crucial importance of fastidious labelling and signposting\u201d in docudrama.10<\/a><\/sup> This helps to demonstrate the \u201cvariety of sources of varying status\u201d from which the docudrama will be \u201cderived\u201d \u2013 for example, on Three Days in Szczecin<\/em> (1976),11<\/a><\/sup> Woodhead and writer Boleslaw Sulik drew from \u201ca smuggled tape recording\u201d but also \u201cthe imaginative recreation of dialogue\u201d after \u201cdebriefing witnesses\u201d, so it was \u201cvital to signpost material to avoid as far as possible a confusion in the audience about levels of credibility\u201d.12<\/a><\/sup> These practices are not restricted to opening disclaimers: Woodhead described wanting to signpost \u201con a continuing basis\u201d while planning a docudrama about Solidarity in Gdansk shipyards: therefore, Woodhead noted, even \u201cbefore moving from research to scripting, we\u2019re exploring ways of building into the form strategies to permit the continuous clarification of sources, and status \u2013 in effect to try to evolve a kind of \u2018television footnotes\u2019\u201d.13<\/a><\/sup> <\/p>\n

However, disclaimers have been necessary given that, as Paget argued, the \u201cessential ambiguity of the image [\u2026] has crucial significance in law\u201d, because \u201cambiguous assumptions and structures underlie our interpretation of images\u201d.14<\/a><\/sup> Labelling is vital because docudrama is \u201chazardous and vulnerable\u201d: for example, Woodhead noted the international political controversy that accompanied Death of a Princess<\/em> (1980),15<\/a><\/sup> despite or because of its attempt to explore \u201calternate realities, the power of myth, and the elusiveness of objective truth\u201d.16<\/a><\/sup> Granada colleague Ian McBride observed that production teams called the disclaimer \u201cthe health warning\u201d, which was \u201cwritten largely by the lawyer to the everlasting pain and disgust of the writer and director\u201d, explaining \u201cthat composite characters are portrayed and dialogue has been created, that chronology has been changed \u2013 but that it\u2019s a true story\u201d.17<\/a><\/sup> As Paget observed, disclaimers can serve as a \u201cfending off of criticism\u201d.18<\/a><\/sup> The use of disclaimers to guard against legal repercussions has a wider history. Natalie Zemon Davis observed that, after the damages awarded against MGM for defamation after Rasputin and the Empress<\/em> (1934), many \u201cfilms have used some version of this disclaimer: \u2018The events and characters depicted in this photoplay are fictitious. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental\u2019\u201d, even when a film\u2019s account is drawn from collaboration with its historical subject.19<\/a><\/sup> Davis was writing specifically about history films, whose claims to authenticity are comparable to but different from those of docudramas. Paget observed that, in these \u201clitigious times\u201d, the old \u201cstandard rubric, such as \u2018No reference is intended to persons living or dead\u2019 or \u2018Based on a True Story\u2019, has been superseded by \u2018law-sensitive disclaimers\u2019\u201d20<\/a><\/sup> <\/p>\n

In those terms, Paget noted the phrase \u201cNo endorsement has been sought or received from anyone depicted\u201d21<\/a><\/sup> in the following long, scrolling disclaimer that appears at the start of Hostages<\/em> (1990): <\/p>\n

Between 1984 and 1992 more than fifty Western citizens were held hostage in Beirut. This film dramatises incidents which illustrate what happened to some of them. Dialogue has been created based upon publicly available material, interviews with former hostages, their friends and relatives, diplomats and politicians from the United States, Europe and the Middle East. No endorsement has been sought or received from anyone depicted. To compress six years into two hours, chronology has been changed and some events have been amalgamated. The names of minor characters have also been altered.22<\/a><\/sup> <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Therefore, docudramas have evolved specific methods to present disclaimers, with dominant practices but variations in wording and visual presentation. Playwright David Edgar argued that \u201cYou could chart the history of the docudrama by tracing its use of captions\u201d,23<\/a><\/sup> and, partly taking on that challenge, Paget asked, \u201chas there been an observable process of historical change in the form that is enshrined graphically<\/em>?\u201d24<\/a><\/sup> This article will therefore study the methods used in various docudramas, not quite charting the history of the docudrama through captions but examining recent docudrama practice.<\/p>\n

Disclaimers: examples and trends<\/strong><\/center><\/p>\n

A docudrama which seeks to explore the causes and nature of historical events, in particular tragedies or miscarriages of justice, will open with captions which emphasise its rigorous research, documentary value, or function as record.25<\/a><\/sup> In short, it defends its seriousness, contrary to Bill Nichols\u2019s argument that docudrama exists outside the \u201cdiscourse of sobriety\u201d associated with documentary.26<\/a><\/sup> Soberly presenting disclaimers as \u201cwhite letters\u201d on a \u201cblack frame\u201d, as noted by McBride,27<\/a><\/sup> has become so ubiquitous as to form one marker of docudrama as a genre. However, as Paget observed, \u201cstylistic flourishes\u201d emerged alongside \u201cnew technologies of factual inscription\u201d,28<\/a><\/sup> and programme makers have sought alternatives to words, given industry concerns that written text might form a \u201chiatus\u201d in the programme, leading to fears about \u201cthe logocentric dimension upon which the programme category once depended\u201d.29<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

The most widespread labelling practice first provides an evidential base then acknowledges the creative process required to communicate that evidence. The Hostages<\/em> disclaimer (above) clarifies research sources but also the creative process required to depict its findings: \u201cTo compress six years into two hours, chronology has been changed and some events have been amalgamated. The names of minor characters have also been altered\u201d. McBride\u2019s use of the word \u201ccomposite\u201d (above) usefully explains such amalgamation of several characters or events, but the word is rarely used in disclaimers in British docudramas: Paget noted the lengthy warning before the end credits of Hollywood film Dead Man Walking<\/em> (1995) about \u201ccomposite and fictional characters and incidents\u201d,30<\/a><\/sup> whilst the American serial The Looming Tower<\/em> (2018) states that \u201cThis story is inspired by actual events. Certain characters, characterizations, incidents, locations and dialogue were fictionalized or composited for dramatic purposes\u201d.31<\/a><\/sup> <\/p>\n

Appropriate Adult<\/em> (2011)32<\/a><\/sup> and The Moorside<\/em> (2017)33<\/a><\/sup> both state that \u201cThis is a true story. What follows is based on extensive research, interviews and published accounts. Some scenes have been created for the purposes of dramatisation\u201d. This combination recurs, with minor variations, across various docudramas. Little Boy Blue<\/em> (2017)34<\/a><\/sup> and Murdered for Being Different<\/em> (2017)35<\/a><\/sup> both state that \u201cWhat follows is based on extensive research, interviews and published accounts\u201d, the former adding that \u201cSome names have been changed. Some scenes have been created for the purposes of dramatisation\u201d and the latter that \u201cSome characters have been created for dramatic purposes\u201d. The Salisbury Poisonings<\/em> (2020)36<\/a><\/sup> establishes its evidential base in part by recapping the events it is dramatising, but it connects that base to the creative process by emphasising the programme\u2019s narrative focus on the people who were caught up in events: \u201cIn 2018 the people of Salisbury were faced with an unprecedented crisis. A chemical weapons attack on a British city. Based on first-hand accounts and extensive interviews, this is their story\u201d. Similarly, Coalition<\/em> (2015)37<\/a><\/sup> states that \u201cThis drama is based on real events and extensive research and interviews with key people who were there\u201d, and that \u201cSome aspects of dialogue and character have been devised for the purposes of dramatisation\u201d. A Song for Jenny<\/em> (2015)38<\/a><\/sup> clarifies that \u201cSome scenes and the order of events have been altered for dramatic purposes\u201d.<\/p>\n

