You feel that littering everything with swear words is somehow "growing up"? Whatever the faults of 70s comedies ( or whatever seem like faults 40 years later) the language was decent. These days I look at programme guides, and the number which have a note "contains strong language" is just ridiculous. These words don't add anything, just show the writers up as crude and ignorant. Not to mention the way the audiences think they're hilarious.
One of the biggest laughs in the film "Carry on Camping" was when a gateman said "I'm off for a pee"; the camera tilted to a sign above the gate, which read "Cam ing". Would that even seem funny these days?
And "Round the Horne" just wouldn't work at all!
Carry on Camping is hilarious
It was the gentle charm, the misunderstandings, the innuendo and double entendres that made comedies funny from that era. People swearing to get quick laughs like today isn't funny, it's not clever and isn't progress.
Some of the reactions from the young people were ridiculous. I suppose if you only mix with middle class academics and media types it'd be quite shocking to discover that some people find laughing at racial and sexist stereotypes to be amusing. Working class people (of all colours) joke about this kind of stuff all the time. Some of them, gasp, don't even believe that being a little bit racist or sexist is "the worst thing ever" and think everyone has their own prejudices, whether broadcast in public or not.
Some of the reactions from the young people were ridiculous. I suppose if you only mix with middle class academics and media types it'd be quite shocking to discover that some people find laughing at racial and sexist stereotypes to be amusing. Working class people (of all colours) joke about this kind of stuff all the time.
Some of it wasn't ok (the stuff about whether it's better for a girl to be raped or shot) but much of it wasn't so bad. TV needed cleaning up a little but as I said we've gone too far in the other direction now.
The Goodies episode making fun of South Africans for their treatment of black people was fine for instance, but the dimwits watching it and not understanding the context COMPLETELY missed the point.
Some of it wasn't ok (the stuff about whether it's better for a girl to be raped or shot) but much of it wasn't so bad. TV needed cleaning up a little but as I said we've gone too far in the other direction now.
The Goodies episode making fun of South Africans for their treatment of black people was fine for instance, but the dimwits watching it and not understanding the context COMPLETELY missed the point.
I was around in the 70's, watching tv as a youngster. I thought these 'comedies' were unfunny and shocking then, they are just as unfunny and shocking now. I never have thought sexist, homophobic, racist stuff funny. I cannot see how anyone ever did. Whether it was the 70's, 80's, 90's or now.
I didn't get Love thy Neighbour, I never got Little Britain or Absolutely Fabulous. I never understood why people found someone shouting 'I'm free' to be hysterically funny.
I look back at 70's tv and don't condemn it, it was what it was. I wish we had moved on from it, but we have not. Casual racism and sexism is still part of our entertainment culture. Some of the racist comments about Scots on the run up to the recent referendum were disgraceful. As I pointed out after lasts weeks programme, there will be pictures appear of some woman showering as she appears in that jungle programme. Next day the papers had that very picture. Look at the short skirts worn by female presenters from everything from Breakfast programmes to Sky Sports.
Perhaps the racism and sexism isn't as in your face, but it is still there.
Well on that particular point it was because it was accompanied by John Inman walking around very quickly in an effeminate way and generally camping it up to a kind of harmless extreme. It was like a circus act and most people I knew found that funny but I never came across any particular hatred for John because of it. For the bulk of the mass tv primetime heterosexual audience both John and also Larry Grayson were the only face of gay Britain(or supposed gay Britain) that was deemed acceptable for them to see-funny on the surface without having to begin to think about anything that might be going on behind closed doors. That's how it was.
Ofcourse there are always downsides to portrayals on tv. The term "puff" was in every second sentence when I was at school. As a straight male, for me, it was poking gentle fun at friends but there was a more sinister aggressive side to it for others that presumably caused particular problems for some.
The 1970s (the decade in which I was born) was the most equal/fairest period in British history - the gap between rich & poor was at it's most narrow, we've now had a u-turn & we're headed back towards Victorian times.
