Thread: Period Television Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030300
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
In a fit of late middle-aged nostalgia, House Firenze has lately been buying box sets of TV series from the 1960s.
Rewatching the likes of early episodes of The Avengers has been an odd experience. Only two and a bit survive from the first series, made in 1961 - none of which show the character (Steed) who subsequently became the principal.
The oddness to me though consists in seeing a depiction of a period which is now historical but also part of my own lifetime, made additionally strange by how much my own memories do/do not coincide with what I'm watching. The exterior shots - of unfeasibly uncluttered London streets - might be a Pathe newsreel. But the interiors, and, at this stage, clothes do not seem particularly of their time. Apart from a tendency of the men to wear hats more, they could pass for everyday even now.
To judge by the one episode so far of the second series, the sixties are beginning to become The Sixties. Female hair is starting to flick up at the end, and the Mcguffin is the roll of microfilm being sought by Unnamed Eastern European Powers.
Has anyone else revisited the 12" b/w (or similar) days of their youth? Both as TV and as social or personal evocation of the past, how does it strike you?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
[Slight tangent: Several episodes of The Avengers were made at my school, which was conveniently close to the Studios. Sadly we were all kept well away from the filming and never caught a glimpse of a Lotus Elan or even a bowler hat! :Tangent ends].
[ 25. August 2016, 07:52: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Has anyone else revisited the 12" b/w (or similar) days of their youth? Both as TV and as social or personal evocation of the past, how does it strike you?
Not in black and white, but I'm utterly hooked on the short Rank films Look at Life, many of which are on YouTube. Particular favourites include City of the Air about London Airport - I grew up nearby and took my first flight from the airport not too many years after that film was made - and A load of pheasants about TIR trucking.
What strikes me is how overwhelmingly white and thin the UK population was, how many people smoked, and how sexist life was.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Another watch was a now-excruciating The Mind of J G Reeder episode (c 1969). The villains include two Indians - transparently blacked-up Europeans, who speak in comic Babu accents.
And yes, people light up unfiltered cigarettes all the time.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Have you noticed that modern TV dramas set in the 50s and 60s seem to make a point of having lots of people smoking? It's become a metaphor or shortcut for the period.
(At the same time, they often get make-up, hairstyles and the nuances of language woefully wrong).
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Not TV, but I have recently been sent a flyer for a Vintage clothes making function at the Ally Pally, with patterns from the pattern making companies from various periods. Goodness knows how one is supposed to fit in them, for starters.
But, given that they are genuine period patterns, there is a sense of not being right - even out of my own memory period. The 40s have no utility patterns - full skirts still. The 50s have New Look, but are very like the 40s. The 60s are still full skirted, or fitted with narrow skirts. And the 70s are not at all dissimilar. What happened to shifts? What happened to short skirts? What happened to kaftans, and A-line? I was there. I made clothes. The only reason I don't have my own vintage patterns is because they and I separated with regard to size.
Why don't young people ask the people who remember things? Giles Coren's programmes (back to TV) making families live through previous decades had my friend and I shouting at the screen. Wrong, wrong, wrongitty, wrongitty wrong.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Giles Coren's programmes (back to TV) making families live through previous decades had my friend and I shouting at the screen. Wrong, wrong, wrongitty, wrongitty wrong.
What was interesting was that my wife's memories were quite different to mine, and she, coming from a working-class Scottish background, found far more to take issue than I, from a professional southern England perspective.
Obviously I get annoyed when the wrong trains get used (especially as the preservation societies concerned will easily be able to advise the film companies); I also don't like the look of the seaplane in the new "Swallows and Amazons". My wife gets annoyed by wrong kinds of dancing. And one more pet hate of mine: white window-frames in urban Victorian drama - they were usually painted brown, because of the soot and grime.
But it can't be easy getting everything right!
[ 25. August 2016, 16:38: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Has anyone else revisited the 12" b/w (or similar) days of their youth? Both as TV and as social or personal evocation of the past, how does it strike you?
Surprisingly dated. Wot no mobile phones, no internet, people smoking everywhere?
Entire storylines would have to be changed if some of the films were made now. "Brief Encounter" wouldn't have happened. The heroine wouldn't have got grit in her eye, there's no brandy to be had at the stations' coffee retail units, and Alec would presumably have texted her from his train and kept in touch on Facebook at the end.
Films were very much part of my young life and we always went to the cinema and kept up with the latest films. Looking back, those films are full of casual sexism - those women were so impossibly glamorous, but so often just an adoring, decorative chorus for the masterful male hero - yet many of us still aspired to look like film stars, until feminism arrived and threw out the glamour and forced us to work for a living.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Apologies, I didn't watch much TV when growing up. But the principle of decorative women and masterful men (who were usually looking cool with a cigarette) still applies.
Posted by Doone (# 18470) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Not TV, but I have recently been sent a flyer for a Vintage clothes making function at the Ally Pally, with patterns from the pattern making companies from various periods. Goodness knows how one is supposed to fit in them, for starters.
But, given that they are genuine period patterns, there is a sense of not being right - even out of my own memory period. The 40s have no utility patterns - full skirts still. The 50s have New Look, but are very like the 40s. The 60s are still full skirted, or fitted with narrow skirts. And the 70s are not at all dissimilar. What happened to shifts? What happened to short skirts? What happened to kaftans, and A-line? I was there. I made clothes. The only reason I don't have my own vintage patterns is because they and I separated with regard to size.
Why don't young people ask the people who remember things? Giles Coren's programmes (back to TV) making families live through previous decades had my friend and I shouting at the screen. Wrong, wrong, wrongitty, wrongitty wrong.
I so agree!
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
I have DVD collections of old TV shows, but many of them were never meant to be an accurate reflections of when they were made. The Addams Family, for example, was meant to not conform to contemporary aesthetics. Batman was intended to have a comic book feel.
However, I have recently been re-watching Remington Steele, from the 1980s. It occurred to me that the show couldn't be anything but from the 1980s. It would not have worked before then; it does not work since then. It is very much an artifact of its times. I am hopeless with clothes and hairstyles, but I do think it is a fairly accurate reflection of the Big Hair 80's
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
The accents are another thing. "To speak like a BBC announcer" used to mean cut-glass, clipped posh tones. You only have to listen to someone reading the news back in the day to realize how much things have changed.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Here is a link to the supposed vintage patterns.
sewalong
I do recall two things from Foyle's War, which my Sussex Dad had no quibbles with. One was a barbed war fence which had shreds of plastic bags on!
And the other, weirdly, was in the opening shot of an episode with the USAF arriving, when an old woman dressed in my Granny's coat and hat walked across the shot. Very period.
Posted by Doone (# 18470) on
:
Thank you for the link. The choices seem all over the place to me! ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
The Reeder series I mentioned has a further layer of complication in that it is set in the 1920s. To me, the principal female character looks indubitably contemporary - ie late sixties. I think it's the hair - that is not a flapper cut but an early Twiggy lacquered bob. And the eyeshadow - that should be a more kohl-rimmed Theda Bara look.
In terms of drama, The Avengers holds up well. The series was always good at opening on some exciting and puzzling bit of action, which the episode would then explain. It's mild at the moment, but I recall later ones which would open on, say, someone found dead from no apparent cause in the middle of Wembley Stadium.
That said, the acting looks somewhat over-emphatic by current standards. Villains don't quite twirl mustachios and cackle but I did see an early sighting of a much-used trope: when the minor baddie phones Mr Big you see only an a hand wearing a large jewelled ring, issuing from a quilted satin sleeve, and fondling a small, beribboned dog, picking up the receiver. Later, of course, it was realised that white cats could do sinister much better than Airedales.
Posted by cornflower (# 13349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Here is a link to the supposed vintage patterns.
sewalong
I had a look at that link..not that I know a lot about fashion...but I do wonder if some of those clothes might look a bit wrong because perhps they've been made up in modern materials? I think that what material is used can make quite a bit of difference to how clothing looks. There was alsoone item of clothing there from the 50's which actually looks quite modern
Posted by cornflower (# 13349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
The Reeder series I mentioned has a further layer of complication in that it is set in the 1920s. To me, the principal female character looks indubitably contemporary - ie late sixties. I think it's the hair - that is not a flapper cut but an early Twiggy lacquered bob. And the eyeshadow - that should be a more kohl-rimmed Theda Bara look.
I've not seen the Reeder series, but your comment about hair styles reminds me of how very annoyed I get when watching films, especially older ones. Whatever historical period they're set in you can tell the film was made in the fifties or sixties or whatever because the women's make-up, even hairstyles sometimes, is so of those periods.
Or maybe the ancient Roman or Egyptian or 17th century women all wore make-up just as worn in the 1960's. Nowadays at least they do seem to be better at making the characters etc more realistic (whether accurate or not, I don't know, but at least they seem more believable)
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
Cornflower, I think they only look believable because we are contemporary with them. I bet in 50 years time, people will look at them and exclaim how they look like the early 2000s.
We've been watching the Avengers on tv recently (the boxed set seems a bit expensive and I'm not sure how many I could watch back to back) and I think they hold up well as silly entertainment. I'm enjoying them just as much as I did when I was a kid.
And perhaps because they do hail from the time of my youth, things look like they Ought To Look.
M.
[ 26. August 2016, 06:37: Message edited by: M. ]
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
Sorry, I edited the post without changing anything! I had meant to add that some of the sets that are meant to be London streets are hilariously unconvincing, but I imagine they were meant to be. It's a very mannered programme.
