|
Post by Laurence Piper on Nov 29, 2004 16:44:29 GMT
Then that says more about the public than the quality of the programme!
But if you have such a low regard for TV, Gareth, why do you bother to talk about it so much? At least I can say I do it because of a passion for - and a belief in - the quality and diversity of it as distinct from all other creative media!
|
|
|
Post by i dont know on Nov 29, 2004 17:13:47 GMT
Thank you for that. In fact I understood your post perfectly. However, my point is that there is no demand for weeks on end of old Z Cars or similar, but the fact remains that we have seen some episodes screened. You were the one who said that what didn't get junked might as well have been junked. Would you rather not have had anything screened at all..? Before you start slating other people as being idiotic, make sure they're not right! Ok, here is what I would like you to do. Sit down, take a deep breath, concentrate really really hard and read my posts. I would then like you to highlight and share with us all the part where I said that what got junked might as well have been junked. idk
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Nov 29, 2004 17:30:29 GMT
Failing that how about having the courage to put your proper name on the posts?
|
|
|
Post by i dont know on Nov 29, 2004 18:54:49 GMT
What didnt get junked might as well have been junked as we will never see the vast majority of it. Ah.....OK i did appear to say it, but I didnt mean it like that. What I actually meant was, people need to do something active about obtaining this material for people to see as the Beeb and other archives will never show the vast majority of it to us. Its no good crying over spilt milk. At the end of the day the material belonged to the company who made it, they have the right to junk it. Its a crime yes, but whining constantly about it doesnt help the situation. And before you say "oh but our license money paid for it to be produced".....your money pays for a license to use Microsoft Windows on your PC........they still own the product though, and the right to throw it away. Your TV license money only gave you a right to VIEW the material when it was broadcast, not to say what happened to it after that. Get out there and do something positive. And Gary - in my oppinion, you are starting to troll. idk
|
|
|
Post by Gareth R on Nov 29, 2004 19:08:57 GMT
But if you have such a low regard for TV, Gareth Laurence, I don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. Seriously. I must be missing something very, very obvious here, because I cannot comprehend for one moment how my pointing out the inconvenient fact that the majority of the general public does not care and never *has* cared about the preservation of old television has led you to draw the conclusion that I have a low regard for TV. Please, and this is a genuine request, explain what the hell you're on about, because I just can't follow your leaps of logic. It's not entirely my fault; I went to a comprehensive school. Or even better - are you going to MBW on Saturday? If so, I would *love* the opportunity to discuss it (and other issues related to archive TV) with you face-to-face. Y'know, actual proper human interaction, without the safety net of being on the other end of a keyboard! Would you be up for it?
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Nov 29, 2004 22:15:03 GMT
And Gary - in my oppinion, you are starting to troll. idk Good. I must be hitting the spot then. Illl carry on doing it too till you have the guts to put a name to your childish posts.
|
|
|
Post by lfbarfe on Nov 29, 2004 22:38:32 GMT
Laurence, I don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. Seriously. I must be missing something very, very obvious here, because I cannot comprehend for one moment how my pointing out the inconvenient fact that the majority of the general public does not care and never *has* cared about the preservation of old television has led you to draw the conclusion that I have a low regard for TV. Springing to Gareth's defence here, I don't think that any man who shows me 1976 editions of Look East can be considered to have a low regard for TV.
|
|
|
Post by Lurence Piper on Nov 29, 2004 22:39:26 GMT
are you going to MBW on Saturday? If so, I would *love* the opportunity to discuss it (and other issues related to archive TV) with you face-to-face. Y'know, actual proper human interaction, without the safety net of being on the other end of a keyboard! Would you be up for it? Yes, of course I would. I was definitely planning to go on Saturday up till now (loads of stuff I wanted to see). It's looking less than 50 % likely that I will now though as something else may have come up that I have to do. If not, i'm quite happy to meet anyone for a beer and a chat on old our pet subject at a mutually free time in the future...
|
|
|
Post by Simon Mclean on Nov 30, 2004 1:09:57 GMT
'Pop goes' according to Caversham records, used a clip of 'Satisfaction' (stones), (presumably the VT insert of);- 'I feel fine' (Beatles), a 1966 TOTP film for 'Walk in the black forest' (Horst Janowski) and 'Delilah' (Tom Jones). Satisfaction was an orchestral piece. I Feel Fine from Shea stadium. Walk looks too early for 66 for me. I think it was filmed near the date of Pop in 69. I'm tired so may be wrong. Horst Jankowski has a beard in the film, which he didn't when 'A Walk In The Black Forest' was a hit (if the photos on his LP covers are to be believed anyway!), so I would imagine it was proably done in 1969 - as it was a co-production with ZDF in Germany, I reckon it was probably them who made the Jankowski film. Satisfaction was indeed the house orchestra (basically the TOTP orchestra of the period, with Alan Parker on guitar and Herbie Flowers on bass, among others), conucted by Johnny Harris, who used to have a regular slot on the Lulu show doing covers like that (and eventually his own one-off TV special, 'Uptight') - this is, I believe, the only one of his performances still extant though. So I'll just have to make do with the 'Movements' LP instead........ Is this thread TEXTstill TEXT going??