Economically you are right on many counts (thought not when it comes to how the sexes were paid) . But when it comes to racial equality and equality for people who weren't heterosexual the 70s clearly were a lot more unequal than now.
Looking back at those 70s programmes. I think the majority of viewers who liked the camp.racist humour were the older generation. we were told we are not laughing at racism, we are laughing at the racist. i was in my early 20s in the mid 70s and apart from Till death does us part and rising damp i thought they were all rubbish. i know my m8s felt the same as well. cant say it was down to being offended,it just wasn't funny. a lot of it was just lazy talentless writing getting cheap laughs.
I watched this program for the first time last night to see what all the fuss and warnings were about. Those programs were just as you described. So I asked my mum what she thought about them and she said almost exactly the same as you.
Shows like Are You Being Served weren't path-breaking humour; they just weren't funny. Even her mum and dad (older generation?) thought they were awful too.
I was talking to people about these programmes, and how utterly meritless they are...
A truly appalling programme which seemed to not only have found some of the very worst clips imaginable, but also some of the most pointless and inappropriate interviewees as well.
Social attitudes CHANGE over time. Yes, it's right that we look back and say this was wrong or that was inappropriate - but attitudes change. Every decade things CHANGE. Not by some rulebook. but through a coalescing of ideas, freedoms and morality.
This is a clear "character assassination" of an entire decade - It was once "The Decade That Taste Forgot"... now some are trying to paint it as "The Decade That Decency Forgot".
What is plain is that we live in neo-Victorian times. When what was casually-expressed sexuality, from both men and women, has now mutated into modern-day prurience. Where bikinis on primetime TV are frowned upon, yet women stripping, vomiting, shagging and getting paralytic is youth programming on MTV.
Shows like Are You Being Served weren't path-breaking humour; they just weren't funny. Even her mum and dad (older generation?) thought they were awful too.
No, that's just your taste. Don't confuse that with actual popularity.
An average of 22 million viewers, and TEN series would indicate you're in the wrong there.
It WAS a very funny show (although the last few series scraped the bottom of the barrel somewhat)
I was talking to people about these programmes, and how utterly meritless they are...
A truly appalling programme which seemed to not only have found some of the very worst clips imaginable, but also some of the most pointless and inappropriate interviewees as well.
I didn't like the overuse of the interviewees who weren't around in the 1970s - could have been much less of them. But it was fascinating to see just how much attitudes have changed in 40 years.
Some of the reactions from the young people were ridiculous. I suppose if you only mix with middle class academics and media types it'd be quite shocking to discover that some people find laughing at racial and sexist stereotypes to be amusing. Working class people (of all colours) joke about this kind of stuff all the time. Some of them, gasp, don't even believe that being a little bit racist or sexist is "the worst thing ever" and think everyone has their own prejudices, whether broadcast in public or not.
Can we stop with the "working class people" thing please?
Tastes and humour cross class boundaries. I'd say the line is drawn at chattering/non-chattering classes.
The young idiots they chose to "be horrified" were all clearly well-educated (and of course in the public eye so their behaviour is naturally tempered)
Homophobic, racist and sexist humour is expressed across the class spectrum, must most especially with undereducated, underachieving, (and often very religious) people.
hopefully as the decades roll by we progress as a nation. what was acceptable 30 years ago may not be now, similarly some thing we still accept today will not be remotely acceptable 30 years from now. they'll cover this in a show called 'it was alright in the 2010's' and folk young and old will comment on how shocking it was that in 2014 tv shows were allowed to be broadcast that weren't 100% ethnically and sexually balanced, or whatever.
you can argue both sides in terms of what's the point of such shows. on the one hand, of course we've moved on from what was acceptable 30 years ago so why be SO shocked? if we had tv from 100's years ago can you imagine what our reaction would be to 'it was alright in the medieval ages' so in that sense the shows are of their time. on the other hand you can argue it's good for folk young and old to be reminded just how far we have come, so in that sense there might be a thread of good in these shows ... however thin.
one thing i will say on things like racism/sexism is, if you've never experienced it then you don't really know what it's like ... and no i'm not saying you're not entitled to a view on the matter however as a person of mixed race i've had my fair share of name calling over the years and to those that are of the opinion 'what's the harm' or 'deal with it' i'd say you don't really have a clue.
for me, life's all about a reasonable balance, and some of these shows let people see that, 30 years ago, we still had a way to go ... and still do in some areas.