Such statements support a claim to documentary value in the tradition of the British documentary film movement, in films such as Night Mail<\/em> (1936),39<\/a><\/sup> whose postal train interiors were shot in the studio, reconstructing or reenacting \u201cprior witnessed reality\u201d: therefore, as Brian Winston argued, their \u201cclaim on the real [\u2026] was not that the camera filmed things as they were happening, but that it filmed things as they had happened and been witnessed\u201d.40<\/a><\/sup> Documentary makers saw such techniques of restaging as \u201csincere and justifiable reconstruction\u201d because it was the only way to record events.41<\/a><\/sup> Docudrama disclaimers often invoke types of witnessing, which is again significant in documentary terms: after all, as Winston argued, documentary can mobilise witnessing in different ways (whether \u201cthe witness of the camera and\/or the film-maker\/informant\/subject\u201d), but \u201cWithout witness there can be no claim on the real, no \u2018documentary value\u2019, no documentary\u201d.42<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

When a docudrama seeks to expose institutional failings such as the 2018 Windrush scandal, a declaration of narrative focus can be a statement of editorial intent: Sitting in Limbo<\/em> (2020)43<\/a><\/sup> opens with captions that note the use by successive British governments of the term \u201chostile environment\u201d around migrant workers in 2007 and 2012 respectively, and archive footage of David Cameron and Theresa May speaking about immigration, to establish political context, before a caption explains that \u201cThis drama is inspired by the story of Anthony Bryan and others who were invited to settle in the UK in the post-war era. Certain names and events have been changed\u201d. The phrase \u201cinvited to settle\u201d adds an element missing from the politicians\u2019 rhetoric on immigration. (Glasgow Girls<\/em> (2014)44<\/a><\/sup> also provided context: \u201cWars in Iraq, Somalia and the former Yugoslavia mean millions of people have fled persecution and brutality\u201d and \u201cMany of those seeking asylum are sent to Glasgow\u201d. This appeared in the same week as other BBC programmes about immigration.) The phrase \u201cinspired by\u201d in the Sitting in Limbo<\/em> disclaimer echoes the \u201cbased on\u201d defence of dramatisation,45<\/a><\/sup> but some disclaimers discuss being inspired by their subjects, as we shall see.<\/p>\n

In establishing an evidential base, disclaimers often prioritise the use of written evidence. The Man Who Crossed Hitler<\/em> (2011)46<\/a><\/sup> opts for \u201cBased on real events and court testimony\u201d. A caption in The Legion Hall Bombing<\/em> (1978)47<\/a><\/sup> states that it is \u201cTaken from the transcript of a trial held at Belfast City Commission, September 1976\u201d. Instead of appearing against a sober black background, these words appear against a shot of seats in the courtroom set, emphasising the source material of this Play for Today<\/em> and its grounding in the record of the legal process that it critiques. Bloody Sunday<\/em> (2002)48<\/a><\/sup> calls itself \u201ca dramatisation of events in Northern Ireland on 30th January 1972\u201d and explains that \u201cSome scenes and dialogue have been created, but what follows reflects documented evidence\u201d. This disclaimer\u2019s white-on-black lettering is designed to resemble typewriter type. The Interrogation of Tony Martin<\/em> (2018)49<\/a><\/sup> is able to label itself not only as \u201ca true story\u201d but as a \u201cverbatim drama\u201d by stating that \u201cevery word\u201d is \u201ctaken from police interviews\u201d.<\/p>\n

Disclaimers that reference written evidence and take a visual form that resembles written evidence, as if claiming a greater evidential status for written or \u201cdocumented\u201d evidence, echo discussions about the documentary value of docudrama but also definitions of documentary. Alberto Cavalcanti, who made documentary and fiction, once said, \u201cI hate the word \u2018documentary\u2019. I think it smells of dust and boredom\u201d.50<\/a><\/sup> As I have asked elsewhere, is the word \u201cdocumentary\u201d a noun, with the result that we can call a film \u201ca documentary\u201d, or is it an adjective, as if saying that something has evidential value like a legal document?51<\/a><\/sup> After all, Derek Paget is able to state that, in comparison with researched drama such as NYPD Blue<\/em> (1993-2005),52<\/a><\/sup> \u201cTo be a docudrama is to be altogether closer to documents \u2013 to factual templates\u201d. Notwithstanding the health warnings that historians give to documents, labelling can make specific claims: for example, the two-part history documentary Armada: 12 Days to Save England<\/em> (2015)53<\/a><\/sup> superimposed over an actor the statement \u201cThe drama scenes in this series are based on new academic research and historical documents\u201d. The word \u201cpublished\u201d does something similar in The Sixth Commandment<\/em> (2023)54<\/a><\/sup>: \u201cThis is a true story. What follows is based on extensive research, interviews and published accounts, with some scenes created for dramatic purposes\u201d. This wording from \u201cThis is\u201d through to \u201caccounts\u201d is identical to the disclaimer used by Litvinenko<\/em> (2023),55<\/a><\/sup> but that split its disclaimer across three frames, with the third providing additional clarification that some names, scenes and characters have been created.<\/p>\n

The presentation of those last two examples as white writing on a black background is typical of current practice. This sober device presents particularly detailed labelling when a docudrama questions institutional narratives, as in Derailed<\/em> (2005)56<\/a><\/sup> on rail safety and Stockwell<\/em> (2009),57<\/a><\/sup> a documentary with dramatised sequences, about a killing by police. Derailed<\/em> states that \u201cThis is a dramatisation of real events. Although minor alterations have been made to chronology and some scenes created to aid clarity\u201d, it \u201cis based wholly on inquiry transcripts and personal accounts\u201d. The disclaimer also states that \u201cSome news footage has been used\u201d, which is necessary but also another archival claim. (The Dirty Business<\/em> disclaimer that I quoted earlier ends by clarifying that archival footage will be used but also that there will be further in-text captioning, as it states that \u201cAll real-life pollution footage is labelled\u201d.) Stockwell<\/em> calls itself \u201ca true story based on the testimony of police officers and eyewitnesses\u201d. Therefore, although it states that \u201cSome events have been simplified and some characters and dialogue created for the purposes of dramatisation\u201d, it connects these creative acts with documented official practices by adding that \u201cMost names are codenames given by the Court to protect individual officers\u2019 identities\u201d.<\/p>\n

Such determination to provide detail is epitomised by The Bombing of Pan Am 103<\/em> (2025),58<\/a><\/sup> which states that \u201cWhat follows is based on extensive research and interviews with the investigators, victims\u2019 relatives and residents of the Lockerbie community\u201d, and its warning that \u201cSome characters have been created and merged and scenes added for the purposes of dramatisation\u201d followed an explanation that \u201cHundreds of investigators on both sides of the Atlantic were involved in the case. Here they are represented by a small number of key characters\u201d. Death of a Princess<\/em> used a caption which explained that it was \u201cBased on interviews recorded in London, Paris, Beirut and Arabia between July and November 1978\u201d, but it was not insulated from the controversy that followed, despite that acknowledgement of details such as places, which are particularly significant given that controversy.<\/p>\n