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Doherty on Nov 30, 2004 1:54:26 GMT
In order to give an insight into the need for archiving, just look at a few past BBC TV productions, which do exist.
1984 (BBC, b. 1954) Quatermass and the Pit (BBC, b. 1958-59) Talking to a Stranger (BBC, b. 1965) Traitor (BBC, b. 1971) 84, Charing Cross Road (BBC, b 1976) To Serve Them All My Days (BBC, b 1980) Vanity Fair (BBC 3rd production, b. 1987, which I have pinpointed because of the superb performance given by Eve Matheson as Becky Sharp.)
Most everyone who has seen these productions would agree that the above were worth keeping. True, I have picked some of those dramas, which I think are outstanding.
Notice I say are outstanding.
Not all TV dramas from the past are necessarily up to the standards reached by the above. But it certainly does not mean that only those kinds of productions should be kept while others, considered to be less worthy, are not.
Look at the offerings on the TV tonight. Is there anything on any channel that is likely to come close to the above? I doubt it. Still, tonight's television offerings will be recorded for posterity.
Back in 1991 I went to the NFT to see the screening of two television dramas.
The dramas concerned were 'This Day in Fear' (BBC, b. 1958), which had been uncovered the previous year and 'The Scent of Fear' (ITV, b. 1959), which was not junked.
Well, the quality in terms of performance and attention to detail was remarkable. These plays went out live and, as far as I know, shown just once on British television.
The BBC drama was part of a series devoted to writers new to television, while the other was a part of the ITV Armchair Theatre Series. Both plays were based on believable concepts, but what was most interesting was something that seems to have gone from present approaches to most (but not all) drama that is on offer today. I refer to the twist in the plot. This seemed to be a popular mechanism in mid to late nineteen fifties drama (that goes for film drama, as well, e.g. 'Run a Crooked Mile).
When have you had that delivered to your TV screens of late in any one-off television drama? Come to that, how many one-off dramas are there to be seen?
My thread should indicate the importance of television archiving. Future generations will be able to see what television was all about in the formative years. Why was television so successful in such a relatively short space of time? It won't be just a case of major events such as the 1948 London Olympics or the Coronation, because they can see the other items in the archives, which will give a good idea of the range and quality of programming during the early years of television broadcasting.
They will also be able look at the surviving recorded dramas from the first three complete decades of British television broadcasting and compare the offerings at the end of the last Century along with the beginning of this. I am sure they will find more inspiration watching the dramas I have mentioned than a dose of ' I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here' or 'Big Brother'.
True, BBC and ITV are producing some very good adaptations of the classic stories, e.g. North and South (BBC). However, contemporary drama of the short, serialized, kind and the single drama are scarce.
The kind of drama that was once produced on an almost weekly basis for television is still there, e.g. Michael Frayn's 'Democracy', although, you will have to go to the theatre to see it. But this is the major reason for the success of early television.
To see something as it happens, broadcast from a remote place such as a studio or theatre, while in the comfort of your home. Hence, the Sunday Play and Armchair Theatre.
Certainly, documentaries and news programmes from more recent times are well represented.
However, apart from the BBC Proms, where are the orchestral music programmes (serious or light)? What about jazz programmes not to mention a range of pop music programmes? What about variety shows? Only the archives can give a hint.
Once again, the archives can show the range of musical programmes that were available to cater for all tastes. Note some of the output of the BBC in the mid 1950s, e.g. 'Music for You' (for more classical tastes), 'Contrasts' (for light orchestral music) and 'Off the Record' (for the record charts). In the 1960s there was the excellent Jazz 625. I won't bother to go into the list of programmes devoted to pop music in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Likewise with variety shows.
Some of the above (a missing 'Contrasts' programme and the very first 'Off the Record') were recovered in 1998.
So far, I have not mentioned comedy. Even there, the archive can give some present writers a few clues as to what is funny and what isn't.
Not to be forgotten are performances by those (in all areas of entertainment) who are no longer around. Places and situations should also be included.
Consequently, the need to recover, preserve and show formerly missing programmes, as well as those held in the archives, cannot be contested.
An apology is not going to make any difference. It is actions that count and that is why there is a missing programmes recovery effort. This, as well as a good archive policy, is the best apology.