M.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
It depends when in the 60s though. My mother wore clothes like those patterns throughout the 60s. Mary Quant's minidress in the V&A dates from 1966, the Yves Saint Lauren Mondrian collection from 1965. I think 1967 when I think of Twiggy and everyone wearing miniskirts until well in to the 70s. The Emma Peel character was introduced into the Avengers in 1965.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
It became mannered. But it started as a fairly standard crime-cum-espionage affair.
Speaking of which, who remembers The Prisoner ? That IMO was the high water mark of the dystopian fantasy that classic (ie, Emma Peel era) Avengers toyed with.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Not TV, but I have recently been sent a flyer for a Vintage clothes making function at the Ally Pally, with patterns from the pattern making companies from various periods. Goodness knows how one is supposed to fit in them, for starters.
My wedding dress was made (by my mother) from an original 1957 pattern. Before starting on the final dress, we made a toile to check the fit and discovered that it was going to need some very major adjustment. It was intended to be worn with extremely constrictive undergarments and the waist was miniscule. I am hourglass shaped - a size smaller in the waist than in the hips - and intended to wear hold-you-up-squeeze-you-in lingerie but even so, there was no way I was going to fit into it as was.
Fortunately for me, my best friend and chief bridesmaid works in fashion as a pattern cutter. She helped me to adjust the pattern so we could use it but it took three sessions, i.e. about 8 hours of professional work, to get it right. The original also had 1950s pointy boobs and in the end she ended up changing the design for a couple of pieces. No matter how many times she tried to recut them, the points just would not go away…
(Aside: the way pattern cutters work is really interesting. They work on the toile, not the pattern. Basically you keep adding and taking away fabric until you get something about right and then recut the pattern from that.)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Speaking of which, who remembers The Prisoner ? That IMO was the high water mark of the dystopian fantasy that classic (ie, Emma Peel era) Avengers toyed with.
I think Portmeirion tourism did rather well out of it!
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I did think those patterns were for a particular age group. i.e. not the one I was in. I did have a couple of bought dresses with gathered skirts in the early 60s.
My father used to be very nitpicky about men's hair in supposed period programmes. The actors would not have their hair cut short enough. That has improved. And it doesn't take long for that hair to grow out to modern styles. (And given the effort put in to modify bodies for the part, the hair is minor.)
By contrast, I am now seeing supposed period programmes set in periods where women/girls had short hair where the actresses have long hair, often loose. Shots I have seen from Swallows and Amazons, for example. Shiver my timbers, Nancy Blackett with long loose hair? Not so easy to grow back for them, but what about wigs?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Indeed. I saw these photos and thought that the kids could be nothing but "modern". Even the facial expressions look wrong.
The Swallows look OK.
[ 26. August 2016, 09:05: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[I also don't like the look of the seaplane in the new "Swallows and Amazons".
I don't like the *appearance* of the seaplane in Swallows and Amazons, let alone the look.
As a Ransome loyalist/perfectionist, the whole thing is that there is gunplay in only 2 of the books (Missee Lee and Peter Duck), and those are the two that, in the metanarrative that only the true Ransome geeks will know owing to the fact that Ransome eventually cut the prologues to both books, the children made up as stories to tell themselves while icebound in a wherry.
Seaplanes, spies, and guns shouldn't be in S&A.
Anyway....back to the subject, I was only born in 1980, but thanks to the excellent 1990s BBC2 evening policy of repeating classics at 6pm on weeknights I have a deep love for and working knowledge of:
The Avengers
Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased)
The Professionals
The Sweeney
Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads?
Steptoe & Son
Dad's Army
The Prisoner
I also love the Goon Show, Hancock's Half Hour, The Navy Lark and Round the Horne... Radio 4 Extra is my friend.
Was I born 50 years too late I ask myself.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Popping back in my Host frock (with the ruching and lace inlay) to say that we have a Craft thread for the discussion of dressmaking.
Meanwhile, if we just lean out of the window with the aerial, we can get a picture (anyone remember that Hancock?)
Firenze
Heaven Host
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Yes!
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
Also yes!
And I remember The Likely Lads, not just Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads.
But then I remember the very first Doctor Who, although I can only remember 2 things about it - she lived in a scrapyard (I couldn't imagine anything more wonderful - when did Steptoe and Son start?) and it was bigger on the inside! (I had to ask one of my big brothers how that could be).
M.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Also yes!
And I remember The Likely Lads, not just Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads.
IMO (obviously) Whatever Happened to... is one of the few examples of a spin-off outclassing the original. It is my all-time favourite sitcom, against all-comers. There is something so perfect about Terry picking up essentially where the first incarnation left off, while Bob has moved on.
In real life, it's oddly mirrored by the fact that James Bolam is reluctant to have even any acknowledgement of the series made, while Rodney Bewes has a one-man show which makes money from talking about his experiences of it. Away from the series, it's Terry that moved on, and Bob that stalled.*
*James Bolam also famously hasn't spoken to Rodney Bewes since the film spin-off of the series came out nearly 40 years ago.
But all that aside, the episode with the cycle race to Berwick is one of the most perfect 30 minutes of comedy you will ever see.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
And will there ever be Likely Lads II? Since I notice they intend to remake Are You Being Served? Which is odd, considering what an anachronism the department store is nowadays. You have malls, you have concessions, you have enormous Primarks - what you don't have is shops where you go up to counters and ask for something. You bring stuff to them - very often the only staff you see are corralled behind a row of tills.
Which brings us back to the divergence between Life as we remember it and TV's representation of it as we remember it.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
And will there ever be Likely Lads II?
There has been a one-off.
It *starred* Ant and Dec and was an essentially shot-for-shot remake of the episode where they spend the day trying to avoid the football results.
Allegedly Mr Bolam vetoed it being revisited in the latest run of BBC spin-offs, although they are doing Porridge.
Sacrilege.
[ 26. August 2016, 10:51: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
Posted by Sarasa (# 12271) on
:
My favourite Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads was the one when they are trying not to find out a football score. I think what made it so good was the acting, specially from James Bolam.
I was also very fond of Handcock's Half Hour, but never quite got on with Steptoe and Son.
Away from comedy I loved Adam Adamant and a programme called Vendetta which was about the Mafia (I think, it was a long time ago!).
Posted by Fredegund (# 17952) on
:
How about Z cars for casual violence and sexism? Very much of it's period.
Slightly later - Butterflies. It used to make me cry.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Ah, the joy of "Blake’s Seven" revisited:
"Where’s Avon?"
"He’s reprogramming the computer."
Enter Avon triumphantly holding up a large screwdriver. "I've reprogrammed the computer."
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Bring back All Gas and Gaiters.
Updated, it could be even funnier than the original - after all the current house of bishops has so many members who are crying out to have their foibles and ticks brought before a wider audience. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Bring back All Gas and Gaiters.
'It's the Dean!' Has long been a catchphrase in our house.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
Have you heard about "The Lost Sitcoms" that the BBC are doing? They are re-shooting episodes of classic sitcoms where no recording exists, with (obviously) modern casts. Look interesting.
My other observations for this thread are:
1) I trust my memory of previous decades far less than a recorded artifact like a TV program. Yes I was there but I wasn't paying attention and didn't realise there would be a test!
2) Always remember that if a show was shot in the 80s say, it will tend to have the main characters in the latest fashions but in the real world at that time a lot of people would still be wearing late 70s clothes. We don't after all throw out our entire wardrobes every few years.
3) One thing that's fascinating is the how the past is imagined at different times. I have collected a number of versions of adaptations of Jane Austen novels over the years and it's amazing how the 1972 Emma is different from the 1996 movie is different from the 2009 one.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
And James Bolam reminds me - Anyone remember the Beiderbeck Affair and its sequels? I had the books of the three main series, until I had some building work done, when one of them disappeared.
But what puzzled me was the mysterious non-reference back to the other series with teh woodwork including complete standard lamps, and a mysterious yellow VW, and the woman teacher's missing husband. (Clarified by wikipedia. 'Get Lost', apparently.)
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Have you heard about "The Lost Sitcoms" that the BBC are doing? They are re-shooting episodes of classic sitcoms where no recording exists, with (obviously) modern casts. Look interesting.
Along similar lines, Big Finish is doing audio recreations of the first season of "the Avengers", now largely lost, when Steed paired up with Dr. Keel. There are new actors doing the voices, and I assume there has been some editing has been done to the script to make it work on audio (after all, they can't very well say "Look at that!" without telling us what we are supposed to be looking at).
Posted by cornflower (# 13349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Cornflower, I think they only look believable because we are contemporary with them. I bet in 50 years time, people will look at them and exclaim how they look like the early 2000s.
M.
Well, that could be true...however, I do wonder if nowadays they make more of an effort to make things look as realistic as possible...but perhaps it deoends a bit on the budget? Obviously things like Up Pompeii aren't supposed to look accurate, a bit like children's Nativity plays
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
And will there ever be Likely Lads II? Since I notice they intend to remake Are You Being Served? Which is odd, considering what an anachronism the department store is nowadays.
When we first came to live in our current town in 2005, the Co-op had a large, long-established, well-loved but over-staffed and old-fashioned department store. About 5 years later it closed. We still mourn it.
Apparently even the staff called it "Grace Bros."!
Posted by cornflower (# 13349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
2) Always remember that if a show was shot in the 80s say, it will tend to have the main characters in the latest fashions but in the real world at that time a lot of people would still be wearing late 70s clothes. We don't after all throw out our entire wardrobes every few years.
