Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 14:20:14 GMT
Well perhaps if there was a bit more support for the BBC, it would have survived. It's difficult to provide cultural programming in a market lead world that is becoming less cultural. But maybe this will give BBC2 the kick up the arse it needs.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Mar 30, 2021 14:31:16 GMT
Well perhaps if there was a bit more support for the BBC, it would have survived. It's difficult to provide cultural programming in a market lead world that is becoming less cultural. But maybe this will give BBC2 the kick up the arse it needs. It's part of a wider trend...the dumbing down of culture. But the BBC is supposed to cater for these niche things, even in an increasingly stupid, youth orientated market. To me it's like a betrayal of art and I think that's disgraceful. And yet they can find 100 million for some diversity and inclusion project. These fucking guys. I hope BBC2 can step it up but I wouldn't get yer hopes up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 14:39:22 GMT
Well perhaps if there was a bit more support for the BBC, it would have survived. It's difficult to provide cultural programming in a market lead world that is becoming less cultural. But maybe this will give BBC2 the kick up the arse it needs. It's part of a wider trend...the dumbing down of culture. But the BBC is supposed to cater for these niche things, even in an increasingly stupid, youth orientated market. To me it's like a betrayal of art and I think that's disgraceful. And yet they can find 100 million for some diversity and inclusion project. These fucking guys. I hope BBC2 can step it up but I wouldn't get yer hopes up. Unfortunately the BBC has become a political football. Conservative governments have been looking for a way to dismantle the way it's funded and its pbs remit and the way has been to cut its funding. This is one result of that.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Mar 30, 2021 14:42:59 GMT
On 16 November 1966, the BBC’s Wednesday Play strand ran a “docudrama” that shocked its 12 million viewers, launched two new charities and changed both the laws of England and Wales and operation of the social services safety net we all depend upon: Jeremy Sandford’s Cathy Come Home.
Television plays had first appeared with television itself in the 1930s. At first they were stagey, hammy farces and drawing room comedies, designed to appeal to the middle classes that made up the audience for the new medium. When ITV started in 1955, not much had changed – plays for television were multi-camera, studio-bound and had small casts. In 1956, the new ITV company for the midlands and north on weekends, ABC, had started a strand it called Armchair Theatre. The plays were still small cast, studio-bound and usually adaptations of relatively conservative stage plays.
But the management at ABC spotted something: when they showed a play that was a bit more avant garde or intended to challenge the viewer’s opinions or lifestyle, viewing figures went up. Against the conventional wisdom, it seemed that people in the late 1950s liked having television that took them on full in the face.
Armchair Theatre was soon switched from being a family affair into being a contemporary discussion of modern life. New plays were commissioned and a vogue for “kitchen sink drama”, families falling apart or failing at what was expected of them, children breaking out of society’s straitjacket, women refusing to take the word of men as the word of law, gripped the nation.
The trend spread to other ITV companies – Granada and Rediffusion both putting out plays by new writers – and eventually to the BBC. With a popular clamour for one-off plays on television, these programmes weren’t confined to the off-hours or, from 1964, the new BBC-2. They were put in peak viewing time on the popular channels – ABC’s Armchair Theatre on Saturday evenings on ITV, The Wednesday Play and its successor Play for Today also at around 9pm on weekdays on BBC-1.
The plays started to push subject matter further as the 1960s progressed. Abortion (Up The Junction, BBC-1, 1965), sexual assault (A Night Out, ABC, 1960), sex (The Lover, Associated-Rediffusion, 1963), the casting couch (Afternoon of a Nymph, ABC, 1962), capital punishment (3 Clear Sundays, BBC-1, 1965) and “the colour problem” (Fable, BBC-1, 1965) all appeared to challenge the views of the viewers – often heralding real change in their attitudes and opinions.
Into this mix came Cathy Come Home. For its time, the structure of the play is very unusual. It is shot by Ken Loach more like a Panorama or World in Action feature than a play, blurring the lines between documentary and drama. While tightly written and not improvised, Carol White and Ray Brooks play their parts with a startling naivety, looking and sounding for all the world like real people in a real situation. Additionally, the play was shot on film and so covered a longer period of time than usual studio plays, and gained a realism that video (or, ironically, live performance) didn’t quite provide.
The 1960s were a time when television was seen as disposable. For most of its history, it hadn’t been possible to record television’s output. When it did become possible, the cost of the tapes were so high that reuse was the only way to keep within a budget. For film, and when the cost of tapes fell, storage was an issue. Why keep something that most people had seen when doing so cost money and the audience preferred a poorer new production to a brilliant one they had seen before?