Some disclaimers shed less light on process. A necessarily more general claim opens Three Families<\/em> (2021)59<\/a><\/sup> \u2013 \u201cBased on true stories. All names have been changed\u201d \u2013 whilst The Government Inspector<\/em> (2005)60<\/a><\/sup> superimposes \u201cBased on a true story\u201d in capitals over Mark Rylance\u2019s performance as David Kelly. The phrase \u201cbased on a true story\u201d acknowledges its own tensions \u2013 non-fiction\u2019s own narrative structures and the amount of latitude permitted by the disclaimer that its reconstruction is \u201cbased on\u201d research \u2013 but does not necessarily resolve them. As Paget noted, disclaimers do not necessarily anchor films to the \u201cout-of-story world\u201d, being different from the \u201cinformative caption\u201d in ways that potentially weaken \u201cthe mixed form\u2019s efforts to gain weight from an adjacency to fact\u201d.61<\/a><\/sup> Such adjacency underscores similar minimal disclaimers: Bradford Riots<\/em> (2006)62<\/a><\/sup> states that \u201cThis is a drama based on real events\u201d, United<\/em> (2011)63<\/a><\/sup> that \u201cThe following story is based on real events\u201d, and The Great Train Robbery<\/em> (2013)64<\/a><\/sup> that \u201cThe following drama is based on real events\u201d. A Very English Scandal<\/em> (2018)65<\/a><\/sup> has the standard \u201cBased on a true story\u201d whereas The Wipers Times<\/em> (2013)66<\/a><\/sup> states that \u201cThis is a true story\u201d. This phrasing is simultaneously bold (this is true, not based on truth) and uncertain: \u201cstory\u201d is a word common to fiction and non-fiction, so its use here does not clarify the process by which a story\/event is turned into a story\/programme.<\/p>\n

Therefore, as Natalie Zemon Davis argued of a voice-over in La Retour de Martin Guerre<\/em> (1982)67<\/a><\/sup> that described that film as \u201cnot a tale of adventure or imaginary fable, but a pure, true story\u201d,68<\/a><\/sup> such claims risk saying that \u201cTrue history simply exists out there, and is as available to be drawn upon as legend\u201d whereas, for Davis, \u201cour knowledge of the past is something we struggle for; it comes from somewhere, is created, fought over, and changed\u201d.69<\/a><\/sup> Such fighting takes place in the opening of the Peter Watkins docudrama Culloden<\/em> (1964),70<\/a><\/sup> from voice-over and dramatisation to the captions that signpost a position: \u201cAn account of one of the most mishandled and brutal battles ever fought in Britain. An account of its tragic aftermath. An account of the men responsible for it. An account of the men, women and children who suffered because of it\u201d.<\/p>\n

Some disclaimers are understated or seem incomplete as if encouraging active spectatorship. The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies<\/em> (2014)71<\/a><\/sup> states that \u201cWhat follows is drama based on real events…\u201d By the end of the docudrama\u2019s account of how newspapers treated Jefferies, it is difficult to see those three dots without adding \u201cterrifyingly\u201d or reading them as a disgusted tailing-off. UKIP: The First 100 Days<\/em> (2015)72<\/a><\/sup> is a hypothetical piece about future events, so its disclaimer statement that \u201cNone of the events that follow have actually happened\u201d warns about the potential consequences of the forthcoming election, as if the sentence could be concluded with \u201cyet\u201d. Speculative pieces have specific needs when claiming evidential value. Therefore, Dirty War<\/em> (2004),73<\/a><\/sup> which speculated about a bioterrorist \u201cdirty bomb\u201d attack on London, stated in white capitals on a black background: \u201cThis film is fiction, but the events portrayed and the information about UK emergency planning are based on extensive research\u201d. Elsewhere,74<\/a><\/sup> I have discussed the techniques used in the conditional tense docudrama, with its \u201cwhat if?\u201d approach, in pieces such as The Day Britain Stopped<\/em> (2003).75<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

The disclaimers that open biographical docudramas about celebrities and public figures also require a range of methods. Maxwell<\/em> (2007)76<\/a><\/sup> explains that it \u201cdramatises the final stages of Robert Maxwell\u2019s life. The sequence of events has been altered and some scenes and minor characters are fictional\u201d. Relating invention to minor<\/em> characters confirms the inevitability of dramatic compression. Archie<\/em> (2024)77<\/a><\/sup> splits across two slides \u201cThis is a true story\u201d and \u201cWhat follows is based on extensive interviews and intensive research. Some scenes and characters have been created for the purposes of dramatisation\u201d. This reinforces the familiar adjective \u201cextensive\u201d with the further adjective \u201cintensive\u201d. Lucan<\/em> (2013)78<\/a><\/sup> faced gaps in the historical record, so its disclaimer prefaces the familiar claim that \u201cSome scenes and characters have been created for dramatic purposes\u201d with the statement that \u201cMuch of this story is based on fact, though we have also included an element of speculation\u201d. Some television and showbiz biopics continue conventional methods: Eric & Ernie<\/em> (2011)79<\/a><\/sup> states that \u201cWhat follows is a dramatised version of a true story…\u201d, and Hattie<\/em> (2011)80<\/a><\/sup> states that \u201cThis film is based on a true story\u201d and \u201cSome events have been created or changed\u201d. Micro Men<\/em> (2009)81<\/a><\/sup> explains that it \u201cis based on real people and events\u201d, but \u201cFor the purposes of the narrative some scenes have been invented\u201d. The use of \u201cpurposes\u201d indicates that some disclaimers are more forthcoming about the purpose and nature of changes. Therefore, Burton and Taylor<\/em> (2013)82<\/a><\/sup> explains that it \u201cis based on a true story. Some scenes and events have been created or modified for dramatic effect\u201d, whilst Shirley<\/em> (2011)83<\/a><\/sup> adds a modifying \u201cbut\u201d to explain that it \u201cis based on a true story, but some scenes and events have been created or modified for dramatic effect\u201d.<\/p>\n

Some disclaimers relate their invention, and journalistic and archival research, to having been inspired by their subjects, who are therefore worthy of study. Bert & Dickie<\/em> (2012)84<\/a><\/sup> states that it \u201cis based upon and inspired by real events and people. Some scenes and dialogue have been invented\u201d, whilst Castles in the Sky<\/em> (2014)85<\/a><\/sup> \u201cis inspired by real events and the life of Robert Watson Watt\u201d, though \u201cSome characters and scenes have been created for dramatic purposes\u201d. Wodehouse in Exile<\/em> (2013)86<\/a><\/sup> simply states that \u201cThis film is inspired by real events\u201d, but other writer-led programmes, especially those associated with arts programming, give captions a curatorial function. For example, H.G. Wells: War with the World<\/em> (2006)87<\/a><\/sup> explains that its subject was \u201cthe founding father of science fiction\u201d, lists his key works, calls him \u201ca visionary and a prophet\u201d, clarifies that it presents \u201cthe story of his life, loves and utopian ideas\u201d and that \u201cAll the words spoken by Wells are taken from his autobiography and other writings\u201d, and sets the scene of his 1934 visit to Joseph Stalin in Moscow.<\/p>\n

Others relate their authorship to that of their subjects: Daphne<\/em> (2007)88<\/a><\/sup> simply has an author credit resembling those given to the programme\u2019s makers \u2013 \u201cBased on letters by Daphne du Maurier\u201d \u2013 whilst Arthur & George<\/em> (2015)89<\/a><\/sup> presents the disclaimer \u201cThe following is based on true events\u201d with an ornate first letter \u201cT\u201d as if handwritten, thereby alluding to its subject, writer Arthur Conan Doyle. A biopic focusing on television writer Eddie Braben, Eric, Ernie & Me<\/em> (2017),90<\/a><\/sup> has a functional disclaimer stating \u201cThe following is a dramatised story based on real events\u201d but its title sequence superimposes the credit \u201cWritten by Neil Forsyth\u201d on a typewriter, in horizontal balance with the programme title which has been typed as if by Braben. <\/p>\n

Some disclaimers are presented in the idiom of their subject, using and citing the individual people and their works as inspiration for the creative process of making that docudrama. For example, The Best Possible Taste<\/em> (2012)91<\/a><\/sup> opens with a pair of false teeth that not only state that \u201cit\u2019s based on a true story\u201d but also warn that the programme will contain \u201cnaughty bits\u201d, in the phrase and manner (in vocal impersonation) of its subject, DJ and comedian Kenny Everett. My new book includes substantial discussions of the disclaimer that opens An Adventure in Space and Time<\/em>, which is presented in the idiom of a 1960s BBC television continuity announcement of the sort that would have preceded its subject \u2013 1960s Doctor Who<\/em> \u2013 on broadcast and includes an unacknowledged quotation from a Doctor Who<\/em> story.<\/p>\n