Yes, that's true...my mother for example was wearing clothes in the 60's which I'm sure were late 50's or early 60's...basically probably, because having 6 kids, she couldn't afford to buy the lastest fashion. My great-grandmother, apparently, wore long black dresses well into the times when that kind of thing was no longer fashionable. I myself still have a top from 43 years ago, which I don't wear much (a little tight now but wearable, as stretchy), but I love the colour.
Posted by cornflower (# 13349) on
:
Anyone remember Harry Worth? I used to love that programme as a kid where he stands by a shop window and raises one leg so that it reflects in the glass.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cornflower:
Anyone remember Harry Worth? I used to love that programme as a kid where he stands by a shop window and raises one leg so that it reflects in the glass.
We didn't often get to watch beyond that! My mum allowed that was funny but she found him so annoying that we rarely got to see much more.
Nowadays I understand her.
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
That bit is all I can remember about Harry Worth! But Charlie Drake was popular in our house - Mr Pugh, was it?
And yes, the Beiderbecke Affair was wonderful.
M.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
I can remember the show - it was all live at at time - in which his character kept being thrown out of somewhere and then coming back in. It ended rather oddly with people standing about - it later emerged he'd been concussed by the last pratfall.
I've heard various actors over the years reminisce about the joys of live TV drama. Peter Sallis, for example, on playing Pepys: as his character was, of necessity, in every scene, he had to hare round the studio. He devised two ploys for covering this - one was the 'I do but wonder' line for the other actors - 'I do but wonder where Sam is e'en now'. And the other was The Laugh - Aaahaahaahaa - to conceal the panting. Which was all right apart from the scene when another actor hissed in his ear 'We're supposed to be at a funeral!'
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I am now expecting a box set of Beiderbeck, plus "Get Lost" - in the last Beiderbeck, the husband reappears, so that will be necessary.
One thing about things set in period is that designers are often unaware of how many things from previous periods would still be about in furnishings and wardrobes. I have a sweater that I knitted in my teens (and, coming across a hank of the same yarn in Oxfam, now have a matching hat). I have a bureau that belonged to my grandparents. And a table and chairs from Charlotte Despard, an early suffragist, whose furniture was seized by bailiffs and sold to my grandparents. (This would have been in the last of a series of sales, when she told her friends to stop buying things back for her.) I have 1950s G-Plan from my parents' home. The newest thing is a set of sturdy sheesham nesting tables from Aldi, last week.
And I deeply regret the loss of Dartford Co-op, which had a really good fabric and haberdashery department.
[ 27. August 2016, 07:52: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
I don't think designers are 'unaware'. But if they are told to do a 1920s interior they have to pile it on so that the viewer is clear THIS IS THE 1920s. It is part of the dramatic artefact, along with the costume and dialogue, designed to secure suspension of disbelief and engagement with the action.
If you cavill that 'real' interiors of period would have had a mix of objects, you are rather missing the point. In the absence of glaring anachronism, the least you can do is accept this as part of the story, as you would the scene-setting in a novel.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
They don't do it with big houses with their own furniture.
I didn't mind it with Poirot - the stylisation is part of the performance.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
They don't do it with big houses with their own furniture.
There are practical consideration which can preclude clearing a location and restocking. Even too modern items may be left in as long as it is deemed unlikely to be noticed.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Location sourcing is interesting. I was talking to the custodians of a minor Stately Home once - if you are not a National Trust or Historic Scotland property you need to compete for public attention. They had been vetted for, I think, an Austen adaptation. On the one hand, they had some Chippendale, on the other, the drawing room was adjudged not grand enough. The best they could pull was the possibility of the Hairy Bikers using their kitchen.
But that is by the way. The thing is, those of us born after the invention of the moving picture, and in particular television, have something unique in human history - to be able to look at the past as it happened.
Time was you just had the bards, or the chronicles or the oldest inhabitant - all of them giving a partial or biased version. Of course, TV programmes were made to a particular end, or from a particular standpoint. But there is so much more material, and what it depicts is not necessarily what the makers were thinking of at the time. I find it fascinating.
[ 27. August 2016, 18:32: Message edited by: Firenze ]
Posted by Signaller (# 17495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Since I notice they intend to remake Are You Being Served? Which is odd, considering what an anachronism the department store is nowadays.
I don't think John Lewis would agree with you on that.
And if you go into one of their branches, and try to order (say) some curtains, you are likely to find yourself reliving some of the best episodes.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Bought a TV off them the other day, didn't find it a problem.
And indeed have been employing the 49" beast to view another Avengers episode. They must, I think, be scanning the original image to get something which fits the modern screen size. The quality is remarkably good. The plot, though, is still resolutely Cold War.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
The accents are another thing. "To speak like a BBC announcer" used to mean cut-glass, clipped posh tones. You only have to listen to someone reading the news back in the day to realize how much things have changed.
Go and listen to Her Majesty's Christmas Broadcast from 1957 (it's on youtube) and compare her accent with one of the recent ones. The differences are quite pronounced.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
And a table and chairs from Charlotte Despard, an early suffragist, whose furniture was seized by bailiffs and sold to my grandparents.
"It's the Duke of Wellington's bidet. We use it as an ashtray."
(I'm sorry, but it irresistibly suggested another memorable televisual moment. Alan Bennett, 60s satire on metropolitan middle classes - can't remember the name of the programme/series)
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Forgiven. I must be careful. The odd thing is that my grandparents were not middle class, and not likely to be in Mrs Despard's circle, but they were very proud of her furniture. (Grandad was regarded with some doubt by some locals in the village - he organised the local labourers into Joseph Arch's union.)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Compare her accent ... the differences are quite pronounced.
Well, they would be, wouldn't they??
Seriously, I actually heard a radio programme some time back showing how the Queen's voice has changed over the years; of course the BBC have a great archive to work from!
FWIW someone once told me that I "sounded too posh to be a Baptist minister" - which says something about both perceptions and expectations.
[ 28. August 2016, 08:09: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
TV would have increased still further the familiarity with a range of American accents - The Lone Ranger, I Love Lucy, Bilko, Highway Patrol to name but a few stalwarts.
I'm not noticing a great linguistic difference in the programmes I'm watching currently* - except that the minor villains tend to be more cockneyfied, doubtless to indicate that they are Rough Types.
*one had a young Edward Fox - but not sounding any posher than he does to this day.
[ 28. August 2016, 09:37: Message edited by: Firenze ]
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
...a young Edward Fox - but not sounding any posher than he does to this day.
That's because Edward Fox hasn't changed at all to this day; he's been playing Edward VIII in every role he's had since he had the role of Edward VIII!
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Tbf, this was prior to Neddy 8. Although he was supposed to be a debauched aristocrat smoking himself to death on opium (albeit looking very well on it).
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Firenze wrote: quote:
I'm not noticing a great linguistic difference in the programmes I'm watching currently* - except that the minor villains tend to be more cockneyfied, doubtless to indicate that they are Rough Types.
There are a number of British films of the crime caper genre, presumably of the 30's and 40's, where the actors playing the villians speak their cockneyfied lines in the clipped enunciation they learned at drama school. Once you notice it, it's hard not to stifle the occasional laugh.
Last year we went round Whitchurch mill, which is a preserved silk mill which is still in working order. I was surprised to see that they are regularly commissioned to produce fabrics for the posh frocks of high-value TV historical dramas. An astonishing amount of care seems to be taken to get them right (authentic-looking). It must cost a fortune. Yet when you see the production, it always looks to be of the period it was filmed in. The actors never seem to resemble the photos or paintings of people of that era. Or at least, most of them don't.
Posted by cornflower (# 13349) on
:
Talking of accents, I absolutely love the way Penelope Keith and Richard Wilson speak. You don't hear that many people speaking quite like that nowadays. Having said that, I love all kinds of accents and dialects, it'd be boring if everyone spoke exactly the same.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I am now watching, delightedly, 'Get Lost', the precursor of 'Beiderbeck'.
Alun Armstrong instead of James Bolam. I had no idea how long ago it was. Young, with an unruly mop of dark curls. Not quite like Martin Shaw in 'The Professionals'. And flares.
It was packaged to be watched between Disc 3, the 'Tapes' and 5, the 'Connection' - logical, as it is in the latter that reference is made back to tthe missing husband.
[ 30. August 2016, 17:35: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Are the Presbyterians on Prince Edward Island different in their dress from those in the UK? Just watching a newish film (Marilla is too young) in which the minister is wearing a surplice and a stole, which seems a bit high for me.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I don't think you should ever take what you see on TV or the big screen as historical. Probably the director said, "Dammit, Jim, he doesn't look like a priest. Get him some togs." And they went down to costuming and picked out something that would work with the color scheme. You're lucky they didn't have a Papal miter in stock.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
They do get things right at times, however in the recent Jimmy McGovern drama, 'Banished' set in the 1780s Australian penal colony the colony's chaplain was shown acting in a particularly 'Catholic' way - rather unlike any 18th century Anglican clergyman would have acted in real life.
Of course, McGovern grew up in a Catholic family on Merseyside and so would tend to 'catholicise' any of his clerical characters - but a bit of research into the 18th century CofE wouldn't have gone amiss ...
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Yet when you see the production, it always looks to be of the period it was filmed in. The actors never seem to resemble the photos or paintings of people of that era. Or at least, most of them don't.