I was around in the 70's, watching tv as a youngster. I thought these 'comedies' were unfunny and shocking then, they are just as unfunny and shocking now. I never have thought sexist, homophobic, racist stuff funny. I cannot see how anyone ever did. Whether it was the 70's, 80's, 90's or now.
I didn't get Love thy Neighbour, I never got Little Britain or Absolutely Fabulous. I never understood why people found someone shouting 'I'm free' to be hysterically funny.
I look back at 70's tv and don't condemn it, it was what it was. I wish we had moved on from it, but we have not. Casual racism and sexism is still part of our entertainment culture. Some of the racist comments about Scots on the run up to the recent referendum were disgraceful. As I pointed out after lasts weeks programme, there will be pictures appear of some woman showering as she appears in that jungle programme. Next day the papers had that very picture. Look at the short skirts worn by female presenters from everything from Breakfast programmes to Sky Sports.
Perhaps the racism and sexism isn't as in your face, but it is still there.
What's sexist about short skirts? It's the women themselves who make the descision what to wear.
What about all of the semi naked men which appear on our screens and in newspapers these days? Why aren't you complaining about those?
Some people are just too over sensitive about these things.
What's sexist about short skirts? It's the women themselves who make the descision what to wear.
What about all of the semi naked men which appear on our screens and in newspapers these days? Why aren't you complaining about those?
Some people are just too over sensitive about these things.
Yes, it's the women that make the decision to wear them!!
Semi naked men appear in newspapers? Do they? As sexual objects? What papers?
I am not being sensitive about anything, just pointing out the sexism of the 70's is still around.
You feel that littering everything with swear words is somehow "growing up"? Whatever the faults of 70s comedies ( or whatever seem like faults 40 years later) the language was decent. These days I look at programme guides, and the number which have a note "contains strong language" is just ridiculous. These words don't add anything, just show the writers up as crude and ignorant. Not to mention the way the audiences think they're hilarious.
One of the biggest laughs in the film "Carry on Camping" was when a gateman said "I'm off for a pee"; the camera tilted to a sign above the gate, which read "Cam ing". Would that even seem funny these days?
And "Round the Horne" just wouldn't work at all!
I totally agree with about swearing, in the seventies if somebody used the F word on TV it was something shocking, now it's the norm, in most cases it's not necessary and some comedians use it to get a laugh from an unfunny joke. Back then in comedies they usually used the substitute swear word "ruddy".
Yes, it's the women that make the decision to wear them!!
Semi naked men appear in newspapers? Do they? As sexual objects? What papers?
I am not being sensitive about anything, just pointing out the sexism of the 70's is still around.
Yes they do, quite often semi naked men are seen on TV and in newspapers usually completely unecessarily, why would they do that if it wasn't for sexual reasons?
There's nothing wrong with a hetrosexual man finding a woman's legs attractive, presumably homosexual men find mens legs attractive, I have no problem with that, so what's yours?
Interesting stuff. Was born in 1969 so was a kid at the time and remember really liking Mind Your Language. Following a similar debate on DS, went and watched a few episodes and tried out Love Thy Neighbour too as I'd heard about but never seen it. The former made me feel nostalgic but with the best will in the world it's hardly a forgotten classic, and the latter was alright. Smethhurst and Walker were good.
Came away thinking they were hardly shocking and heinous. Think the writer's intentions were good. Now some of the later Little Britains I thought were vile and misogynistic, like Bubbles and whoever and the incontinent old lady. Give me John Inman mincing around and Mrs Slocombe's pussy over that s*** any day.
No, that's just your taste. Don't confuse that with actual popularity.