My book discusses other examples,92<\/a><\/sup> including We\u2019re Doomed \u2013 The Dad\u2019s Army Story<\/em> (2015),93<\/a><\/sup> which presents its disclaimer in the style of the opening titles of an episode of BBC sitcom Dad\u2019s Army<\/em> (1968-77),94<\/a><\/sup> the docudrama\u2019s subject. That sitcom, set during the Second World War, presents its titles and writers in arrow-shaped boxes replicating military movements across a map of Europe. Each arrow that swipes across the screen is headed by a Union Flag arrowhead or appears in black as a large aggressive Nazi sweep. A Union Flag swipes left to right to say that \u201cSome scenes in this film are imagined\u201d, and beneath it another swipes right to left to shout: \u201cBUT DON\u2019T PANIC!\u201d This statement echoes Lance-Corporal Jones (Clive Dunn) from Dad\u2019s Army<\/em>, whose tendency to give the reassuring statement \u201cDON\u2019T PANIC!\u201d in a non-reassuring hysterical shout is replicated in the block capitals and exclamation mark. The title \u201cwe\u2019re doomed\u201d refers to another Dad\u2019s Army<\/em> catchphrase, the lugubrious prognostication of Private Fraser (John Laurie), and indicates that the docudrama claims to reveal the surprisingly difficult process of persuading the BBC to make what would become one of their most successful and best-loved programmes. Both statements are then obliterated from the screen by one huge black arrow that rises all-conqueringly from the bottom of the screen. The statement \u201cMost of this really happened\u201d is presented in white text on the black arrow, which replicates the visual style of the Dad\u2019s Army<\/em> titles and the sober disclaimers mentioned earlier.<\/p>\n

That statement, \u201cMost of this really happened\u201d, also reminds us that even conventional biopics make playful use of labelling. The Deal<\/em> (2003)95<\/a><\/sup> moves from a statement that \u201cAlthough some scenes and dialogue have been invented, this film is based on actual events and parliamentary record\u201d to an epigram: \u201cMuch of what follows is true\u201d. It attributes the quotation to the film Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid<\/em> (1969),96<\/a><\/sup> a playful reference point for the relationship between Labour politicians Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Filth: The Mary Whitehouse Story<\/em> (2008)97<\/a><\/sup> advises that \u201cThe story you are about to see really took place\u201d but adds \u201conly with less swearing and more nudity\u201d, not taking entirely seriously the concerns of clean-up-TV campaigner Mary Whitehouse. Mock-biopics are beyond the scope of this piece, but their disclaimers are comparable. Therefore, Jeffrey Archer: The Truth<\/em> (2002)98<\/a><\/sup> states that \u201cThis story is based on real events\u201d before adding the punchline: \u201cOnly the facts have been changed\u201d (rather than the names). Coup!<\/em> (2006)99<\/a><\/sup> uses huge lettering to drive home its punchline: \u201cSome of the names have been changed…\u201d \u201c…and some of them haven\u2019t\u201d.<\/p>\n

As I have explained elsewhere,100<\/a><\/sup> the idiomatic presentation of disclaimers is a regular feature of recent reflexive docudramas. As Jonathan Bignell observed, docudrama \u201chas mutated into a wide range of forms and formats, with a range of modes of address and aesthetic tone\u201d as part of \u201ca larger process of negotiation, experiment and competition with related fictional and factual television forms\u201d.101<\/a><\/sup> Paget identified docudrama\u2019s movement into a phase of \u201chybridisation\u201d, seeing the boundaries between documentary and drama as creatively \u201cporous\u201d instead of accepting criticisms that the boundaries are deceptively \u201cblurred\u201d.102<\/a><\/sup> Those developments have included docudramas which question the representational capacity of the media including docudramas themselves, resulting in varying degrees of reflexivity.103<\/a><\/sup> That trend has been reflected in some disclaimers: Paget perceptively noted that the \u201cfirmly indexical \u2018Mark This!\u2019 of the caption\u2019s pre-lapsarian innocence has given way to the relativising nudge and the self-deprecatory wink of post-modern knowledge\u201d.104<\/a><\/sup> Holy Flying Circus<\/em> (2011)105<\/a><\/sup> is a usefully excessive example of this, as a knowingly unreliable account of the opposition faced by the makers of Monty Python\u2019s Life of Brian<\/em> (1979)106<\/a><\/sup> and the docudrama\u2019s own reception and status at BBC Four, which is often presented in the Monty Python<\/em> style and tone: as Python<\/em> member and Life of Brian<\/em> director Terry Jones observed, Holy Flying Circus<\/em> is \u201cvery funny, but a mix of fantasy and reality\u201d.107<\/a><\/sup> Its disclaimer is playfully excessive, as a depiction of Jesus Christ tells the camera that \u201cMost of what you are about to see never actually happened. It\u2019s largely made up\u201d, before making a parallel with the Bible that a character played by Eric Idle (as played by Steve Punt) suspects may be \u201ccontroversial\u201d. The idiomatic nature of the pre-title sequence is heightened by rolling captions that heckle their docudrama labelling in ways that emulate Python<\/em> devices (\u201cIn London. In 1979. Have I just said that? I\u2019ve lost track\u201d). Playful disclaimers have appeared in various forms of fiction: for example, Hollywood horror film I Walked with a Zombie<\/em> (1943)108<\/a><\/sup> opens with the warning that \u201cThe characters and events depicted in this photoplay are fictional. Any similarity to actual persons, living, dead or possessed<\/em>, is purely coincidental\u201d.<\/p>\n

However, playful disclaimers do not necessarily destabilise the docudramas that follow. Then Barbara Met Alan<\/em> (2022)109<\/a><\/sup> presents its disclaimer after five minutes, as if on a piece of paper: \u201cThe following film is based on true events. Some names and circumstances have been changed for dramatic purposes\u201d. Generated crayon writing then crosses out \u201cdramatic purposes\u201d and replaces it with \u201cLAWYERS\u201d. As I have discussed elsewhere,110<\/a><\/sup> the written disclaimer that opens Marvellous<\/em> (2014)111<\/a><\/sup> has conventional wording \u2013 \u201cbased on a true story\u201d \u2013 but it appears in large bold block capitals against a yellow background. The presentation of the title in block capitals as \u201cMARVELLOUS\u201d similarly deviates from sober presentation and signposts its joyful tone in celebrating the unlikely but true life of Neil Baldwin, a man with learning disabilities who has served as a registered clown and in roles at a University and in English professional football.<\/p>\n

Early in Marvellous<\/em>, before the written disclaimer, the docudrama provides a distinctive visual disclaimer: the real Baldwin sits beside actor Toby Jones, in character as Baldwin. Baldwin says to camera that \u201cThis is my story!\u201d, and Baldwin\/Jones adds: \u201cRight!\u201d This appearance serves the main functions of a disclaimer discussed above: it is supportive and qualifying. It indicates the necessity of dramatic choices: indeed, the docudrama itself will flag those up. For example, Baldwin appears again later, to say that the scene then being dramatised \u2013 Baldwin scoring a goal for Stoke City in a friendly amidst frenzied celebrations \u2013 did not happen.112<\/a><\/sup> However, this knowingly excessive presentation is an appropriate reflection of the incredible fact that he did once play as a substitute for Stoke in a friendly. Baldwin\u2019s opening cameo is also supportive, showing Baldwin\u2019s involvement with the programme.<\/p>\n