<tangential>Some people do seem to have historical faces. I used to have a friend who looked like a Pre-Raphaelite model - not that woman with the lips, but there are two other paintings that definitely feature her. I've also worked with someone who looked just like one of those Magdalens out of a medieval illuminated manuscript, the same demure expression, long hair and everything. However people like that have always been in short supply. Most just looked ordinary in their own era and the same would be true today. </tangent>
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I walked into St Agnes Museum to be faced with my best friend staring across a handful of some mining goodies at a fat landowner. Captain Morcom, later to work with Richard Trevethick, I think. But my friend is of Cornish stock. He could work as a period extra in Poldark. Except that he would probably want to examine the mine veins to make sure they were in keeping with the story line.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cornflower:
Anyone remember Harry Worth? I used to love that programme as a kid where he stands by a shop window and raises one leg so that it reflects in the glass.
We all used to do that when we were out and about.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
What throws you off, frequently, is the hairdos and makeup in historical movies. Actresses want to look good by the standards of the modern era, not by how beauty was determined in 1500. It is particularly noticeable when you look at old movies. In spite of the costuming Bette Davis as Queen Elizabeth doesn't look Elizabethan -- she looks like a 1940s movie star. Or look at Elizabeth Taylor as Cleopatra. She has 1960s makeup.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I think the internet/ everyone's a freaking critic age has helped with that, some. When they produced the series Rome, the wardrobe, props and set folk primarily used materials and fabrics that could only be found in period. They even had the indigo merchants running around in crowd scenes with permanent blue arms.
The hair and makeup was also based on period art and what history recorded about stuff like rougue, lip tint, etc.
To contrast-- remember Hot Lips Houlihan and her Farrah Fawcett hairdo?
[ 02. September 2016, 18:47: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Ah, the joy of "Blake’s Seven" revisited:
"Where’s Avon?"
"He’s reprogramming the computer."
Enter Avon triumphantly holding up a large screwdriver. "I've reprogrammed the computer."
Whilst in York on holiday I had a conversation with my daughter that went like this:
Daughter: Me and Mummy are going to the chocolate Museum tomorrow whilst you go to church.
Me: (joking) I can't believe that you would rather go to a chocolate museum than to church!
Daughter: No, Daddy, you should say: [Daughter]: Are you going to the chocolate factory? Have you betrayed US? HAVE YOU BETRAYED ME?!!!
I have brought her up so well! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Bring back All Gas and Gaiters.
I have bought the boxed set and watched the first one. It struck me how much the world has changed since first broadcast - I cannot imagine it being on mainstream TV now, almost nobody would get the references or jokes.
But an update, now that would be interesting - a sort of Vicar of Dibley gets preferment....
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
@ Callan (+ daughter):
That's a choice you don't always have to make.
[ 02. September 2016, 21:23: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
As to Rome, I was disappointed that it ended so abruptly. It was clear to me (although I have nothing to go on but writerish instinct) that the hero, seriously wounded and possibly dying in northern Egypt, was going to journey slightly to the north and east, and get restored to health by this itinerant Jewish preacher that he runs into on the road.
Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What throws you off, frequently, is the hairdos and makeup in historical movies.
That was the objection of a friend of mine to 'The Hour', the BBC drama about TV journalism in the 1950s. The lead character had naturally swinging modern hair, and she remembered the professional women of that period all having solidly-lacquered heads of helmet hair due to all the hairspray. She couldn't believe in the rest of the programme after that.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Look at the Charlton Heston The Ten Commandments sometime. The main characters (Moses, the Pharaoh) are reasonably accurately dressed, but everybody in the background (have a look at the dancing girls in the Pharaoh's court) are 1950s pin-up girls, hairdo, makeup and all. Here's an image -- you have to slide about halfway down and see the photo of the Pharaoh's wife, in a blue gown and 1950s hair and makeup.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Yeah, the Hammer Horror pictures made the make-up/hairdo mistakes. Meant to be Victorian but the ladies all have fabulous 70's up-do's, and glossy, shiney makeup, complete with fake eye-lashes and bright shaded eye-powder. Gorjus!
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Compare her accent ... the differences are quite pronounced.
Well, they would be, wouldn't they??
Seriously, I actually heard a radio programme some time back showing how the Queen's voice has changed over the years; of course the BBC have a great archive to work from!
We had a service when we were in St. John's at which the Princess Royal read a lesson, and, having never heard her speak before*, I was quite surprised at her accent. I spent most of the lesson puzzling who it reminded me of, and then it hit me - she sounded exactly like Glenda Jackson.
* I suppose I must have heard her wedding vows (the first time round) as we watched the ceremony on TV in primary school, but I probably didn't take much notice
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
One of my housemates has a box set of MacGyver so I have watched quite a few episodes lately. In one episode he teams up with a teen girl genius who has been working on a weapons program with a famous scientist. To begin with the girl doesn't like or trust MacGyver, so he can't access the computer program as she won't give him the password. He eventually works it out by chatting to the girl and realising she feels ugly, so her password must be 'ugly duckling'. Surely a genius would have come up with something a bit more complicated and the US government would have better security for a program that could launch a missile. In the same episode I was quite impressed when MacGyver invented a Sat Nav out of string and chewing gum or similar.
I also like watching Jane Austen and other period movies or series from different eras. The period costumes are so different even though supposed to be from the same time. It's also interesting that beauty standards for men and women have changed. Some of the male actors in particular from the 1970s make disappointing heroes to me, but perhaps they were considered handsome when the series were made.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
Some of the male actors in particular from the 1970s make disappointing heroes to me, but perhaps they were considered handsome when the series were made.
You'd have to say Jason King comes pretty high in the Deargod What Were They Thinking stakes.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Look at the Charlton Heston The Ten Commandments sometime. The main characters (Moses, the Pharaoh) are reasonably accurately dressed, but everybody in the background (have a look at the dancing girls in the Pharaoh's court) are 1950s pin-up girls, hairdo, makeup and all.
Not as bad as a terrible film I once saw in which Jesus only spoke in quotes from the Authorised Version while the disciples used 1950s American slang. I guess it was meant to be "contemporary" but that its makers felt held back from altering the words of our Lord himself.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
It's also interesting that beauty standards for men and women have changed. Some of the male actors in particular from the 1970s make disappointing heroes to me, but perhaps they were considered handsome when the series were made.
Even up to a decade or two ago, it was still possible to see real, natural coloured teeth on actors who were considered, at the time, the perfection of their sex. Even slight crookedness or non-uniformity was permitted. Nowadays the huge supernaturally glowing gnashers we inevitably see in the mouths of many actors immediately shatters any possibility of believing in period drama.
To say nothing of the almost de rigeur plastic work that makes so many actors - women especially - look almost identical; high cheek-bones, tight skinned, pumped up lips, rectangular chins etc.
There really is a 'look' we have in our day and age that not only wouldn't've been seen in times past, but probably might've been considered almost scarily abnormal.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
The Ten Commandments was tons better than the recent reboot, Moses Prince of Egypt (with Christian Bale in the title role) which covers much of the same Scriptural material. What you can see, comparing the two movies, is what the producers felt they had to add (because of course a movie that took in exactly the account in Exodus and no more would be too short) to make the movie sell to a current audience. The Charlton Heston movie had dancing girls. The Christian Bale version gave Moses a considerable upgrade in status -- prince, really? I wrote a review of the film, could find the URL if there is interest.
As to the evolution of fashions in body type, all you need do is look at George Reeves, Christopher Reeve and then Henry Cavil, all playing Superman. Or for that matter Adam West in the Batman leotards, or the older Tarzan actors. In the old days even a Tarzan could be quite doughy around the middle. These days you had better be ripped, with washboard abs, or they won't even consider casting you.
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on
:
Going back to Jason King - my gran fancied him!
She also rather fancied Peter Gordino, as the submarine commander in UFO, whose uniform consisted of tight white trousers and a string vest (there were a few young women in the background in the same string vests, too....)
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
Whilst in York on holiday I had a conversation with my daughter that went like this:
Daughter: Me and Mummy are going to the chocolate Museum tomorrow whilst you go to church.
Me: (joking) I can't believe that you would rather go to a chocolate museum than to church!
Daughter: No, Daddy, you should say: [Daughter]: Are you going to the chocolate factory? Have you betrayed US? HAVE YOU BETRAYED ME?!!!
I have brought her up so well! [Big Grin]
A good friend of mine invited me to pray with his family recently - we were on holiday together. I was really impressed by his daughter's reaction on finding out we weren't Catholics - she moved from 'I've just eaten something slightly weird but I'm going to make the best of it' to 'F*CK ME, IT WAS (mature) ROADKILL BADGER' in 0.2 seconds flat.
I was quite impressed that a 13 yr old could feel so strongly. It took a while for her (very RC) Dad to talk her round.
She got her own back by telling me it was OK (as at home) to go up for a blessing at mass...in Poland. A language I do not speak...
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
I wouldn't swear to it (because I was only half paying attention) but it appears the Queen's costume ball guests in ITV's "Victoria" have just been dancing to a couple of jolly Strauss waltzes almost a decade before he wrote them.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Only a decade? That passes for cinematic accuracy.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
Some of the male actors in particular from the 1970s make disappointing heroes to me, but perhaps they were considered handsome when the series were made.
You'd have to say Jason King comes pretty high in the Deargod What Were They Thinking stakes.
I love Department S and Jason King, but time has not been kind.
Tubbs
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
I'm too young to even know who Jason King is - or maybe his shows were never on in Australia, or at least weren't repeated in the 1980s.