Yours,
|
|
|
Post by Matthew K Sharp on Nov 30, 2004 3:08:26 GMT
I disagree. It (On The Margin) was acclaimed at the time and has been lauded many times by numerous pundits over the intervening years. The performers themselves have also expressed sorrow at the wiping of the productions, although i'm sure they were not even informed of the fact at the time. Saying that series such as "On The Margin" are only important retrospectively is merely another case of one person (yourself) placing their own value judgements on something. Having heard a great deal of 'On The Margin' from surviving off-air audio tapes, my judgement is that it is a very funny sketch comedy show. It is a great shame that it is no longer preserved in a format which would allow for very many people to rediscover it. Its importance, from all accounts, appears to be that it was the work of someone who went on to become a noted playwright. At the time, only people with crystal balls would have known that. It wasn't influential to comedy in the same way that Python or Cook & Moore were. Of course, maybe I'm missing a trick here, and you know the real reason it was seen as a vitally important contribution to British culture by mid 1967. You misunderstand me. A lot of the recordings of series and serials that survive are films & tapes that were made for overseas sales, rather than for depositing in the BBC's archive. Take, for example, the b/w Dr Who years. Of those 253 episodes, only 47 were retained by the BBC film library (through the usual erratic processes). Most, if not all, of the other 98 extant episodes are prints or negatives originating from BBC Enterprises. If the BBC had not sold programs overseas, there would be far fewer programs existing today. I can't imagine the BFI would have taken every episode of every program ever produced. They would surely have had selection criteria on what to retain and what to dispose of, and the net result most likely wouldn't have been much different except you'd be sitting here now with an axe to grind with the BFI rather than the BBC. "Oh, if only the BBC had made its own decisions on what to keep, rather than letting an organisation like the BFI, with no real experience in TV, decide!"
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Martin on Nov 30, 2004 9:31:07 GMT
Not all TV dramas from the past are necessarily up to the standards reached by the above. But it certainly does not mean that only those kinds of productions should be kept while others, considered to be less worthy, are not. Look at the offerings on the TV tonight. Is there anything on any channel that is likely to come close to the above? I doubt it. Still, tonight's television offerings will be recorded for posterity. Consequently, the need to recover, preserve and show formerly missing programmes, as well as those held in the archives, cannot be contested. A well considered contribution, Andrew. As you are saying, the television of the past certainly produced more than it's fair share of quality. Listening to some of the contributors here though a newcomer like myself could be forgiven for thinking that it was all junk that no one ever wanted to see again. Clearly it has value as culture even if the average viewer would rather sit and watch "Celebrity". That is their loss. The other thing that needs to be remembered when talking about the television of the past is the suspension of disbelief. Production values were not always as good as they are now but a memorable drama was made so by the writing and performances. Content was king (rightly so). Today, people seem to have lost the ability to suspend their disbelief and just see low production values rather than what a drama is trying to say, if indeed it does say anything at all. The modern viewer has to have everything pre-digested and looking clinically perfect (often this hides a total lack of content). People now wrongly equate poor production values with poor programme and so the myth of "old TV is rubbish" perpetuates. Again, that is their loss. As you yourself said, the sort of dramas once made for TV are now only to be found in the theatre. Television has become more cinematic but it has lost it's edge in the process. True, action is the best policy with regard to missing material. But let us not forget what happened in the past and guard against a repeat performance. Some may laugh but with the dominance of multi-channel junk programming in 2004, television could easily become something not worth preserving at all.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Martin on Nov 30, 2004 9:40:52 GMT
Having heard a great deal of 'On The Margin' from surviving off-air audio tapes, my judgement is that it is a very funny sketch comedy show. It is a great shame that it is no longer preserved in a format which would allow for very many people to rediscover it. Its importance, from all accounts, appears to be that it was the work of someone who went on to become a noted playwright. At the time, only people with crystal balls would have known that. It wasn't influential to comedy in the same way that Python or Cook & Moore were. Of course, maybe I'm missing a trick here, and you know the real reason it was seen as a vitally important contribution to British culture by mid 1967. I can't imagine the BFI would have taken every episode of every program ever produced. They would surely have had selection criteria on what to retain and what to dispose of, and the net result most likely wouldn't have been much different except you'd be sitting here now with an axe to grind with the BFI rather than the BBC. "Oh, if only the BBC had made its own decisions on what to keep, rather than letting an organisation like the BFI, with no real experience in TV, decide!" Regarding your first point, Matthew: I disagree as On The Margin was received very well at the time in relation to other less successful series. It was even screened three times within a short period of time, which was unusual then. The opinion of it we have now is not entirely retrospective. Secondly, I wasn't suggesting that the BFI would take everything offered to them had they been given the option. I was actually saying that if a similar selection procedure was implemented by the BBC then what was actually kept would have been more considered and balanced, rather than the hit and miss selection we find ourselves with. That way the BBC would have been able to field any criticisms levelled at them as regards logical archiving.
|
|
|
Post by Gareth R on Nov 30, 2004 10:57:31 GMT
It's looking less than 50 % likely that I will now though as something else may have come up that I have to do That's a shame. So would you mind, in lieu of a personal meeting, using the wonders of the Internet to explain the thought processes that led you to the conclusion that I have a "low regard" for TV?
|
|
|
Post by Laurence Piper on Nov 30, 2004 11:59:27 GMT
What's to say that hasn't been said many times over though? If we meet up in future, i'll discuss anything under the sun.
By the way, if I don't get to make MBW, can someone post a snapshot review of it here? I'm interested to keep up with what's what on the recoveries horizon.
|
|