An average of 22 million viewers, and TEN series would indicate you're in the wrong there.
It WAS a very funny show (although the last few series scraped the bottom of the barrel somewhat)
So it's a matter of taste when someone doesn't like the show but as you and 22 million others liked it then it WAS very funny
Isn't that the point. there were many TV shows in the 70s that were just racist,homophobic trash but were very popular at the time.
I wouldn't class Are you being served as anywhere near the worst but cant say i found it funny. Mrs Slocombes pussy never tickled me.
Interesting stuff. Was born in 1969 so was a kid at the time and remember really liking Mind Your Language. Following a similar debate on DS, went and watched a few episodes and tried out Love Thy Neighbour too as I'd heard about but never seen it. The former made me feel nostalgic but with the best will in the world it's hardly a forgotten classic, and the latter was alright. Smethhurst and Walker were good.
Love Thy Neighbour is a HUGELY misunderstood series. In a similar vein to Till Death Us Do Part, the figure of fun is the Jack Smethurst character. He is obviously racist, but always comes off worst. The women are best of friends, and the Reynolds are intelligent, decent people. It was a thing of its time and is really very broad satire.
Came away thinking they were hardly shocking and heinous. Think the writer's intentions were good. Now some of the later Little Britains I thought were vile and misogynistic, like Bubbles and whoever and the incontinent old lady. Give me John Inman mincing around and Mrs Slocombe's pussy over that s*** any day.
Little Britain was written solely to shock. Course, abusive humour.
Yes they do, quite often semi naked men are seen on TV and in newspapers usually completely unecessarily, why would they do that if it wasn't for sexual reasons?
There's nothing wrong with a hetrosexual man finding a woman's legs attractive, presumably homosexual men find mens legs attractive, I have no problem with that, so what's yours?
If you are telling me semi naked men appear regularly on TV and newspapers, then fine. I am asking what newspapers and tv they do appear in.
I repeat, I am pointing out that the sexism that existed in the 70s is still with us.
To point out how appaling the apartheid regime was. There were plenty of apologists for South Africa at the time, indeed Margret Thatcher had to be dragged kicking and screaming into imposing any sanctions on SA.
To point out how appaling the apartheid regime was. There were plenty of apologists for South Africa at the time, indeed Margret Thatcher had to be dragged kicking and screaming into imposing any sanctions on SA.
Fine. So how was this point being made by blacking up Bill Odie and Tim Brooke - Taylor using the N word?
Comments
Carry on Camping is hilarious
It was the gentle charm, the misunderstandings, the innuendo and double entendres that made comedies funny from that era. People swearing to get quick laughs like today isn't funny, it's not clever and isn't progress.
I never said it was. I say it's just pointless.
I wondered what was wrong with his neck too.
Some of it wasn't ok (the stuff about whether it's better for a girl to be raped or shot) but much of it wasn't so bad. TV needed cleaning up a little but as I said we've gone too far in the other direction now.
The Goodies episode making fun of South Africans for their treatment of black people was fine for instance, but the dimwits watching it and not understanding the context COMPLETELY missed the point.
What was the point?
Well on that particular point it was because it was accompanied by John Inman walking around very quickly in an effeminate way and generally camping it up to a kind of harmless extreme. It was like a circus act and most people I knew found that funny but I never came across any particular hatred for John because of it. For the bulk of the mass tv primetime heterosexual audience both John and also Larry Grayson were the only face of gay Britain(or supposed gay Britain) that was deemed acceptable for them to see-funny on the surface without having to begin to think about anything that might be going on behind closed doors. That's how it was.
Ofcourse there are always downsides to portrayals on tv. The term "puff" was in every second sentence when I was at school. As a straight male, for me, it was poking gentle fun at friends but there was a more sinister aggressive side to it for others that presumably caused particular problems for some.
Economically you are right on many counts (thought not when it comes to how the sexes were paid) . But when it comes to racial equality and equality for people who weren't heterosexual the 70s clearly were a lot more unequal than now.
