TELEVISION

FT’s very own couch potato, STU NEVILLE, casts an eye over the small screen’s current fortean offerings

A cursory glance at the TV schedules will tell you that there’s a superabundance of UFO documentaries, ranging from the calmly analytical to the uncritically hysterical. UFO (Showtime, via Sky in the UK) is resolutely in the first category: indeed, with its use of montage and well-chosen background music it could almost have been made by Adam Curtis. Produced by JJ Abrams (with high production values as a result), this four-parter is an engaging attempt to objectively pull together at least some of the strands.

Episode one, after some necessary scene-setting, mainly focuses on the Phoenix Lights and the work of investigative journalist Leslie Keen, who has spent decades sifting through the evidence, such as it is, and has concluded that whatever its nature the phenomenon is taken very seriously at the highest level. The Phoenix sightings are neatly laid out: the multiple civilian and military witnesses, large-scale coverage, the initial enthusiasm of Arizona Governor Fife Symington – himself a witness – and his rapid cooling off in the face of the customary dubious USAF explanations. Keen, being used to official distractive chaff, isn’t convinced, pointing to potential leverage in the Governor’s case.

It isn’t agendadriven and doesn’t reach conclusions on our behalf

Episode two kicks off with the Kumburgaz video, shot in Turkey 2008, which seems to show convex craft with visible occupants: disappointingly, there’s no mention of Andrés Duarte’s theory that they were probably yachts reflecting lights from the shore. The Skinwalker ranch gets a mention – brave, considering how over-exposed the brand is – Luis Elizondo gets one of multiple namechecks, there’s an early mention of the Tic-Tacs, which go on to occupy most of episode three, then onto abduction, John Mack and some loose tying-together in four.

The graphics, timelines and carefully curated headlines and footage from reputable sources show that the show’s intention is objectivity, which is sorely needed. It isn’t agenda-driven and doesn’t reach conclusions on our behalf, instead presenting the arguments through interviews with people interested in the truth, whatever it may be. It also delves into the philosophy: academic Diana Walsh Pasulka makes a very good point about the 17th century ‘Invisible College’, who postulated non-divine intelligences beyond our understanding, but had to do so quietly on the basis that they risked persecution or even death for doing so. This problem is very much alive, explaining the schizophrenic nature of research into potential extraterrestrial intelligence: lots of fine minds are fascinated, or even quietly involved, but daren’t vocalise it for fear of backlash. While this is often mentioned in other series, it’s usually cited as proof of cover-up, whereas here it’s a more general point about scientific conservatism: it’s the discussion that’s taboo, not the possible conclusions. Such topics are rarely given such a degree of qualified context or testimony, which is where this programme differs from so many others. Highly recommended.