Actors and the people they play have appeared as part of other docudrama disclaimers. Invasion<\/em> (1980),113<\/a><\/sup> which uses transcripts to recreate the events surrounding the Soviet Union\u2019s 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia, opens with archive footage before showing the real Zdenek Mlynar at a checkpoint. The use of archival sources (potentially including Mlynar) is foregrounded in the disclaimer, which is provided by a voice-over by Leslie Woodhead, the docudrama\u2019s director, rather than in writing. That voice-over includes the statement that \u201cHis account, recorded for us under detailed cross-examination, and supplemented by independent research in Western Europe and Czechoslovakia, forms the basis of the filmed reconstruction that follows. It is as accurate as our research can make it\u201d. Echoing the order of events in written disclaimers discussed above, the voice-over moves from establishing its evidential, journalistic base to the need for dramatic mediation: \u201cAll the characters in these events are real people represented by actors\u201d. This is demonstrated visually as actor Paul Chapman \u2013 the actor who will be playing Mlynar \u2013 enters the scene to stand next to, and talk to, Mlynar.<\/p>\n

As I have argued elsewhere,114<\/a><\/sup> some techniques in docudrama shed light on the concept of the \u201cbody too many\u201d, given that Nichols argued that historical fiction involves \u201ca body too many, namely that of an actor\u201d, whose \u201cvery presence testifies to a gap between the text and the life to which it refers\u201d.115<\/a><\/sup> Drawing from this, Paget observed that \u201cIn the body of the actor [\u2026] a kind of excess is enacted\u201d.116<\/a><\/sup> Bel\u00e9n Vidal noted that the subject and actor in the film American Splendor<\/em> (2003)117<\/a><\/sup> \u201cexist not in excess of each other, but visually side by side\u201d, which enacts the body too many with \u201can emphatic duplication of bodies\/subjects \u2013 a \u2018beside-the-body-ness,\u2019 so to speak\u201d.118<\/a><\/sup> Although such \u201cbeside-the-bodyness\u201d in docudrama has been placed in the context of \u201cthe deconstruction of the centred self\u201d in postmodernism,119<\/a><\/sup> such doubling in Invasion<\/em> underlines the docudrama\u2019s re-enactment methods to emphasise the journalistic research and intentions behind that re-enactment. Such appearances by the real people who have been re-enacted can potentially indicate their involvement or even endorsement, but their presence reiterates two major recurring elements of disclaimers: evidence and the inevitability of mediation.120<\/a><\/sup> <\/p>\n

Enemies of the State<\/em> (1983)121<\/a><\/sup> foregrounds its status as the story of Zdena Tomin. That is how the docudrama was billed \u2013 its TV Times<\/em> listing called it \u201cthe story of how one woman took on a Communist government\u201d, and how \u201chousewife\u201d Zdena Tomin \u201crose to become the dissidents\u2019 leader\u201d.122<\/a><\/sup> The pre-title sequence accompanies footage of a reenactment of events on 16 March 1977 with a voice-over that describes this as \u201ca day I won\u2019t forget\u201d. Present-day footage of the real Tomin and her husband Julius appears whilst a voiceover states that \u201cThis is a true story and my name is Zdena Tomin\u201d. The voice-over explains that \u201cThis is a personal account of how a group of people stood up for their rights in a Communist country and how they were then harassed and jailed.\u201d There is a cut to Zoe Wanamaker and Paul Freeman appearing in the reenactment, as the voice-over states: \u201cTo tell the story, English actors play our friends and the parts of myself and my husband\u201d (indeed, the cut comes on the word \u201cstory\u201d). Again, this draws attention to representation (and, before the voice-over even began, the reenactment depicted a film crew and photographer) and to the potential subjectivity of \u201ca personal account\u201d but as a way to \u201ctell the story\u201d of what happened. The end credits state that \u201cZdena Tomin\u2019s voice [was] read by Eva Kolouchov\u00e1\u201d.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, in Hillsborough<\/em> (1996),123<\/a><\/sup> Tracey Wilkinson plays Jan Spearritt stating to camera that \u201cThe Chief Constable of South Yorkshire said we shouldn\u2019t do the programme. It\u2019ll upset the families of the dead. I\u2019m one of those families. My son died at Hillsborough. And I want the truth\u201d. This is the second disclaimer, following a written disclaimer that states that \u201cThis film is a dramatised reconstruction of events between 1989 and 1991. Although there have been minor changes to chronology and certain events have been dramatised to aid clarity, this drama is based entirely on fact using court transcripts and eye witness reports\u201d. There is a sense of competing stories \u2013 the docudrama and its disclaimers reinforce the ways in which families and others contest the stories told by the police, The Sun<\/em> and the state \u2013 but the families\u2019 account is now effectively the official record, as the docudrama\u2019s devasting account has since been devastatingly vindicated.124<\/a><\/sup> There is a sense that disclaimers can make visible, or even play a part in, the sort of process that we heard about earlier: \u201cour knowledge of the past is something we struggle for; it comes from somewhere, is created, fought over, and changed\u201d.125<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

In that respect, the disclaimer that opens Against the Law<\/em>126<\/a><\/sup> raises interesting, even political, tensions. Against the Law<\/em> explores events leading up to the \u201c1967 Sexual Offences Act, which decriminalised homosexual acts in England and Wales between adult males, in private\u201d.127<\/a><\/sup> It combines dramatisation with participant interviews to provide testimony of what it was like to be a gay man in the period depicted by the docudrama. The disclaimer begins in familiar ways, as white text on a black background states \u201cBased on a True Story\u201d. Graphics and sound create the sense that the words have been typed across the screen, a technique which is motivated by the preceding scenes in which (Daniel Mays as) Peter Wildeblood, the author of the book on which the programme is based, types at a typewriter. The phrase \u201cBased on\u201d disappears, leaving on screen only \u201ca True Story\u201d. We have seen disclaimers that have used a minimalist \u201cThis is a true story\u201d (above), and this phrase affirms the centrality of these experiences, but this very act of insisting that this story is true is conducted by an act of erasure (the word \u201cact\u201d has multiple meanings in this historical context). This disclaimer plays with visibility and invisibility: what felt in 2017 like a cautiously optimistic depiction of the arrival of \u201clegislation [which] marks the beginning of this journey\u201d towards equality128<\/a><\/sup> feels in 2026 (also) like a warning.<\/p>\n

An Adventure in Space and Time<\/em> (2013)129<\/a><\/sup> opens with a disclaimer that is presented in the idiom of a period BBC continuity announcement, with a voice-over announcement spoken over an imitation 1963 BBC ident: \u201cThis is the BBC. The following programme is based on actual events. It is important to remember, however, that you can\u2019t rewrite history. Not one line. Except perhaps when you embark on an adventure in space and time\u201d. I have argued that this disclaimer \u201cis typical of docudrama disclaimers: it asserts that this docudrama is true\/real, depicting researched\/documented\/evidenced events [\u2026] whilst also signposting docudrama\u2019s mediating strategies. Therefore, it asserts that it creates\/modifies\/invents\/alters\/simplifies, in a process that is inevitable, ingrained in the genre and accepted by those who choose to continue watching\u201d.130<\/a><\/sup> To see how it does that, how it refers to a Doctor Who<\/em> historical story (without acknowledgement) to do this, how the disclaimer helps us to understand paratexts, and how disclaimers and docudrama practices help us to understand historiography and what (and how) school teachers were teaching in 1963, and how disclaimers can help us to understand the nature of docudrama and the nature of documentary, An Adventure in Space and Time<\/em> is out now<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Originally posted: 1 June 2026<\/em><\/p>\n

---

1. Dirty Business<\/em>, wr.\/dr. Joseph Bullman, tx. Channel 4, 23-25 February 2026. The images in this article come from episode 3, tx. Channel 4, 25 February 2026. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

2. This phrase will be discussed later in this article. It comes from Leslie Woodhead, \u2018The Guardian Lecture\u2019, in Alan Rosenthal (editor), Why Docudrama? Fact-Fiction on Film and TV<\/em> (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1999), p. 109. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