Cathy Come Home, however, was kept. Not only kept, but repeated by the BBC several times. In the Radio Times clipping above, the play is getting its first run out since its début and warrants a mention on the magazine cover as well as most of an inside page – most unusual.
But then the effect of the play was unusual too. A fortnight after it first aired, and largely by coincidence, the homelessness charity Shelter was launched – a very successful launch with the play still burnt into the minds of its 12 million viewers. A year later, and entirely because of Cathy Come Home‘s effect, the charity Crisis launched, again with a mandate to fight homelessness. The problem of homelessness came very much to the fore of British society’s conscience in the years after Cathy, with the launch of a further housing charity, Centrepoint, and the 1974 two-day takeover of the similarly named (and long empty) office building Centre Point in central London by the capital’s homeless.
The government of the day also reacted to Cathy, first with the ill-fated 1967 Housing Subsidies Act then the 1969 Housing Act – both heavily influenced by the play. At the same time, the policy of splitting families apart – wives from husbands, parents from children – when people became homeless was stopped: the play highlighted that this was more an act of punishment similar to the hated pre-welfare state workhouses than an attempt to help those without a home, and the public swung against such barbaric practices.
Much of the work done in the aftermath of Cathy Come Home was undone by the free market policies of the 1980s and by society forgetting the impact of the play and turning back to blaming the homeless for their plight. Homelessness for families and individuals is again a big problem in the United Kingdom and we face a housing shortage not seen since Cathy Come Home convinced a government that building more houses – quickly and for a low price – was something that a civilised society needed.wearecult.rocks/cathy-come-home-the-play-that-changed-society
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 21:30:17 GMT
I tried to watch a documentary on pirates on Netfix. I lasted about 3 minutes. The subject matter was potentially interesting, but it had some dreadful narration and cgi, like it was aimed at 11 year olds. And this was what you get when you have documentaries not made by the BBC. People who slag off the BBC all the time would want this as the alternative? No thanks.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Mar 31, 2021 6:13:17 GMT
The BBC is probably the best company/institution at making documentaries. But it would never make anything like this. The point is that whilst the BBC clearly still makes quality productions, there are countless other sources now. So many Universities make their lecture material free - and whilst you may want to watch a documentary, I'd prefer to watch a lecture or an interview. I've mentioned the Triggernometry series on here - that sort of interview discussion or conversation doesn't exist on the BBC anymore.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 7:50:11 GMT
The BBC has the same problem as nearly every other channel. There are so many stations out there all with a couple of jewels in the crown.Overall most of them are packed with repeats or filler. The ratio of adverts (annoyingly often the same advertisement in a never ending loop) ruin my enjoyment. People moan about the fee but happily pay their competitors more in monthly/ yearly fees for a choice of mind numbing poor programming. Even Netflix drops series on a whim and one month a film is free and another month you need to rent it. There is a proportion of TV shows and movies that are donkies old and yet they ask you to pay to view. I have noticed living abroad and obtaining UK TV involves VPN subscription or android boxes ( streamlocator proved THE solution) that many people are looking to cut the cord as they put it due to the cost of watching content. Amazon, Netflix , Disney and apple coupled with sky sports say and this is serious money. If someone had told me that t.v was costing fifty odd quid a month to watch and the license fee I would have told them to fuck off. Everything is stretched too thinly and there isn't enough to go round. You tube is loved because it is free and stuff is available and easy to find. I used to think American TV back in the day with paid subscription and endless ' message from the sponsor' breaks as a nightmare scenario and understood why people thought our TV channels the best. It will happen with music next. The groundwork is already being put in place.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Mar 31, 2021 8:08:15 GMT
The BBC is probably the best company/institution at making documentaries. But it would never make anything like this. www.youtube.com/channel/UCT6Y5JJPKe_JDMivpKgVXewThe point is that whilst the BBC clearly still makes quality productions, there are countless other sources now. So many Universities make their lecture material free - and whilst you may want to watch a documentary, I'd prefer to watch a lecture or an interview. I've mentioned the Triggernometry series on here - that sort of interview discussion or conversation doesn't exist on the BBC anymore. Yeah it's good and you get discussions about subjects you just don't find on TV these days. They can simply go places and be more truthful and it's more interesting as a result. Really cuts through the bullshit. I've come round to Youtube now. You can find some good channels and some good recommendations, especially for horror. There is something punk and DIY about it despite some of the shit that's going on with youtube. But....there will always be a place for a quality documentary with some nice locations and some classy music and direction. That can enthrall of course. I like Simon Schama and Mary Beard and others. They can be event telly can't they? Even if that's less of a thing these days sadly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 9:00:09 GMT
