|
|
Post by Peter Stirling on Nov 16, 2014 9:29:20 GMT
'Its alright in the 1970s' on TV last night.
Oh dear! another smug, sanctimonious view on how people were in the 1970s ...another attempt to brainwash us into thinking how terrible we all were back then and how nice and enlightened we are today...Apparently the fantasy characters in a TV sitcom were how the general population acted in real life?
What these luvvies who make these type of look back documentaries fail to realise is the fact because they are cynical and think evil they see evil in everything they watch too!
They picked out one episode of the farcical Doctor series' and tore it to pieces with the usual 21st century cynicism, quite aloof to the fact that Doctor series' had the TV audience rolling on the floor with laughter every week.,,does anyone actually laugh at anything today? They portrayed the girls in that particular episode as 'victims' despite dear Madeline Smith implying that she and the others were strong characters who fought in the own way and very much an important part of the recipe that got the laughs.
Not seen of course was the ep with Richard O'Sullivan as the drunken doctor playing the church organ, a hysterical laughing highlight from my TV watching life.
|
|
Kev Hunter
Member
The only difference between a rut and a groove is the depth
Posts: 605
|
Post by Kev Hunter on Nov 16, 2014 11:24:30 GMT
I couldn't agree more, Peter - it was a selective and contrived look at aspects of the decade that weren't wholly representative of it. And context wasn't taken into account: these were comedies after all, with exaggerations of attitudes and characters. It's just not sensible or reasonable to judge a period of time by extracting little bits of it.
It can work the other way too, however - I'm reminded of the Tories' championing of so-called 'Victorian values' some years ago, emphasising certain things that they sought to promote yet conveniently leaving out other darker sides of the era such as child labour, workhouses etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2014 11:28:54 GMT
I didn't see it but have experienced this scenario so many times in modern docs! Dumbed down television of the first order (put together by people too young to remember the '70s, and with a faint suspicion of political agenda too). As if the world we have today is any better than the one 40 years ago!  |
|
|
|
Post by markboulton on Nov 16, 2014 11:43:43 GMT
I didn't see the actual show but Peter's evaluation tallies with what came across from the trailer. "The decade that brought you... Homophobia!" with a Freddie Mercury/YMCA-type figurine sliding along. That was enough to illustrate the agenda to me. Just one huge chip on the shoulder of the 95% of decision makers in Dean, Wardour and Berwick Street, conveniently forgetting Liberace, Larry Grayson, etc. Just like a peaceful religion, a peaceful mode of human orientation of any description, once having achieved equality, doesn't then try and brainwash people into giving them supremacy by creating a "history" that shows the previous mainstream was either evil, misguided or blinkered in every way.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisstratton on Nov 16, 2014 12:14:25 GMT
I only watched this programme for the archive clips...the ATV invision for instance.
What did irritate and annoy me were the talking heads inbetween....jenny éclair,vikki stone (who??),tiger drew-honey .......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2014 13:55:45 GMT
What did irritate and annoy me were the talking heads inbetween....jenny éclair,vikki stone (who??),tiger drew-honey ....... Obviously the highest order of sagacious social history gurus! |
|
|
|
Post by Marie Griffiths on Nov 16, 2014 18:16:15 GMT
I think the odious sexploitation deserves to stay in the 70's and pushed into lads mags and porn channels where it belongs. I have noticed that it is creeping back into the mainstream these days sadly. I don't think racism, sexism, homophobia should stop us seeing some of the series from that time but to have them broadcast would need cuts, maybe even to whole episodes, maybe with full versions on iplayer etc with warnings. This is stopping re-runs of It Aint Half Hot Mum, Benny Hill and Q from being repeated. Beauty competitions, Black and White Minstrels, trivializing sex attacks is something we should not see again except to reflect how far we have progressed since then. I think the talking heads in the show, except those who participated were a waste of time. Maybe if they showed it to a group of sixth formers instead. It was interesting that Nicolas Parsons filled in that he was totally against the Mink coat prize at the time, and Linda Bellingham was against her exploitation too.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Nov 16, 2014 21:15:37 GMT
|
|
Kev Hunter
Member
The only difference between a rut and a groove is the depth
Posts: 605
|
Post by Kev Hunter on Nov 16, 2014 21:46:36 GMT
It was interesting that Nicolas Parsons filled in that he was totally against the Mink coat prize at the time, and Linda Bellingham was against her exploitation too. If Nicholas was so against that at the time, then why did he agree to do the job? I daresay the fee helped ease his conscience. |
|
|
|
Post by Neil Megson on Nov 17, 2014 10:07:43 GMT
I did see this - one of the most relevant comments was made in the last minute or so of the programme by Matthew Sweet. He said (paraphrasing slightly) "we mustn't think that these programmes passed without comment at the time - many of them were extremely controversial and attracted large numbers of complaints".
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Walshaw on Nov 21, 2014 9:13:13 GMT
Nothing was ever perfect. But I don't think that these programmes had an agenda to be harmful at the time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 9:23:02 GMT
Quite. I think that's what needs to be remembered by people making these modern docs. In contrast though, there does seem to be an agenda to run down the past as an unenlightened and primitive place; it was neither of these things any more or less than the world we have now. We've merely swapped one set of preoccupations and prejudices for another.
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard Marple on Nov 21, 2014 12:48:19 GMT
Quite. I think that's what needs to be remembered by people making these modern docs. In contrast though, there does seem to be an agenda to run down the past as an unenlightened and primitive place; it was neither of these things any more or less than the world we have now. We've merely swapped one set of preoccupations and prejudices for another. It works both ways, as some people seem to make out that everying was better in the past because they are looking through a nostalga filter. You are right about different era having different issues to deal with. |
|
|
|
Post by williammcgregor on Nov 21, 2014 15:02:06 GMT
we all have our opinions on TV of the 70's whether it be accusations of Racism,Sexism,Homophobia etc in the shows mentioned beforehand, and I'm not condoning any of those allegations! but nobody's mentioned that at least TV companies had a zero tolerance attitude towards swearing! Remember all the fuss about Kenneth Tynan!  I'm no prude but I personally think that there is far too much very bad language on TV these days, but it seems to be mainstream now (how come nobody gets on their soapbox about that?) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 15:10:54 GMT
What that era did have in droves though was new ideas and great optimism (something that isn't around now and this doesn't come across when anyone talks about the decades immediately prior to the '80s). The world is headed into increasingly blacker times and it's hard not to see those days as anything other than preferable, in stark contrast to how they're put across in tacky modern retrospectives.
|
|
