what was life like in the 60s ?

[Deleted]

Mar 24, 2013 13:11:54 GMT Brian Denton said:

In my opinion the standard of acting, or perhaps more accurately, the naturalness -of today's acting, is far superior to that which obtained then.

Totally disagree with you there. It's partly because of dire acting that I can't bear today's film and TV.

Maybe it was more "stagey" back in the older days but at least they had plenty of rehearsal time and much time to get into character which today isn't usually much of an option hence to me, too many acting performances now are disjointed and unconvincing. The pressures of live TV - or recording as live with multi cameras - gave them an edge that todays TV totally lacks, instead resorting to CGI and quick cutting techniques to generate excitement and tension.

Just my feeling anyway... could expand much further on this but don't want to start sounding bitchy and ripping loveable names to pieces.

As for the original poster... I'll be as polite as possible and simply say that with just 2 or 3 channels NOT broadcasting 24/7, there was a "less is more, more is less" feeling. And if you seriously believe the only 60's TV worth watching is DW, then, I pity you. As I regularly grumble despite being a fan of DW, DW was far from being the best show around... there are many more TV shows which are better, more important and deserve the restoration treatment that archive DW lovingly gets. Just annoys me that DW gets all the love and attention when many more great shows are shoved out onto DVD unrestored or just left to rot in the archive where we can't see it.

[Deleted]

I couldn't take the subject of this thread seriously from the word go. However, as it's up and running...

I agree with Brian that less was more in the '60s; only three channels but there was far more fascinating, gripping or even experimental TV back then. When was the last truly innovative programme that pushed at the boundaries? A couple of decades back, if not longer.

I disagree though with the view that today's supposedly naturalistic acting style is better than what we had previously. Give me theatricality any day as it at least produces good characterisations and dramatic tension (two of the key elements missing in today's sanitised offerings); with most things now it's hard to tell if you're actually watching a drama or a fly on the wall documentary. No edge to the performances (which have been edited / post-produced to death anyway, to remove all nuances or anything remotely idiosyncratic or compelling).

[Jaspal Cheema]

I though LIFE ON MARS was pretty damn innovative....

[Chris Barratt]

Slightly off-topic - As a whole I much prefer "then" to "now" for most things - we seems to be locked into spiritless manufacture of music, television, film and other *products* that also inspired appreciation and kinship such as cars. Everything seems not to inspire any emotional investment, whereas the music, tv, films, cars etc of the past do and will continue to.
Modern society spins on a axis of manufacture and consumation - and that is spawning what I can only refer to, broadly, as a 'Witch Hunt' of the past. Their seems as increasing trend to paint the 60's, 70's & 80's as times of bad taste and widespread bad behaviour. Of course this doesn't work on us here - but, generally speaking, we are a dying breed. Anybody who work or mix with large numbers of "young people" will probably notice a massive generation gap has developed - short attention spans, complete of 'general knowledge' makes them pliable to whatever agenda's and products are promoted and with little interest in our yesterdays.

Less was more in the 1960's because peoples expectations were greater. Quality not quantity, if you like. I'm not saying everything then great and everything now is terrible, but generally speaking the BBC's reputation for quality broadcasting wasn't founded on rumour back then - and even the commercial stations sought to imitate the BBC's high standards in order to garner their audience. Now it seems the BBC seeks to imitate the commercial dreck of post-1990s ITV.

[Charles Daniels]

Mar 25, 2013 12:40:28 GMT Rob Moss said:

Mar 25, 2013 12:16:55 GMT Charles Daniels said:

I mean, if Zoe hadn't have been able to speak to that computer in Algol, the entire Cyberfleet could have landed with impunity.

That doesn't explain why people need computers. It just explains why people need women in sparkly catsuits.

That's why I always keep three of them in my garage for emergencies.

[Tony Ingram]

Mar 25, 2013 12:33:39 GMT Sue Butcher said:

I hate needing to buy new things I don't actually want. It's one of the most irritating things about 21st Century life.

I find the best way of getting around the problem is just to not buy them.

[Tony Ingram]

Mar 25, 2013 20:28:46 GMT Charles Daniels said:

Mar 25, 2013 12:40:28 GMT Rob Moss said:

That doesn't explain why people need computers. It just explains why people need women in sparkly catsuits.

That's why I always keep three of them in my garage for emergencies.

Can I borrow one until Friday? I have a teaching machine that I think has a loose Kroton somewhere. The picture's completely Gond.

[B Thomas]

As an actor myself, I completely agree with Laurence Piper above. In terms of characterisations on telly then and now - I also prefer "then" rather than "now". Mind you that's probably because I am also predominantly a stage actor, having done that more than telly, and most actors of "then" were of a theatre background and acted accordingly. Having said that, I do feel that most characters as conceived and written are falsely nuanced and irritatingly "anti-hero-ish", ala "Bones", "Dexter", anyone from "Shameless" and the many sickening Vampire-derived trash. In other words, we are qualifying the need to be obnoxious arseholes. This is certainly not helped by the modern-style lazy, "naturalistic" type of acting, lacking in drama or occassion. Just mumble, mumble, mumble-type with extra internalised insipidness seems to be all that is required these days.

[Sue Butcher]

I held off on buying a mobile phone until six months ago, Tony, but what can you do now they've demolished 90% of the public phone boxes? These gadgets start off as conveniences, but rapidly become necessities. Thank goodness I'm not obliged to keep the telly on!