As to teeth, I never really noticed those. I just find the Jane Austen heroes of the 90s and 00s the most attractive and don't find the actors from the earlier adaptions to be good looking enough. Even the cads.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:
As to the evolution of fashions in body type, all you need do is look at George Reeves, Christopher Reeve and then Henry Cavil, all playing Superman. Or for that matter Adam West in the Batman leotards, or the older Tarzan actors. In the old days even a Tarzan could be quite doughy around the middle. These days you had better be ripped, with washboard abs, or they won't even consider casting you.
Not arguing with your general point but, ISTR an interview with Cavil where he revealed that he was told that he didn't have to hit the gym for the role because they could digitally touch him up, as it were. With pardonable male vanity he hit the gym anyway!
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Yes, CGI can go through and slim down waists and plump up bosoms with no stress at all.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Are the Presbyterians on Prince Edward Island different in their dress from those in the UK? Just watching a newish film (Marilla is too young) in which the minister is wearing a surplice and a stole, which seems a bit high for me.
Anne of Green Gables?
Stole is fine, surplice is right out, for Presbyterians of the period.
Anne of Green Gables is set before 1925 and thus before Church Union.
A common Canadian film conceit is to insert a Methodist minister/church into the film, to make it look 'old'. As the Methodists went into the United Church of Canada whole hog (70% for the Presbies) it's a bit of a dogwhistle if you know what you're looking at.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Yeah, the Hammer Horror pictures made the make-up/hairdo mistakes. Meant to be Victorian but the ladies all have fabulous 70's up-do's, and glossy, shiney makeup, complete with fake eye-lashes and bright shaded eye-powder. Gorjus!
Ah, yes. And Hammer also had that crazy ass DayGlo blood that looked like something you'd paint a barn with.
Or am I thinking of Pinewood?
[ 09. September 2016, 00:36: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I wish they'd re-run Blott on the Landscape which was fantastic. Of course, if you're going to adapt a Tom Sharpe book it does help to have David Suchet and Geraldine James in the main roles...
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I wish they'd re-run Blott on the Landscape which was fantastic. Of course, if you're going to adapt a Tom Sharpe book it does help to have David Suchet and Geraldine James in the main roles...
I have the DVD - a bit dated in places but still ridiculously funny.
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on
:
I watched Porterhouse Blue the other day, didn't seem too dated but it wasn't as side splittingly hilarious as I remembered it. Still worth a watch though.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I wish they'd re-run Blott on the Landscape which was fantastic. Of course, if you're going to adapt a Tom Sharpe book it does help to have David Suchet and Geraldine James in the main roles...
Actually, they did - some months ago, but I can't remember which channel (BBC2...? BBC4...? Er... ), but it was quirkily funny.
And I believe it's on YouTube.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Has anybody mention I Claudius, made by the BBC forty years ago! I have the five disc set and it is so "meaty" that I can't watch more than one episode at a time. Then again, with that cast (Derek Jacobi, George Baker, John Hurt, Sian Phillips, Brian Blessed and Patrick Stewart in a minor role plus many more) and story it was bomb proof.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
There is so much rubbish on tv that I bought and have been enjoying some classics,including:
Barchester Chronicles
Judge John Deed
Inspector Morse
Jane Austen series
The Sullivans
To Serve Them All My Days
Cadfael
just to name a few.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
I have just noticed Ilya Kuryakin is 83.
I need to go away and whimper.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Has anybody mention I Claudius, made by the BBC forty years ago! I have the five disc set and it is so "meaty" that I can't watch more than one episode at a time. Then again, with that cast (Derek Jacobi, George Baker, John Hurt, Sian Phillips, Brian Blessed and Patrick Stewart in a minor role plus many more) and story it was bomb proof.
It is fantastic. The sequel was that the BBC attempted to recreate the high production values (for the seventies, there's a reason that scenes at the amphitheatre concentrate on the Imperial box), top actors, intrigue, violence and nookie and produced first 'The Cleopatras' (which is available on YouTube and, utterly dire) and then 'The Borgias' (not to be confused with the later series with Jeremy Irons) which pretty much did for the genre and got a diplomatic protest from the Vatican along the way. The Spiritual Heir, such as it is, is probably Game Of Thrones with high production values, top actors, intrigue, violence and nookie - the fantasy bit is not irrelevant given the role of the Sybil, astrologers, the death of Herod and so forth.
Amusingly Mrs Callan has a personal trainer called Livia. Not being a fan of I, Claudius, I had to explain that there was a scene when the original Livia poisons BRIAN BLESSED! and the scene is superb because of really subtle acting where he doesn't actually get to say anything which, let's face it, is not what we really associate with BRIAN BLESSED! A few weeks later I was asked: "Will you look after the Callanette, so I can go to a nutrition evening with Livia?"
"Don't touch the figs!"
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
If you want a better update of the same material, the HBO series ROME was excellent. So expensive that alas they were unable to finish it properly, though.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
I, Claudius was amazing. I remembered it from when it was first on, and then got the box set when it came out and it was just as good if not better than I remembered.
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Has anybody mention I Claudius ...
Although I was only in my early teens when I Claudius was first aired, I still think it was one of the best things the Beeb ever did, and would certainly watch it again given the chance.
Is it my imagination, or were they much bolder in what they could show in those days than they are now? From my memory, it left very little to the imagination, but I have no memory of them giving warnings about the content before each episode, as they'd do nowadays.*
* When BBC Canada broadcast Top Gear it gets a "coarse language" warning, presumably because James May occasionally says "bugger".
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I was struck with how they did very little with a lot in CLAUDIUS. I remember the riot scene, which was essentially 4 guys in a corridor yelling.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
First time round,I am sure that the death of Caligula's sister was shown in some way, but in the recent repeat, the door into the room was not passed.
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on
:
Firenze, can I join you in the whimpering corner? I remember practicing very hard to be able to say Ilya Kuriakin, and I liked him much better than Napoleon Solo.
Posted by Doone (# 18470) on
:
Me too ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I have just noticed Ilya Kuryakin is 83.
I need to go away and whimper.
If this is the actor, David Callum, rather than the character, he's a darn good 83. (For anyone who doesn't know, he plays Dr. Mallard on "NCIS". If you've never watched it, "Ducky" has been on it since the beginning--so you've got years' worth of episodes to binge-watch! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
First time round,I am sure that the death of Caligula's sister was shown in some way, but in the recent repeat, the door into the room was not passed.
It was indeed; I can still see John Hurt's blond beard covered in blood ... ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Correction: the actor who played Ilya is David McCallum. Sorry.
Posted by Fredegund (# 17952) on
:
Another one whimpering in the David McCallum corner. And why does noone bring back "Sapphire & Steel?" Wonderful rubbish for a wet Saturday.
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
It was indeed; I can still see John Hurt's blond beard covered in blood ...
I watched the DVD at the weekend, you see plenty of her chained up but after the screaming starts the remains of the scene are Caligula saying "don't go in there, don't go in there", Clavdivs poking his head through the door and clucking in a horrified manner and then the trumpets herald the credits before the door swings open enough to see what has happened.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fredegund:
Another one whimpering in the David McCallum corner. And why does noone bring back "Sapphire & Steel?" Wonderful rubbish for a wet Saturday.
One of the most unnerving and utterly gripping series on television. It was quite low budget but what they could do with a deserted set and a bunch of shadows still has me spooked when I think about it. The only one that descended into bathos was the one with the killer leg of lamb. Pure gold otherwise.
[ 21. September 2016, 11:29: Message edited by: Ariel ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I tried posting 'me too' yesterday, but got flood reliefed.
I ended up not liking Sapphire and Steel. I wanted explanations of how that world worked. And I wanted some care for the people who had been harmed.
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on
:
I don't remember a killer leg of lamb! The Sapphire and Steel story on the railway station was good.
I don't normally watch stuff like NCIS, but I do like Ducky and the Goth scientist girl, and I did like the joke they did in one episode when the younger characters were wondering what Ducky looked like when he was younger, and one of them said "Ilya Kuriakin!"
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
the Goth scientist girl,
sigh Abby...
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
I don't remember a killer leg of lamb!
My memory of the episode is as follows (so this may not be strictly accurate):
There was a couple living in a flat some kind of a time capsule, possibly with a baby. I think they'd come from the future. They'd stocked up on 20th century provisions including a leg of lamb, but the leg of lamb got annoyed, accumulated some bits from other animals, gnawed a hole in the wall of the flat and hid in it, only slithering out at night in a menacing way. Sapphire and Steel were called in to investigate the strange goings on. I don't remember what happened, only that the slithering leg of lamb was quite repulsive and didn't take kindly to being disintegrated by S&S.
I may well have conflated this with other bits of the main plot but that's how I remember it.
The railway station assignment had me totally on the edge of my seat and is still a good warning about the dangers of resentment.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
The railway station one was when I decided I didn't like it.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
People are going to start talking about "The Prisoner" next ... surreal Sunday night television!
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
A personal admission... I'm in organized Starsky and Hutch fandom. Anyone else remember them fondly? It's not a great show but a heck of a lot of fun. And I had such a crush on Paul Michael Glaser (Starsky) when I was a teen, and he still looks pretty good..
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
A lot of girls did. I remember the posters!
So: Bodie or Doyle, then?
(This would be from "The Professionals".)
Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
People are going to start talking about "The Prisoner" next ... surreal Sunday night television!
I hope so! The Prisoner was great! Love the mind games, and the use of fractured nursery rhymes. And Rover was quite menacing, even as a balloon...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Well, I'm sure it benefited Portmeirion's visitor numbers!
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on
:
I have fond memories of glueing white trim to my school blazer with copydex after the 80s repeats.