3. Derek Paget, \u2018Disclaimers, Denials and Direct Address: Captioning in Docudrama\u2019, in John Izod and Richard Kilborn, with Matthew Hibberd (editors), From Grierson to the Docu-Soap: Breaking the Boundaries<\/em> (Luton: University of Luton Press, 2000), p. 199. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

4. Derek Paget, No Other Way to Tell It: Docudrama on Film and Television<\/em> (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2011), p. 103. Second Edition. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

5. Paget, \u2018Disclaimers, Denials and Direct Address\u2019, p. 199. Paget is replying to phrases from (respectively) John Willis, \u2018Tainted by the Fiction Faction\u2019, Guardian<\/em> Media Supplement, 16 November 1998, p. 9 and John Tagg, The Burden of Representation: Essays on Photographies and Histories<\/em> (London: Macmillan, 1988). ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

6. The final sentence in this disclaimer will be discussed later in this article. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

7. Paget, No Other Way to Tell It<\/em>, p. 103. Second Edition. Paget referred to the disclaimer as a \u201cspecialised kind of opening or closing caption\u201d, but this article focuses on opening captions. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

8. David Rolinson, An Adventure in Space and Time<\/em> (Edinburgh: Obverse, 2026). Some of the discussion in this article, and that book, also returns to David Rolinson, \u2018British Docudrama: New Directions in Reflexivity\u2019, in Tobias Ebbrecht-Hartmann and Derek Paget (editors), Docudrama on European Television: A Selective Survey<\/em>. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), pp. 199-227. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

9. Paget, No Other Way to Tell It<\/em>, p. 99. Second Edition. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

10. Woodhead, \u2018The Guardian Lecture\u2019, p. 110. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

11. Three Days in Szczecin<\/em>, wr. Boleslaw Sulik, dr. Leslie Woodhead, tx. ITV, 21 September 1976. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

12. Woodhead, \u2018The Guardian<\/em> Lecture\u2019, p. 109 ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

13. Ibid. Rolinson, An Adventure in Space and Time<\/em>, looks at how the makers of An Adventure in Space and Time<\/em> considered (but decided against) the use of techniques comparable with on-screen television footnotes. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

14. Paget, \u2018Disclaimers, Denial and Direct Address\u2019, p. 199. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

15. Death of a Princess<\/em>, wr. Anthony Thomas and David Fanning, dr. Anthony Thomas, tx. ITV, 9 April 1980. For a short introduction to Death of a Princess<\/em>, see David Rolinson, \u2018Death of a Princess\u2019, Screenonline<\/em>, British Film Institute, undated (but written in April 2005 and posted in October 2005), available here<\/a>. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

16. Woodhead, \u2018The Guardian<\/em> Lecture\u2019, p. 110 ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

17. Ian McBride, \u2018Where are we going and how and why\u2019. In Alan Rosenthal (editor), Why Docudrama? Fact-Fiction on Film and TV<\/em> (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1999), p. 112. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

18. Paget, No Other Way to Tell It<\/em>, p. 103. Second Edition ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

19. Natalie Zemon Davis, \u2018\u201cAny Resemblance to Persons Living or Dead\u201d: film and the challenge of authenticity\u2019, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television<\/em>, 8(3), 1988, p. 269 ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

20. Paget, No Other Way to Tell It<\/em>, p. 103. Second Edition. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

21. Ibid., p. 98. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

22. Hostages<\/em>, wr. Bernard MacLaverty, dr. David Wheatley, tx. ITV, 23 September 1992. Here, as in the rest of the essay, I have quoted the disclaimer directly from the programme itself. I have bundled the text together into one paragraph, unlike its split presentation in the programme. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

23. David Edgar, Keynote address at the conference Reality time: A conference about factual drama on stage and screen<\/em>, University of Birmingham, UK, 1996, quoted in Paget, \u2018Disclaimers, Denials and Direct Address\u2019, p. 198. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

24. Paget, \u2018Disclaimers, Denials and Direct Address\u2019, p. 198. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

25. McBride noted that \u201cthe first thing that usually comes on the screen is a black frame with one word in small white letters: \u2018disclaimer.\u2019\u201d \u2013 McBride, \u2018Where are we going and how and why\u2019, p. 112. However, it is now so unusual for the word \u201cdisclaimer\u201d to appear in a disclaimer that I have omitted this from the discussion. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

26. Bill Nichols, Representing reality: Issues and concepts in documentary<\/em> (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), p. 60. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

27. McBride, \u2018Where are we going and how and why\u2019, p. 112. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

28. Paget, \u2018Disclaimers, Denials and Direct Address\u2019, p. 202. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

29. Ibid., p. 205. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

30. Paget, No Other Way to Tell It<\/em>, p. 103. Second Edition. Dead Man Walking, wr.\/dr. Tim Robbins, 1995 ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

31. The Looming Tower<\/em>, various, tx. Hulu, 28 February \u2013 18 April 2018. The image here is taken from the start of episode 1, which was shown in the UK on BBC Two on 26 April 2019. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

32. Appropriate Adult<\/em>, wr. Neil McKay, dr. Julian Jarrold, tx. ITV, 4-11 September 2011. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

33. The Moorside<\/em>, wr. Neil McKay, dr. Paul Whittington, tx. BBC One, 7-14 February 2017. The images accompanying this paragraph are from The Moorside<\/em>. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

34. Little Boy Blue<\/em>, wr. Jeff Pope, dr. Paul Whittington, tx. ITV, 24 April-15 May 2017. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

35. Murdered for Being Different<\/em>, wr. Nick Leather, dr. Paul Andrew Williams, tx. BBC Three, 18 June 2017. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

36. The Salisbury Poisonings<\/em>, wr. Adam Patterson and Declan Lawn, dr. Saul Dibb, tx. BBC One, 14-16 June 2020. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

37. Coalition<\/em>, wr. James Graham, dr. Alex Holmes, tx. Channel 4, 28 March 2015. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

38. A Song for Jenny<\/em>, wr. Frank McGuinness, dr. Brian Percival, tx. 5 July 2015. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

39. Night Mail<\/em>, dr. Basil Wright and Harry Watt, 1936. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

40. Brian Winston, Fires Were Started-<\/em> (London: British Film Institute, 1999), p. 20. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

41. Winston draws the phrase from documentary makers themselves, as in a definition of documentary from 1948 \u2013 see Brian Winston, Claiming the Real II \u2013 Documentary: Grierson and Beyond<\/em> (London: British Film Institute\/Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), p. 129. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

42. Brian Winston, \u2018Introduction\u2019, in Brian Winston (editor), The documentary film book<\/em> (London: British Film Institute\/Palgrave Macmillan), p. 8. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

43. Sitting in Limbo<\/em>, wr. Stephen S. Thompson, dr. Stella Corradi, tx. BBC One, 8 June 2020. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

44. Glasgow Girls<\/em>, wr. Joe Barton and Brian Welsh, dr. Brian Welsh, tx. BBC One, tx. BBC Three, 15 July 2014, BBC One Scotland, 19 July 2014. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

45. My use of the phrase \u201cbased on\u201d in this article refers to the wording of disclaimers and is not directly related to the useful phrases provided by John Corner when he recommended asking questions of docudrama in relation to \u201creferentiality\u201d: \u201cWhat tightness of relationship does the programme claim with real events? Is it using a \u2018based on\u2019 licence or attempting as faithful as possible a \u2018reconstruction\u2019?\u201d \u2013 John Corner, The Art of Record: A Critical Introduction to Documentary<\/em> (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996), p. 42. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

46. The Man Who Crossed Hitler<\/em>, wr. Mark Hayhurst, dr. Justin Hardy, tx. BBC Two, 21 August 2011. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