There are some things the BBC can't do. One of which is to provide highly partisan viewpoints. Traditionally that function or need was provided by newspapers. People bought the newspaper that reflected their political opinion. Now that newspapers are, more or less, dying that function is being provided by youtube channels. I don't think that's something the BBC can easily replicate and in many ways it shouldn't try.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 9:07:23 GMT
The perceived role of the public attitude towards the BBC is just a reflection of the shoot yourself in the foot first reaction they have to everything these days. The license fee should be free to pensioners as long as it doesn't cost more. They have to stop giving depressing news air time. Minorities can be included but not excessively ( the odd one or two) If the future of the BBC is as a paid for subscription channel and i- player the same and EastEnders has adverts in the middle what will they moan about next? The BBC can save itself of course , celebrity / MasterChef on every week along with strictly variations. Maybe a " Nigel talks" or a Farage around Britain show. Laura Kronenburg will have to be replaced by someone just quoting whatever the govt wants to say without commenting on it. At least one Peado and anti immigration arrests stories must be included along with regular highlighting of EU failings, war movies every Sunday afternoon. They should maybe consider , Line of Duty say becoming a 3 series with ten episodes each format instead of drama programme that is over all too soon. Celebrities should be paid next to nothing and appear in more shows where they learn to be circus performers or they have to learn to build a house. Loads of Alan Sugar vehicles and maybe Jacob Rees - Mogg with his family values show and a Louis Theroux style series where he destroys the Swampys and greens with his dry wit and nannyisms.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Mar 31, 2021 9:14:40 GMT
There are some things the BBC can't do. One of which is to provide highly partisan viewpoints. Traditionally that function or need was provided by newspapers. People bought the newspaper that reflected their political opinion. Now that newspapers are, more or less, dying that function is being provided by youtube channels. I don't think that's something the BBC can easily replicate and in many ways it shouldn't try. That's not what we are talking about though. It's just adults talking about stuff but stuff that doesn't always fit into the increasingly narrow orthodoxy you get on the Beeb and elsewhere. There is a range of viewpoints and the people aren't necessarily right wing either, which is what you maybe think. Increasingly I think avenues like this are providing a genuine alternative that people are seeking. That's a good thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 9:18:07 GMT
There are some things the BBC can't do. One of which is to provide highly partisan viewpoints. Traditionally that function or need was provided by newspapers. People bought the newspaper that reflected their political opinion. Now that newspapers are, more or less, dying that function is being provided by youtube channels. I don't think that's something the BBC can easily replicate and in many ways it shouldn't try. That's not what we are talking about though. It's just adults talking about stuff but stuff that doesn't always fit into the increasingly narrow orthodoxy you get on the Beeb and elsewhere. It is what we're talking about. I've just had a look at the Triggernomatry site and its content is clearly coming from a particular angle (no pun intended!)
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Mar 31, 2021 9:28:16 GMT
That's not what we are talking about though. It's just adults talking about stuff but stuff that doesn't always fit into the increasingly narrow orthodoxy you get on the Beeb and elsewhere. It is what we're talking about. I've just had a look at the Triggernomatry site and its content is clearly coming from a particular angle (no pun intended!) You get a range of people on there from David Baddiel, Trevor Phillips and George Galloway (talking about how capitalism has failed btw) to Jordan Peterson, Douglas Murray and Nigel Farage. Evolutionary psychologists like Diana Fleischman and philosophers like Stephen Hicks. The two presenters are left wing and centrist btw.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Mar 31, 2021 9:29:59 GMT
Refreshes the parts that other beers cannot reach!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 9:44:51 GMT
It is what we're talking about. I've just had a look at the Triggernomatry site and its content is clearly coming from a particular angle (no pun intended!) You get a range of people on there from David Baddiel, Trevor Phillips and George Galloway (talking about how capitalism has failed btw) to Jordan Peterson, Douglas Murray and Nigel Farage. Evolutionary psychologists like Diana Fleischman and philosophers like Stephen Hicks. The two presenters are left wing and centrist btw. Come back to me when they have as their topic "Why identity politics is a healthy thing" and I'll accept they are as open minded as you claim. I looked at their last twenty shows and they were clearly running to a particular agenda.
However perhaps the BBC could put more in developing lively discussion programmes. I am sure they are noting the success of some of these shows on youtube and developing their own versions. The problem is it's a surprisingly hard format to get right, especially if you want to bring in decent sized audiences.
|
|