I actually shouted "I am not a number, I am a free man" as the cane was administered
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
In terms of "old TV series" (as opposed to "period television"), I watch a lot of old comedy series, especially when I am in a period of sitting alone with the black dog and just can't bring myself to do anything much at all. In this last week, I have watched all the extant episodes of "All gas and gaiters" and every episode of "It ain't 'alf hot mum".
Both (to my mind) are hilariously funny and yet... they're not. If they were made again today, I just don't think we'd see them as funny (a view that was confirmed recently by watching some of the "Lost Sitcoms" series on BBC2.) I don't know why that is. Perhaps when watching something made in the 70s/80s we transport ourselves back mentally to "where we were as people" in the 70s/80s?
I love period telly but, I'm afraid, I am one of those geeky historians who makes lists of the historically inaccurate bits and posts angry comments on bulletin boards. ("Did I really just see Jane Austen's Lord Netherswizzle eat a Rowntree's Fruit Pastille when such confectionery wasn't invented until 1881..?")
In terms of bad period drama, I seriously think "Upstairs Downstairs" might have been the worst period drama ever created, ever. I adore it. Have every episode on DVD, can tell you every plotline and character biography, and become utterly engrossed when viewing. Go figure!
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Though when I titled the thread I was thinking of TV that was contemporary at the time but now belongs to history. Which includes those eras' representations of the yet further past - which, as has been noted above, are as likely now to evoke the period in which they were made as much, or more, than the one they purport to be about.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Why was Upstairs, Dowstairs bad period TV? Costuming/sets, or social situations?
In the latter, I absolutely deplore novels in which, mysteriously, medieval nuns seem to have read Betty Friedan, or Julius Caesar knows the principles of double-entry bookkeeping. There is nothing to be done about historicity of this sort on screen, however -- that's just too big a fence for Hollywood to jump.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I live in an architect devised and partly designed Village, with a Village Association. Occasionally I make jokes about the difficulty of getting in and out, and large balloons, and they fall absolutely flat! (I wish we did have Rovers, as we need some sanctions against people whose freedoms include interfering with others'. As in "what's wrong with my parking in front of your garage, you can come and ask whenever you want to use it?")
Anyway, the memory of "The Prisoner" does not seem to exist here.
[ 22. September 2016, 14:56: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Why was Upstairs, Dowstairs bad period TV? Costuming/sets, or social situations?
I don't think it was "bad period tv" so much as bad drama. Some of the plotlines were... shall we say "strange"?
I remember watching 'USDS' with my late grandmother, who had been in service in that same Edwardian-1930s era (before "marrying above herself".) In her (professional?) opinion, the Bellamy's household was an unfeasibly "big happy family". When Grandma was a lady's maid, most of the servants had never engaged in "meaningful conversation" with members of the family (and vice versa) but at 165 Eton Place they were all constantly confiding in each other. When Grandma later became housekeeper in a larger household, most of the servants had never even engaged in meaningful conversation with the butler and housekeeper, let alone the family.
It is, I suppose, much like Downton Abbey, which I also love but which is also horribly unrealistic. All those members of the family falling over themselves to help and "understand" the servants when, in reality, they would scarcely have known most of the servants existed. (It's set, after all, in a time not long after minor servants had to turn and face the wall when members of the family walked into a room!)
[TRUE STORY (unless Grandma was a liar!)]
In Grandma's first job, the Mistress (M, Lady D) at least knew the names of the servants. Her husband (Sir ED) addressed female servants as "I say... <cough>.. you there" and male servants as "I say... <cough>... you boy". The exception was the butler, who had been there since Sir E was a lad, and was addressed as "I say... <cough>... {surname}." In the early 20s, he once appeared in the drawing room before dinner, clutching an unfortunate youth by the collar and said to his wife, "I just found this boy in the dining room!" to which she (who knew her husband well) replied, "That's not a boy, dear. It's a footman. Put it back!"
[/TRUE STORY]
Edited: Under-bracketing
[ 22. September 2016, 16:42: Message edited by: Teekeey Misha ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Oh, that's hysterical. But you can see why the scriptwriters have created such an un-period coziness between the servants and masters. Not only does this make it understandable to viewers, but this allows for much more plot generation. If you can always count upon a maid to rat out the naughty daughter's shenanigans to her papa Lord X, that keeps the story going.
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on
:
Thanks lilBuddha - of course it's Abby in NCIS!
And in Starsky and Hutch, I fancied Hutch (I even bought David Soul's record!).
In the Professionals I preferred Martin Shaw because the chap who played Bodie had previously been an obnoxious lodger in a sit com called the Cuckoo Waltz.
Oh, and Pete Duel in Alias Smith and Jones!
and Rover in the Prisoner terrified me as a child!
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Capability Brown was not, AFAIK, a Quaker, yet in a not-that-long-ago dramatisation he is represented as talking to his aristocratic employer with his hat on.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Yes, all these period courtesies are becoming lost. The etiquette of gloves, when on and when off, is gone, and in our lifetime probably the zen of cigarettes (who lights them for whom with what) will go.
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
And in 'Victoria' which is on at the moment, the congregation clapped when she and dear Albert got married, and she threw her bouquet.
(Wait to be told this is my ignorance, and they were both traditions that subsequently stopped and were started again very recently)
M.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Yes, all these period courtesies are becoming lost. The etiquette of gloves, when on and when off, is gone, and in our lifetime probably the zen of cigarettes (who lights them for whom with what) will go.
Yes, although have you noticed how Directors deliberately include smoking in 1930s/50s "gritty" dramas as a way of establishing the period? Of course many more people did smoke then, but they seem to make a point of it.
Posted by Fredegund (# 17952) on
:
The Professionals _ Doyle, of course.
But he's aged awfully well too, think of the later P D James adaptations.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fredegund:
The Professionals _ Doyle, of course.
But he's aged awfully well too, think of the later P D James adaptations.
Martin Shaw as Chauvelin in "The Scarlet Pimpernel" is one of his best performances, IMO. If I'd been Marguerite I'd unhesitatingly have dumped Sir Percy and gone off with him.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Martin Shaw as Chauvelin in "The Scarlet Pimpernel" is one of his best performances, IMO. If I'd been Marguerite I'd unhesitatingly have dumped Sir Percy and gone off with him.
As against Richard E Grant* - totally no contest.
*miscast in any case.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
There's a steadily-evolving set of signals that directors use, to broadly indicate character. Smoking is a fine example. It starts out fairly high-class (cigars with his lordship in the library!) and becomes racier (Lauren Bacall and cigarette). We are now in the days when if you want to indicate a villain you have him abuse animals, children or women, and smoke. Even in period dramas, as you note, not everybody smokes. I bet if you tallied it up you'd find that only the more dubious characters do -- but only in works made in this century. It's instructive to go back, and read say a Lord Peter Wimsey novel. Heroine Harriet Vane smokes like a chimney, and no one remarks on it.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Why was Upstairs, Dowstairs bad period TV? Costuming/sets, or social situations?
I don't think it was "bad period tv" so much as bad drama. Some of the plotlines were... shall we say "strange"?
I remember watching 'USDS' with my late grandmother, who had been in service in that same Edwardian-1930s era (before "marrying above herself".) In her (professional?) opinion, the Bellamy's household was an unfeasibly "big happy family". When Grandma was a lady's maid, most of the servants had never engaged in "meaningful conversation" with members of the family (and vice versa) but at 165 Eton Place they were all constantly confiding in each other. When Grandma later became housekeeper in a larger household, most of the servants had never even engaged in meaningful conversation with the butler and housekeeper, let alone the family.
It is, I suppose, much like Downton Abbey, which I also love but which is also horribly unrealistic. All those members of the family falling over themselves to help and "understand" the servants when, in reality, they would scarcely have known most of the servants existed. (It's set, after all, in a time not long after minor servants had to turn and face the wall when members of the family walked into a room!)
[TRUE STORY (unless Grandma was a liar!)]
In Grandma's first job, the Mistress (M, Lady D) at least knew the names of the servants. Her husband (Sir ED) addressed female servants as "I say... <cough>.. you there" and male servants as "I say... <cough>... you boy". The exception was the butler, who had been there since Sir E was a lad, and was addressed as "I say... <cough>... {surname}." In the early 20s, he once appeared in the drawing room before dinner, clutching an unfortunate youth by the collar and said to his wife, "I just found this boy in the dining room!" to which she (who knew her husband well) replied, "That's not a boy, dear. It's a footman. Put it back!"
[/TRUE STORY]
Edited: Under-bracketing
I read a lot of golden age crime fiction and they all reference the fact that the servants are "invisible".
Tubbs
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by M. quote:
And in 'Victoria' which is on at the moment, the congregation clapped when she and dear Albert got married, and she threw her bouquet.
A friend who works in TV tells me that the reason for that sort of thing being waved through is so they can more easily sell it to The Americans.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There's a steadily-evolving set of signals that directors use, to broadly indicate character.
In (older) Disney movies, among others, an upper-class English accent often identified the villain.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Hmmm. And would that be why Mr Darcy has to go about in a wet shirt, and Mr Poldark in no shirt at all?
I don't know that public taste is any more degraded on the other side of the Atlantic than on this.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
But of course. Not that there's a -problem-, mind you.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
I read a lot of golden age crime fiction and they all reference the fact that the servants are "invisible".
You also have characters like Jeeves (ok not crime), Lugg and Bunter who are indispensable right hand men to the protagonists.
