If Planes Are Safe Then Why Do...
ChatterBank1 min ago
Steptoe & Son
26 Answers
Just watched the 'tribute' to Steptoe and Son - I am curious what Galton and Simpson who wrote it, and the originals, thought about it.
Like the others, it was filmed as a theatre play, and in this case, that was its undoing in my view.
Ed Coleman was far too theatrical in his delivery, which made it stilted through a TV screen. Jeff Rawle was far too big and bluff to convincingly play weedy conniving Harold, even though he bolted on a couple of the facial expressions, it was nowhere near enough.
The original Steptoe shows were like Pinter plays - often shot on one camera, which made them, in effect, theatre plays.
The lasting appeal lay in the wonderful silent expressions Wilfred Brambell could switch in a nano-second - from nasty to frightened to sad, all flitting over his face in agonising close-ups. Add to that the visceral rage and trapped feelings conveyed by Harry H. Corbett who offered pity, scorn, and acceptance all in one performance. The final link in the chain was the wonderful interplay between the two actors who were both masters of their craft, and their characters that they developed behind their lines.
Absolutely none of this came over in this 'tribute' - it was like a drama school workshop instead of a proper BBC production. The characters never gelled properly, and G & S's lines never came alive in the mouths of mis-cast actors.
I said before this project was aired that it would fail for exactly the reason it has, TV is of its time - recreation is pointless for everyone involved.
Like the others, it was filmed as a theatre play, and in this case, that was its undoing in my view.
Ed Coleman was far too theatrical in his delivery, which made it stilted through a TV screen. Jeff Rawle was far too big and bluff to convincingly play weedy conniving Harold, even though he bolted on a couple of the facial expressions, it was nowhere near enough.
The original Steptoe shows were like Pinter plays - often shot on one camera, which made them, in effect, theatre plays.
The lasting appeal lay in the wonderful silent expressions Wilfred Brambell could switch in a nano-second - from nasty to frightened to sad, all flitting over his face in agonising close-ups. Add to that the visceral rage and trapped feelings conveyed by Harry H. Corbett who offered pity, scorn, and acceptance all in one performance. The final link in the chain was the wonderful interplay between the two actors who were both masters of their craft, and their characters that they developed behind their lines.
Absolutely none of this came over in this 'tribute' - it was like a drama school workshop instead of a proper BBC production. The characters never gelled properly, and G & S's lines never came alive in the mouths of mis-cast actors.
I said before this project was aired that it would fail for exactly the reason it has, TV is of its time - recreation is pointless for everyone involved.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Andy - if you don't mind, here's the i-Player link -
http://
For future reference, when you open the page in iPlayer, on the right under the main pic are some "clickables".
Click "Share this page", that'll open a box with "Copy this link" to C & P here.
http://
For future reference, when you open the page in iPlayer, on the right under the main pic are some "clickables".
Click "Share this page", that'll open a box with "Copy this link" to C & P here.
smoneybags - //I don't think this was written for the theatre. It was written and shown as part of the Comedy Playhouse series on the TV in the sixties, as were other comedies which later became series. //
If you are referring to the original series, they were often, though not always, filmed with one static camera, in one location, which effectively gave them the same atmosphere as being a theatre play.
I did not mean to infer that the series originated as a theatre play - apologies for any confusion.
If you are referring to the original series, they were often, though not always, filmed with one static camera, in one location, which effectively gave them the same atmosphere as being a theatre play.
I did not mean to infer that the series originated as a theatre play - apologies for any confusion.
Clara55 // those programs were not tributes they were awful!! you can never revisit especially sit coms because they were of their time and times change. i still find the originals highly watchable but i was of that time too,//
I am not entirely sure what the programmes were supposed to be!
If they were a ‘tribute’, they singularly failed on all levels, and if they were intended to ‘re-visit’ the past, than that was equally pointless.
I opined in advance that this was a project doomed to fail because modern audiences would not understand the appeal these shows had, and why, and audiences of the time would find them brittle and pointless.
Sadly, I was not surprised to be proved right in spades.
I am not entirely sure what the programmes were supposed to be!
If they were a ‘tribute’, they singularly failed on all levels, and if they were intended to ‘re-visit’ the past, than that was equally pointless.
I opined in advance that this was a project doomed to fail because modern audiences would not understand the appeal these shows had, and why, and audiences of the time would find them brittle and pointless.
Sadly, I was not surprised to be proved right in spades.