Shows like Are You Being Served weren't path-breaking humour; they just weren't funny. Even her mum and dad (older generation?) thought they were awful too.
A truly appalling programme which seemed to not only have found some of the very worst clips imaginable, but also some of the most pointless and inappropriate interviewees as well.
Social attitudes CHANGE over time. Yes, it's right that we look back and say this was wrong or that was inappropriate - but attitudes change. Every decade things CHANGE. Not by some rulebook. but through a coalescing of ideas, freedoms and morality.
This is a clear "character assassination" of an entire decade - It was once "The Decade That Taste Forgot"... now some are trying to paint it as "The Decade That Decency Forgot".
What is plain is that we live in neo-Victorian times. When what was casually-expressed sexuality, from both men and women, has now mutated into modern-day prurience. Where bikinis on primetime TV are frowned upon, yet women stripping, vomiting, shagging and getting paralytic is youth programming on MTV.
No, that's just your taste. Don't confuse that with actual popularity.
An average of 22 million viewers, and TEN series would indicate you're in the wrong there.
It WAS a very funny show (although the last few series scraped the bottom of the barrel somewhat)
Can we stop with the "working class people" thing please?
Tastes and humour cross class boundaries. I'd say the line is drawn at chattering/non-chattering classes.
The young idiots they chose to "be horrified" were all clearly well-educated (and of course in the public eye so their behaviour is naturally tempered)
Homophobic, racist and sexist humour is expressed across the class spectrum, must most especially with undereducated, underachieving, (and often very religious) people.
you can argue both sides in terms of what's the point of such shows. on the one hand, of course we've moved on from what was acceptable 30 years ago so why be SO shocked? if we had tv from 100's years ago can you imagine what our reaction would be to 'it was alright in the medieval ages' so in that sense the shows are of their time. on the other hand you can argue it's good for folk young and old to be reminded just how far we have come, so in that sense there might be a thread of good in these shows ... however thin.
one thing i will say on things like racism/sexism is, if you've never experienced it then you don't really know what it's like ... and no i'm not saying you're not entitled to a view on the matter
for me, life's all about a reasonable balance, and some of these shows let people see that, 30 years ago, we still had a way to go ... and still do in some areas.
What about all of the semi naked men which appear on our screens and in newspapers these days? Why aren't you complaining about those?
Some people are just too over sensitive about these things.
Yes, it's the women that make the decision to wear them!!
Semi naked men appear in newspapers? Do they? As sexual objects? What papers?
I am not being sensitive about anything, just pointing out the sexism of the 70's is still around.
There's nothing wrong with a hetrosexual man finding a woman's legs attractive, presumably homosexual men find mens legs attractive, I have no problem with that, so what's yours?
Came away thinking they were hardly shocking and heinous. Think the writer's intentions were good. Now some of the later Little Britains I thought were vile and misogynistic, like Bubbles and whoever and the incontinent old lady. Give me John Inman mincing around and Mrs Slocombe's pussy over that s*** any day.
Isn't that the point. there were many TV shows in the 70s that were just racist,homophobic trash but were very popular at the time.
I wouldn't class Are you being served as anywhere near the worst but cant say i found it funny. Mrs Slocombes pussy never tickled me.
Love Thy Neighbour is a HUGELY misunderstood series. In a similar vein to Till Death Us Do Part, the figure of fun is the Jack Smethurst character. He is obviously racist, but always comes off worst. The women are best of friends, and the Reynolds are intelligent, decent people. It was a thing of its time and is really very broad satire.
Little Britain was written solely to shock. Course, abusive humour.
If you are telling me semi naked men appear regularly on TV and newspapers, then fine. I am asking what newspapers and tv they do appear in.
I repeat, I am pointing out that the sexism that existed in the 70s is still with us.
To point out how appaling the apartheid regime was. There were plenty of apologists for South Africa at the time, indeed Margret Thatcher had to be dragged kicking and screaming into imposing any sanctions on SA.
Fine. So how was this point being made by blacking up Bill Odie and Tim Brooke - Taylor using the N word?