I think that there was a change after WWII when people did feel a need to be polite to the servants and this may have informed how they were portrayed on TV by people who had grown up in those environments. I remember an interview with Sian Phillips who played Livia in I, Claudius, who said that she found it terribly hard to blank the slaves when she was required to because it went against her upbringing.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
My sister, when elevated to Oxford High Tables, made a point of not blanking the staff she had met while teaching at a local comp, as blanking is still customary.
Agatha Christie and Noel Coward (Blithe Spirit) do not blank servants, but do treat them as stupid, rather than ill educated.
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Not as bad as a terrible film I once saw in which Jesus only spoke in quotes from the Authorised Version while the disciples used 1950s American slang. I guess it was meant to be "contemporary" but that its makers felt held back from altering the words of our Lord himself.
Was that the same film that showed Jesus on the cross with shaved armpits?
sounds like it might have been!
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Time has mercifully clouded any such recollection that I may ever have had.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I have just noticed Ilya Kuryakin is 83.
I need to go away and whimper.
How strange. Was only thinking about him earlier and wondering if he was still around. My partner used to like him in the Man from Uncle. I always thought Robert Vaughan was cool.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Is Illya Kuryakin still around!
Not only around but has just signed a new two year contract to continue as Dr Donald Mallard - aka Ducky - in NCIS.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Apologies for arriving late to the Avengers. Have to say it was a big part of my childhood and I also watched them all/most again recently.... Well twice actually. Even the opening music can transport me back to seemingly better days.
One thing striking was the brain washing theme that occurred in several episodes, bit of a 60s thing. Always remembered the one where they tried to get Tara King, (who I was deeply in love with, aged 8), to marry an elderly war veteran in order to get to release his hidden fortune. She was drugged making her believe it was WW1 and this old guy was in prime of life, when in fact he was ancient.
-----------------
What ever happened to the Likely Lads ? Brilliant.
The way that offset worked with flat-capped, caught in a time warp, Terry against newly-wed, here we come suburbia, Bob.--- just comedy magic. Amazed how amateur the production seems now aswell, with actors regularly stumbling over lines. Mind you just adds to the flavour.
All time favourite episode? Terry's no-good Uncle Jacob, recently departed, who he hero worshiped. Wouldn't want to put a spoiler on the ending
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
...Tara King, (who I was deeply in love with, aged 8)...
I was deeply in love with Mrs Peel aged 10. (I was ten, not she, obviously!) Mind you, I was also very taken with Steed. Sadly, my parents were horribly repressive of my youthful yearnings and refused to buy their ten year old son a bowler hat or a black "gentleman's walker"*.
[*ETA I was well into my twenties before I satisfied my urges by the purchase of both the hat and the umbrella!]
[ 25. September 2016, 10:50: Message edited by: Teekeey Misha ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Always remembered Steed's steel-plated bowler being more of a feature. Nostalgia was brought up short on re-watch and only seeing it used in self defence a couple of times.
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on
:
I wanted to BE Emma Peel.
Or Sharon McCready from The Champions - I always fancied the Champions' ability to communicate (I presume it was some sort of ESP).
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Does anyone else remember a British kids' series called "The Double-deckers"? Not sure when it was made, but it was on syndicated US TV back in the 60s. Focused on kids who used an old double-decker bus as a clubhouse, and also their classroom time.
Also good: "H.R. Pufnstuff", "Beanie & Cecil", "Rocky and Bullwinkle", "Yogi Bear", and "The Friendly Giant". Oh, and "Romper Room".
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Always remembered Steed's steel-plated bowler being more of a feature. Nostalgia was brought up short on re-watch and only seeing it used in self defence a couple of times.
My school was not far from the studios where "The Avengers" was made, and there was great excitement a couple of times when it was used for filming.
Of course we were kept well away from the action and never saw anything or anybody - but we still looked out for familiar landmarks when the episodes were screened!
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
May I introduce a little bit of Canadian TV from 3 decades. Same genre - the outdoors and wilderness - all with a mix of white people and indigenous - and all with theme music we could all identify.
The first is The Forest Rangers from the 1960s. A groups of kids lived in a fort in the semi-wilderness and sorted out the problems of the park rangers, local indigenous people. It's a bit like Narnia meets a moose, with Joe Two-Rivers as an quaint indigenous Aslan. I encourage you to click on the link, which is youtube, to at least listen to the theme.
In the 1970s, the CBC updated the genre to Rainbow Country, which has a more exciting motif. Click the youtube link for the theme and if you like an episode. They get a float plane and a Quebecois love interest for the mother of the fishing lodge.
By the 1980s, they did it in drama-sitcom style with The Beachcombers. Moving west to the coast of BC. The wilderness is being exploited and the characters compete in the real world.
All of these were top-rated shows in their day.
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
I think you've linked the second one twice.
The Beachcombers is here.
I remember watching it here in the UK when we had family visits to my grandmother for Sunday lunch. Watching the Canadians doing odd things with logs was FAR more fun than talking with the aged ones!
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on
:
I remember the Double Deckers, Golden Key!
There was a kid who invented things - I seem to remember a hovercraft in one episode, which set off by accident with the youngest little girl in it. Over the radio, they told her to press the button on her left side, but she was too young to have learned left and right.
"The side where you hold your spoon!" they said.
"But I'm not holding a spoon!!!"
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Ah children's TV - we're going back to the days of visibly-stringed puppets and narration by a terribly nice English gel. Remember the Woodentops?. And Torchy the Battery Boy - who looks unsettlingly like an early run for the demonic Chuckie. I don't think I liked it much at the time even.
Apart from Crackerjack (It's Friday! It's 5 o'clock!) I can't really recall much. I think because for me the really visceral early memories are from listening to the radio. Nothing TV could do at the time could deliver the frisson of Journey into Space.
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fredegund:
The Professionals _ Doyle, of course.
But he's aged awfully well too, think of the later P D James adaptations.
Not to mention Judge John Deed.
**drool**
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Apart from Crackerjack (It's Friday! It's 5 o'clock!) I can't really recall much.
I think it was not "5 o'clock" but rather "It's Friday! It's five-to-five! It's CRACKERJACK!"
I do remember the Doubledeckers - or at least I remember the theme tune and lots of kids larking around on a bus. That's about all I remember of it.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Theme lyrics, IIRC:
Get on board, get on board,
Get on board with the Double-deckers.
Take a ticket for a journey
On a double-decker London bus!
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Apart from Crackerjack (It's Friday! It's 5 o'clock!) I can't really recall much.
I think it was not "5 o'clock" but rather "It's Friday! It's five-to-five! It's CRACKERJACK!"
That was Later. In the beginning, it began at 5 o'clock. That was the traditional hour for children's programming, inherited, I fancy, from radio. I remember the sense of disturbance when they started earlier. Jackanory was a significant feature, beginning 15 minutes before the 'proper' time. Then that moved to 20 to 5, main children's programme 5 to 5, then didn't the National News begin at 10 to 6? Or am I imagining that?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
And DO NOT FORGET "The Magic Roundabout", squeezed in just before the News!
Everyone lauds "Jackanory" these days. I thought it was dull. But I liked "Blue Peter" - we always tried to guess the carefully-concealed brand name on the cereal packets or washing-up liquid containers used for the crafts.
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
That was Later. In the beginning, it began at 5 o'clock.
Ah. I'm obviously far too young to remember that.
quote:
...then didn't the National News begin at 10 to 6? Or am I imagining that?
I remember the news being at 5:45. It struck me at the time that it would be far more sensible to have the news at six o'clock because "This is the BBC News at six o'clock" sounded far more impressive than "This is the BBC News at five forty five." I notice nowadays that (if the news is shunted from its 6pm slot) they say, "This is the early evening news from the BBC", which seems terribly insipid. It lacks the portent of "This is the BBC News at six o'clock".
There used to be a cartoon between the end of the "main" programme (Blue Peter/Grange Hill) and the beginning of the news. When I was in the VIth form, there was always a mad scramble getting to a good seat in common room between the end of the last lesson and the beginning of "Willo the Wisp". (We watched it for the social satire. Honestly... )
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
That was Later. In the beginning, it began at 5 o'clock.
Ah. I'm obviously far too young to remember that.
quote:
...then didn't the National News begin at 10 to 6? Or am I imagining that?
I remember the news being at 5:45. It struck me at the time that it would be far more sensible to have the news at six o'clock because "This is the BBC News at six o'clock" sounded far more impressive than "This is the BBC News at five forty five." I notice nowadays that (if the news is shunted from its 6pm slot) they say, "This is the early evening news from the BBC", which seems terribly insipid. It lacks the portent of "This is the BBC News at six o'clock".
There used to be a cartoon between the end of the "main" programme (Blue Peter/Grange Hill) and the beginning of the news. When I was in the VIth form, there was always a mad scramble getting to a good seat in common room between the end of the last lesson and the beginning of "Willo the Wisp". (We watched it for the social satire. Honestly... )
ITN news was at 5.45, BBC Early Evening News (yes, they did call it that), was at 5.40.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Which is just wrong. News happens at 1 o'clock, 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock as it was ordained from the beginning.
My mother would look for the 9 o'clock news loooong after it had departed. There being no daytime television during the week, we always listened to the 1 o'clock on the radio. After which we had to retune to RTE - or Radio Athlone as it was in those days - to hear the southern Irish version. Part of the soundtrack of my childhood is the Fat Stock prices and the advertisement for Galtee cheese.
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:ITN news was at 5.45, BBC Early Evening News (yes, they did call it that), was at 5.40.