47. Play for Today<\/em>: \u2018The Legion Hall Bombing\u2019, wr. Caryl Churchill, dr. Roland Joff\u00e9, tx. BBC One, 22 August 1978. For a short introduction to The Legion Hall Bombing<\/em>, see David Rolinson, \u2018The Legion Hall Bombing\u2019, Screenonline<\/em>, British Film Institute, undated (but written in January 2005 and posted around April 2005), available here<\/a>. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

48. Bloody Sunday<\/em>, wr.\/dr. Paul Greengrass, tx. ITV1, 20 January 2002. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

49. The Interrogation of Tony Martin<\/em>, wr.\/dr. David Nath, tx. Channel 4, 18 November 2018. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

50. Quoted in Elizabeth Sussex, The Rise and Fall of the British Documentary<\/em> (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975), p. 170. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

51. For useful accounts of the etymology and use of the word \u201cdocumentary\u201d over the centuries, see Paget, No Other Way to Tell It<\/em> and Winston, Claiming the Real II<\/em>. My question, which I have asked in lectures over the years and most recently in An Adventure in Space and Time<\/em>, arises from those discussions. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

52. NPYD Blue<\/em>, various, created by Steven Bochco and David Milch, tx. ABC, 1993-2005. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

53. Armada: 12 Days to Save England<\/em>, dr. Robin Dashwood, tx. BBC Two, 24-31 May 2015 ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

54. The Sixth Commandment<\/em>, wr. Sarah Phelps, dr. Saul Dibb, tx. BBC One, 17-25 July 2023. The image accompanying this paragraph is the disclaimer from episode 1 of this programme. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

55. Litvinenko<\/em>, wr. George Kay, dr. Jim Field Smith, tx. ITV, 19-22 June 2023 ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

56. Derailed<\/em>, wr. Stephen Greenhorn, dr. Kenneth Glenaan, tx. BBC One, 20 September 2005. This was a single play but it was shown in two parts because it was split either side of the BBC News at Ten<\/em>. The image accompanying this paragraph is from this programme. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

57. Stockwell<\/em>, wr. Steve Walsh, James Reid, Jonathan Rudd, dr. Jonathan Rudd, tx. ITV, 21 January 2009. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

58. The Bombing of Pan Am 103<\/em>, wr. Jonathan Lee and Gillian Roger Park, dr. Michael Keillor, tx. BBC One, 18 May \u2013 2 June 2025. The image accompanying this paragraph come from this programme. Some of this docudrama was shot in the building that my office is in: indeed, the front entrance posed as the entrance to FBI Quantico. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

59. Three Families<\/em>, wr. Gwyneth Hughes, dr. Alex Kalymnios, tx. BBC One, 10-11 May 2021. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

60. The Government Inspector<\/em>, wr.\/dr. Peter Kosminsky, tx. Channel 4, 17 March 2005. The second image accompanying this paragraph is taken from this programme. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

61. Paget, \u2018Disclaimers, Denials and Direct Address\u2019, p. 200. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

62. Bradford Riots<\/em>, wr.\/dr. Neil Biswas, tx. Channel 4, 4 May 2006. The first image accompanying this paragraph is taken from this programme. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

63. United<\/em>, wr. Chris Chibnall, dr. James Strong, tx. BBC2, 24 April 2011. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

64. The Great Train Robbery<\/em>, wr. Chris Chibnall, dr. Julian Jarrold and James Strong, tx. BBC1, 18-19 December 2013. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

65. A Very English Scandal<\/em>, wr. Russell T. Davies, based on A Very English Scandal<\/em> by John Preston, dr. Stephen Frears, tx. BBC1, 20 May-3 June 2018. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

66. The Wipers Times<\/em>, wr. Ian Hislop and Nick Newman, tx. BBC Two, 11 September 2013. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

67. Le retour de Martin Guerre<\/em> [The Return of Martin Guerre<\/em>], dr. Daniel Vigne, 1982. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

68. Natalie Zemon Davis\u2019s translation of \u201cpas un conte aventureux ou invention fabuleuse, mais une pure et vraie histoire\u201d \u2013 see the next citation. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

69. Natalie Zemon Davis, \u2018Any Resemblance to Persons Living or Dead\u2019, p. 270. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

70. Culloden<\/em>, wr.\/dr. Peter Watkins, tx. BBC One, 15 December 1964. For a short introduction to Culloden<\/em>, see David Rolinson, \u2018Culloden\u2019, Screenonline<\/em>, British Film Institute, undated (but written in October 2004 and posted in December 2004), available here<\/a>. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

71. The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies<\/em>, wr. Peter Morgan, dr. Roger Michell, tx. ITV, 10-11 December 2014. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

72. UKIP: The First 100 Days<\/em>, wr.\/dr. Chris Atkins, tx. Channel 4, 16 February 2015. The image accompanying this paragraph is taken from this programme. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

73. Dirty War<\/em>, wr. Daniel Percival and Lizzie Mickery, dr. Lance Percival, tx. BBC One, 26 September 2004. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

74. See Rolinson, \u2018New Directions in Reflexivity\u2019. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

75. The Day Britain Stopped<\/em>, wr. Simon Finch and Gabriel Range, dr. Gabriel Range, tx. BBC Two, 13 May 2003 ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

76. Maxwell<\/em>, wr. Craig Warner, dr. Colin Barr, tx. BBC Two, 4 May 2007. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

77. Archie<\/em>, wr. Jeff Pope, dr. Paul Andrew Williams, tx. ITV, 23 November-13 December 2023. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

78. Lucan<\/em>, wr. Jeff Pope, based on The Gamblers by John Pearson, dr. Adrian Shergold, tx. ITV, 11 December 2013. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

79. Eric & Ernie<\/em>, wr. Peter Bowker, dr. Jonny Campbell, tx. BBC Two, 1 January 2011. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

80. Hattie<\/em>, wr. Stephen Russell, based on Hattie: The Authored Biography of Hattie Jacques<\/em> by Andy Merriman, dr. Dan Zeff, tx. BBC Four, 19 January 2011. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

81. Micro Men<\/em>, wr. Tony Saint, dr. Saul Metzstein, tx. BBC Four, 8 October 2009. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

82. Burton and Taylor<\/em>, wr. William Ivory, dr. Richard Laxton, tx. BBC Four, 22 July 2013. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

83. Shirley<\/em>, wr. Shelagh Stephenson, dr. Colin Teague, tx. BBC Two, 29 September 2011. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

84. Bert & Dickie<\/em>, wr. William Ivory, dr. David Blair, tx. BBC One, 25 July 2012. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

85. Castles in the Sky<\/em>, wr. Ian Kershaw, dr. Gillies McKinnon, tx. BBC Two, 4 September 2014. Castles in the Sky<\/em> and An Adventure in Space and Time<\/em> are discussed in David Rolinson, \u2018Docudrama \u2013 Notes #1: TV sets & TV Centre\u2019, British Television Drama, 30 September 2014, available here<\/a>. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

86. Wodehouse in Exile<\/em>, wr. Nigel Williams, dr. Tim Fywell, tx. BBC Four, 25 March 2013. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

87. H.G. Wells: War with the World<\/em>, wr.\/dr. James Kent, based on writing by HG Wells, tx. BBC Two, 30 September 2006. The images accompanying this paragraph are taken from this programme. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

88. Daphne<\/em>, wr. Amy Jenkins, based on letters by Daphne du Maurier, dr. Clare Beavan, tx. BBC Two, 15 February 2007. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

89. Arthur & George<\/em>, wr. Ed Whitmore, based on Arthur & George<\/em> by Julian Barnes, dr. Stuart Orme, 2-16 March 2015. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

90. Eric, Ernie & Me<\/em>, wr. Neil Thompson, dr. Dan Zeff, tx. BBC Four, 29 December 2017. The image accompanying this paragraph is taken from this programme. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