[Richard Marple]

I remember a few years ago DWM had a feature in what other shows were popular while Dr Who was on air, quite a few mentioned were ones I never heard of before. Riviera Police being one of them.

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2013 10:15:55 GMT B Thomas said:

This is certainly not helped by the modern-style lazy, "naturalistic" type of acting, lacking in drama or occassion. Just mumble, mumble, mumble-type with extra internalised insipidness seems to be all that is required these days.

Yes, the term "drama" is a misnomer these days as there is usually no drama in most productions. Atmosphere, tension or character are totally missing. It seems the aim is to get as near to "real life" as possible (or what passes for it) in all its tedious detail, at the cost of telling a good story that holds your attention. The writing and performance are almost a postscript; editing pace, post-production gloss and grading are what seem to matter above all else.

[John Green]

I wish I could analyse acting the way that other people do; all I can say is that I often find myself watching 60s studio-bound TV,and thinking "this is 'acting' and obviously artificial.I don't think for a moment that they're real people.I'm not so caught up in the story that I want to phone the police to stop that terrible abuse.They might as well be on stage".
Then I realise that the same could be said of any stage play.

I used to read lots and lots of comics.Artists would,at their best,lay out the page,and each panel,to focus the eye on key points of the narrative,and to give a pleasing-to-the-eye composition.Sometimes,I'd just bask in the craftsmanship that Ditko,Kirby,etc. had displayed.Turn the page upside-down,and you can still grasp the essentials of the narrative.
Nowadays,that approach is seen as artificial and childish.In real life,furnishings and foliage rarely frame or lead the eye towards the person who's talking to us.When we record speech in our living-rooms,we're surprised to hear the ambient sounds that we filter out,ignore as unimportant.Again,this is something that a sound recordist can do,to save us asking "What did he say?".But it's very unreal.

[Deleted]

It's interesting what you say about comics as I think they've also gone down the same road as TV. Namely following a false trail in a deluded search for "realism". Most comics aren't like comics any more. The whole graphic novel thing has made them quite dreary to read (there are exceptions to the rule, of course); the over-busy artwork is more like airbrush or photo realism (whatever happened to line drawings?!?) with never ending story arcs killing the ideal of a tightly written self-contained story once and for all!

The point I'm making here is that you can never achieve actual realism in a comic or a TV drama because both are - by their nature - constructed fiction (in TV that's whether we're talking about either the past theatrical / VT drama or the modern style of faux-documentary realism). Better to acknowledge that it's all fiction and just get on with telling some good stories that engage the viewer rather than continue the conceit that programme makers / comics professionals seem to have these days that to get nearer to reality should be the ultimate goal. They're fooling themselves and selling the audiences short.

[Tony Ingram]

Mar 26, 2013 15:25:38 GMT John Green said:

I wish I could analyse acting the way that other people do; all I can say is that I often find myself watching 60s studio-bound TV,and thinking "this is 'acting' and obviously artificial.I don't think for a moment that they're real people.I'm not so caught up in the story that I want to phone the police to stop that terrible abuse.They might as well be on stage".
Then I realise that the same could be said of any stage play.

I used to read lots and lots of comics.Artists would,at their best,lay out the page,and each panel,to focus the eye on key points of the narrative,and to give a pleasing-to-the-eye composition.Sometimes,I'd just bask in the craftsmanship that Ditko,Kirby,etc. had displayed.Turn the page upside-down,and you can still grasp the essentials of the narrative.
Nowadays,that approach is seen as artificial and childish.In real life,furnishings and foliage rarely frame or lead the eye towards the person who's talking to us.When we record speech in our living-rooms,we're surprised to hear the ambient sounds that we filter out,ignore as unimportant.Again,this is something that a sound recordist can do,to save us asking "What did he say?".But it's very unreal.

I'm a comics fan and collector (and, indeed, dealer) and while there's still a lot of new material out there that I enjoy (admittedly, most of it from smaller independent publishers these days rather than the mainstream) I couldn't agree more about the art! I really miss the days when comics actually looked like comics; it's not just that there are very few, if any, modern day artists who can make a story flow the way Kirby, Ditko, or even Carmine Infantino, Romita or Neal Adams could, I also absolutely hate modern computer colouring. Comics should be vibrant and eyecatching-most current colour comics are like looking at a field of mud in various shades of grey and brown!

[Tony Ingram]

Mar 26, 2013 16:42:29 GMT @laurencepiper said:

It's interesting what you say about comics as I think they've also gone down the same road as TV. Namely following a false trail in a deluded search for "realism". Most comics aren't like comics any more. The whole graphic novel thing has made them quite dreary to read (there are exceptions to the rule, of course); the over-busy artwork is more like airbrush or photo realism (whatever happened to line drawings?!?) with never ending story arcs killing the ideal of a tightly written self-contained story once and for all!

Try Bryan Talbot's Grandville books. Seriously. They're just what you're looking for. And more people should buy them.

The point I'm making here is that you can never achieve actual realism in a comic or a TV drama because both are - by their nature - constructed fiction (in TV that's whether we're talking about either the past theatrical / VT drama or the modern style of faux-documentary realism). Better to acknowledge that it's all fiction and just get on with telling some good stories that engage the viewer rather than continue the conceit that programme makers / comics professionals seem to have these days that to get nearer to reality should be the ultimate goal. They're fooling themselves and selling the audiences short.

Totally agree.