I have no reason to doubt you, but I guarantee that ITN didn't come it. We didn't watch "the other side" *sniff* in our household. If it wasn't on Aunty it wasn't worth watching...
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
My mother would look for the 9 o'clock news loooong after it had departed.
Because it makes far more sense than this new-fangled palaver of starting the "evening post-watershed movie" at 2100hrs, then stopping it at 2200hrs for the news, then starting it again - not even at 2230hrs when the news ends, but at 2240hrs when the "local" news has finished too.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
... Until ITV produced "Do Not Adjust Your Set" in the late 60s.
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
... "Rocky and Bullwinkle"...
A truly creative and transformative show with an attitude, full of adult jokes, awful puns, and characters who talked back to the narrator. I was disappointed, however, to find that the archived shows on Netflix didn't include the other associated cartoons such as Dudley Doright.
"Must get moose'n'squirrel!" still gets quoted around our household occasionally when we're focused on accomplishing something.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
There being no daytime television during the week, we always listened to the 1 o'clock on the radio. After which we had to retune to RTE - or Radio Athlone as it was in those days - to hear the southern Irish version. Part of the soundtrack of my childhood is the Fat Stock prices and the advertisement for Galtee cheese.
As part of mine is the sound of the Six O'Clock Angelus (which they still broadcast) before the news.
But yes, news should be at 1, 6 and 9, how else do you know where you are with the world.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Dad always had "the World at One" with William Hardcastle on the radio. Then, having been fiddling around outdoors in the evening, he'd often come in for another dose of gloom from ITV's News at Ten.
As a kid I remember Robert Dougal coming on after Magic Roundabout, with news often dominated by the joys of the Vietnam war and other similarly uplifting items.
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
... As a kid I remember Robert Dougal ...
As was the case with several of his colleagues, he was never quite the same after an encounter with Morecambe & Wise.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
We always had to watch anything like a royal wedding with the sound turned right down so our papa wouldn't blow a gasket at the errors littering the commentary by Richard Dimbleby.
Posted by Jante (# 9163) on
:
Anyone else remember Time Slip- I still have fondest memories of it.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I remember Timeslip. Youngsters were able to crawl through the wire fence and enter the future/ past but adults could not.
One episode when, in the future, the immortality pills which held off advancing age failed did spook me somewhat.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
I realize I am resurrecting a long-dead thread, but because, for Christmas, I received a DVD collection of the first season of "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea," I feel justified.
This is a series that begs to be re-made. Space exploration series have become too common, but life in a sub below the water can still feel like an unknown quantity.
The first season was focussed more on espionage and Cold War themes that I think could be re-tooled for a modern age. The later season were (unfortunately) more in the monster-of-the-week mode, but using the first season as a template, I think this could be re-made quite successfully.
Of course, updating would be needed. The original series was set roughly twelve in the future...or the late 1970s-early 1980s. Despite that, the crew of the USS Seaview is exclusively white males. Of course, after several years of a Trump presidency, maybe that will be an accurate reflection of the future--but I sincerely hope not.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
H--
Did you ever see "Seaquest", back in the '90s? (It became "Seaquest DSV", after some changes.) Also a submarine adventure, and really good.
I'm not necessarily for remaking old shows, particularly ones I liked! A lot gets lost, or becomes a spoof. (As with the movie versions of "Starsky & Hutch".)
I liked "Voyage", and have caught a couple reruns on a retro station. But yes, it did get to the point where it cycled through "who was possessed?", "who disappeared?", and "what's that strange creature?".
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
I realize I am resurrecting a long-dead thread, but because, for Christmas, I received a DVD collection of the first season of "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea," I feel justified.
Myself and two older brothers were VttBotS fans.
That, and Lost in Space. A peculiar 'Swiss family Robinson' in space thing. Very much of it's age which meant the remake couldn't really recapture it.
I've learnt recently that many a young female of my peer group lost their heart to Captain Crane from Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. The 60s was a unique decade in so many ways.
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on
:
I quite fancied Captain Crane, too - and although the crew of the Seaview was all white and male, it was always the crewman with the Polish name who died first!
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
As to teeth, I never really noticed those. I just find the Jane Austen heroes of the 90s and 00s the most attractive and don't find the actors from the earlier adaptions to be good looking enough. Even the cads.
You see, you prove my point right there! This is the generation of plastic fantastic. You find them more attractive, I find them unbelievable in their roles and therefore distracting from the action.
Austen, eg, wrote about relatively ordinary people, good-looking enough perhaps, but not the extravagantly groomed, plumped, lifted, botoxed creations that routinely pass for actors these days. If I can't even believe that who I'm looking at is really 'real', how can I believe in the character they're playing?! It's just a personal thing!
The Granada produced 'Adventures of Sherlock Holmes' with the wonderful Jeremy Brett is perhaps my favourite period TV. They didn't always stick to the letter of the stories, but always to the spirit of them. And period feel seemed absolutely bang on, so far as I could tell.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
A retro station ran a couple of episodes of "Square Pegs" tonight! And another station ran one of my fave eps of "MacGyver"! ("Ugly Duckling".)
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Tangentially, local PBS station is doing a massive "Downton" marathon--entire series this week from 8 am into the evening.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Square Pegs? Square Pegs? Square, Square--PEGS?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Nothing. Ever. Quite. Right!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
This is the generation of plastic fantastic. You find them more attractive, I find them unbelievable in their roles and therefore distracting from the action.
Austen, eg, wrote about relatively ordinary people, good-looking enough perhaps, but not the extravagantly groomed, plumped, lifted, botoxed creations that routinely pass for actors these days. If I can't even believe that who I'm looking at is really 'real', how can I believe in the character they're playing?! It's just a personal thing!
Sometimes I purposely watch mediocre films or productions from the late 60s -- early 70s simply to get away from "plastic fantastic". This was the era when females at their most beautiful IMHO. Anyone looking for attractive males would probably need to go back even further.
Coming back to Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea I forgotten about the poor Poles copping out. At least with Star Trek the ones with a target on their chest were defined by dress. A red jumper posed a high risk of being atomised within 10 minutes of arriving on a new planet.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mili:
[qb]Austen, eg, wrote about relatively ordinary people, good-looking enough perhaps, but not the extravagantly groomed, plumped, lifted, botoxed creations that routinely pass for actors these days.
No.
Not really.
Asten's fiction was written at a time when the country was at war, a war that did not get mentioned in the books. It is pure escapism.
If you enjoy Austen then enjoy it for the escapism it is, or for its satire on the manners of the day. But please, please don't call it realistic. It was never meant to be that.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Coming back to Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea I forgotten about the poor Poles copping out. At least with Star Trek the ones with a target on their chest were defined by dress. A red jumper posed a high risk of being atomised within 10 minutes of arriving on a new planet.
I had forgotten the Pole Death Rate as well. It was a far more subtle indicator than Star Trek's Red Shirt Cannon Fodder.
I remember Seaquest DSV. In many ways, I think that was an attempt to update Voyage, but I never liked the know-it-all brat (essentially, Wesley Crusher before ST:TNG).
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mili:
[qb]Austen, eg, wrote about relatively ordinary people, good-looking enough perhaps, but not the extravagantly groomed, plumped, lifted, botoxed creations that routinely pass for actors these days.
No.
Not really.
Asten's fiction was written at a time when the country was at war, a war that did not get mentioned in the books. It is pure escapism.
If you enjoy Austen then enjoy it for the escapism it is, or for its satire on the manners of the day. But please, please don't call it realistic. It was never meant to be that.
What a confusing response. I'm not sure I even know what you mean. What is it I'm supposed to be calling 'realistic'?
My objection to some modern dramatic attempts at recreating Austen is with some of the actors used. I'm willing to suspend disbelief of course. But that is hard to do when the actors involved have so obviously had 'work done', and/or have make-up and hairstyles which have nothing to do with the era. I don't think it's a bad thing to have 'realistic' representations of the era being portrayed. And I'm not going to apologise for preferring period realism in a drama to lack of realism. That is the 'realism', clearly, I'm talking about.
And why should a romantic novelist write about war, unless she wants to? Her military characters - of which there were quite a number - were completely in keeping with her theme of quite ordinary, but interesting stories about quite ordinary but interesting middle-class people. Just like herself and her circle. That was her genius, in fact. To write perceptively, wittily, and sometimes critically, about the social manners of her time.
By all means you may read her for any amount of escapism you derive from it. Most novels, surely, are read for some element of escapism. I like Austen because she writes, with a fair amount of contemporary critique, of times of a bygone era, in an entertaining and authentic way. That's why I read Austen's books, if it's all the same to you.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Asten's fiction was written at a time when the country was at war, a war that did not get mentioned in the books. It is pure escapism.
If you enjoy Austen then enjoy it for the escapism it is, or for its satire on the manners of the day. But please, please don't call it realistic. It was never meant to be that.
The early books were written during The Napoleonic Wars. The Napoleonic Wars were very much an on and off thing, and despite the odd scare, England was never under serious threat. The wars hardly show up in Austen's biography, for example.
A number of characters in Persuasion have been active in naval service.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Pride and Prejudice features the militia being stationed locally - and the effects on the local society.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
This thread on period television only just caught my eye - I wonder if you fans of old productions might be interested to glance at what some remarkably skilled people (not me!) choose to watch them on!
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Mark--
Way cool! Thanks for that.
It tangentially reminds me of something called "slow-scan TV", back in the 1970s. Back-to-the-land folks wanted a way to send pictures to each other, over the air. Don't remember how it worked, but there's probably info online. I think "Mother Earth News" magazine had articles, back then.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0