91. Kenny Everett: The Best Possible Taste<\/em>, wr. Tim Whitnall, dr. James Strong, tx. BBC Four, 3 October 2012. The image accompanying this paragraph is taken from this programme. This disclaimer is also mentioned in Rolinson, \u2018British Docudrama: New Reflections in Reflexivity\u2019. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

92. This paragraph and the next paragraph reproduce material from Rolinson, An Adventure in Space and Time<\/em>, but with slight additions. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

93. We\u2019re Doomed \u2013 The Dad\u2019s Army Story<\/em>, wr. Stephen Russell, dr. Stephen Bendelack, tx. BBC Two, 22 December 2015. The images accompanying this paragraph are taken from this programme. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

94. Dad\u2019s Army<\/em>, created and written by Jimmy Perry and David Croft, dr. David Croft, Harold Snoad, Bob Spiers, tx. BBC One, 1968-1977. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

95. The Deal<\/em>, wr. Peter Morgan, dr. Stephen Frears, tx. Channel 4, 28 September 2003. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

96. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid<\/em>, wr. William Goldman, dr. George Roy Hill, 1969 ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

97. Filth: The Mary Whitehouse Story<\/em>, wr. Amanda Coe, dr. Andy de Emmony, tx. BBC Two, 28 May 2008. The images accompanying this paragraph are taken from this programme. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

98. Jeffrey Archer: The Truth<\/em>, wr.\/dr. Guy Jenkin, tx. BBC Two, 1 December 2002. The image accompanying this paragraph is taken from this programme. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

99. Coup!<\/em>, wr. John Fortune, dr. Simon Cellan Jones, tx. BBC Two, 30 June 2006. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

100. This paragraph and the next paragraph reproduce material from Rolinson, \u2018British Docudrama: New Directions in Reflexivity\u2019 and Rolinson, An Adventure in Space and Time<\/em>, but with slight additions, deletions, or changes. See \u2018British Docudrama: New Directions in Reflexivity\u2019 for more on reflexivity as a tendency in recent British docudrama. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

101. Jonathan Bignell, \u2018Docudramatizing the real: Developments in British TV docudrama since 1990\u2019, Studies in Documentary Film<\/em>, Volume 4, Number 3, 2010, p. 196. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

102. Paget, No Other Way to Tell It<\/em>, p. 293 and elsewhere \u2013 see Rolinson, An Adventure in Space and Time<\/em> for more detailed discussion and citation. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

103. Rolinson, An Adventure in Space and Time<\/em> and \u2018British Docudrama: New Directions in Reflexivity\u2019 discuss some of the methods used in texts including the film 24 Hour Party People<\/em>, wr. Frank Cottrell-Boyce, dr. Michael Winterbottom, 2002. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

104. Paget, \u2018Disclaimers, Denials and Direct Address\u2019, p. 205. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

105. Holy Flying Circus<\/em>, wr. Tony Roche, dr. Owen Harris, tx. BBC Four, 19 October 2011. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

106. Monty Python\u2019s Life of Brian<\/em>, wr. Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, Michael Palin, dr. Terry Jones, 1979. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

107. Terry Jones quoted in Andrew Duncan, \u2018The joke that died\u2019, Radio Times<\/em>, 15-21 October 2011, p. 12. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

108. I Walked with a Zombie<\/em>, wr. Curt Siodmak, Ardel Way, dr. Jacques Tourneur, 1943. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

109. Then Barbara Met Alan<\/em>, wr. Jack Thorne and Genevieve Barr, dr. Bruce Goodison, Amit Sharma, tx. BBC Two, 21 March 2022. The image accompanying this paragraph is taken from this programme ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

110. I have never discussed Then Barbara Met Alan<\/em> before but the following discussion of Marvellous<\/em> selects some points from Rolinson, \u2018British Docudrama \u2013 New Directions in Reflexivity\u2019 and those points were partly revisited in Rolinson, An Adventure in Space and Time<\/em>. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

111. Marvellous<\/em>, wr. Peter Bowker, dr. Julian Farino, tx. BBC Two, 25 September 2014. The image accompanying the next paragraph is taken from this programme. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

112. This device echoes moments in 24 Hour Party People<\/em>, as discussed in Rolinson, \u2018British Docudrama \u2013 New Directions in Reflexivity\u2019 and Rolinson, An Adventure in Space and Time<\/em>. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

113. Invasion<\/em>, wr. David Boulton, dr. Leslie Woodhead, tx. ITV, 19 August 1980. For a short introduction to Invasion<\/em>, see David Rolinson, \u2018Invasion\u2019, Screenonline<\/em>, British Film Institute, undated (but posted on 1 November 2005), available here<\/a>. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

114. This paragraph reproduces material from Rolinson, \u2018British Docudrama \u2013 New Directions in Reflexivity\u2019 and Rolinson, An Adventure in Space and Time<\/em>. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

115. Nichols, Representing Reality<\/em>, p. 249. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

116. Paget, No Other Way to Tell It<\/em>, p. 158. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

117. American Splendor<\/em>, dr. Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini, 2003. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

118. Bel\u00e9n Vidal, \u2018Introduction: The Biopic and its Critical Contexts\u2019, in Tom Brown and Bel\u00e9n Vidal (editors), The Biopic in Contemporary Film Culture<\/em> (London: Routledge, 2014), p. 15. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

119. Ibid. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

120. For a short discussion of how the inevitability of mediation is a factor in documentary, not just docudrama, and that neither documentary nor docudrama can be judged in a reductive binary between objectivity\/fact and subjectivity\/fiction, see Rolinson, An Adventure in Space and Time<\/em>. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

121. Enemies of the State<\/em>, wr. Zdena Tomin, dr. Eva Kolouchov\u00e1, tx. ITV, 15 March 1983. The images accompanying this paragraph are taken from this programme. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

122. Enemies of the State<\/em> listing, TV Times, 12-18 March 1983, p. 44 ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

123. Hillsborough<\/em>, wr. Jimmy McGovern, dr. Charles McDougall, tx. ITV, 5 December 1996. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

124. For a short introduction to Hillsborough, see David Rolinson, \u2018Hillsborough\u2019, Screenonline<\/em>, British Film Institute, undated (but written in November 2004 and posted in January 2005), available here<\/a>. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

125. Natalie Zemon Davis, \u2018Any Resemblance to Persons Living or Dead\u2019, p. 270. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

126. Against the Law<\/em>, wr. Brian Fillis, adapted from the book by Peter Wildeblood, dr. Fergus O’ Brien, tx. BBC Two, 26 July 2017. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

127. Anonymous, \u2018Against the Law\u2019, BBC Two, BBC<\/em>, available here<\/a>. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

128. Anonymous, \u2018Against the Law\u2019, BBC Two, BBC<\/em>, available here<\/a>. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

129. An Adventure in Space and Time<\/em>, wr. Mark Gatiss, dr. Terry McDonough, tx. BBC Two, 21 November 2013. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li>

130. Rolinson, An Adventure in Space and Time<\/em>, p. 81. ↩<\/a><\/p><\/li><\/ol><\/hr>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":null,"protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[140,137,454],"tags":[30,37,31,504,115,27,515,516,58,452],"class_list":["post-8417","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-david-rolinson","category-essays","category-notes-on-docudrama","tag-1960s","tag-1970s","tag-1980s","tag-1990s","tag-2000s","tag-2010s","tag-2020s","tag-disclaimers","tag-doctor-who","tag-docudrama"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.britishtelevisiondrama.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8417","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.britishtelevisiondrama.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.britishtelevisiondrama.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.britishtelevisiondrama.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.britishtelevisiondrama.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8417"}],"version-history":[{"count":91,"href":"http:\/\/www.britishtelevisiondrama.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8417\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8556,"href":"http:\/\/www.britishtelevisiondrama.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8417\/revisions\/8556"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.britishtelevisiondrama.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8417"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.britishtelevisiondrama.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8417"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.britishtelevisiondrama.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8417"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}