It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

What's not currently on the box
User avatar
Simon36
HD
Posts: 1079
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:43 am

It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by Simon36 »

More Beeb bashing from the Daily Mail care of Jimmy Perry. Surely this is old news though isn't it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... paign=1490

ian b
D-MAC
Posts: 653
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:58 pm

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by ian b »

.

GarethR
HD
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by GarethR »

There's a related post from Charles Garland on the Memories of BBC TV Centre group on FB that may interest people here who aren't members:

"You may be interested to know that I re-edited the first series of IAHHM, working with David Croft to decide what to keep and what to cut. All the scenes where the Sergeant-Major (apparently) kicks the Punkah-Wallah were cut, and some wonderfully subtle bridging shots, sometimes from other episodes, were inserted to cover the S/M's journey from the parade square to the office interior.

Episodes 1 and 2 were re-built into one fantastic episode, and the whole first series was delivered for TX in May 1999. However, in April 1999, nail bomber David Copeland went on a 13 day rampage, killing several people in a schizophrenic attack which at the time was thought (incorrectly as it turned out) to be racially motivated. The series of IAHHM was pulled, in case it made matters worse, and replaced by a repeat of series 1 of Hi-De-Hi.

In June 2000, when Copeland was convicted, I approached "the sixth floor" to request the reinstatement of IAHHM - but the schedule was full, and although repeated polite requests were made by David Croft, time moved on ... and that, my friends, is the story so far. Maybe Jimmy Perry will get his way in the end - he and I have discussed this often, and are still trying!"

User avatar
Simon36
HD
Posts: 1079
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:43 am

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by Simon36 »

ian b wrote:You may want to edit that?
Oops, yes! A Barber of Figaro moment. David Perry now corrected to Jimmy Perry.

brigham
HD
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:59 pm

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by brigham »

Simon36 wrote:More Beeb bashing from the Daily Mail care of Jimmy Perry. Surely this is old news though isn't it?
It's hardly news, but it fills a slot in the schedule, and that's what publishing a daily paper is all about, isn't it; a full schedule every day. You can hardly print three or four 'inside' pages of the Test Card, or someone making a vase, with 'Intermission' across it by way of explanation.

Still, a timely reminder of why I don't subscribe to today's BBC.

GarethR
HD
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by GarethR »

brigham wrote: Still, a timely reminder of why I don't subscribe to today's BBC.
Why, because it's much more aware of cultural sensitivities than in the 70s, when if you weren't white, your opinion didn't matter?

And it's not as if IAHHM has been completely suppressed the way The Black & White Minstrel Show has. It was a regular on UK Gold up until at least 2008, and you can buy it on DVD. Nobody's stopping you watching it, you just can't see it on BBC-1 or BBC-2.

User avatar
Nick Cooper 625
D-MAC
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:42 am
Location: Hither Green, London
Contact:

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by Nick Cooper 625 »

GarethR wrote:"Episodes 1 and 2 were re-built into one fantastic episode, and the whole first series was delivered for TX in May 1999. However, in April 1999, nail bomber David Copeland went on a 13 day rampage, killing several people in a schizophrenic attack which at the time was thought (incorrectly as it turned out) to be racially motivated."
Except that Copeland was racist and homophobic. His paranoid schizophrenia fed on that, rather than causing it in the first place.
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." [Wells]

JWG
D-MAC
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:08 am

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by JWG »

GarethR wrote:
brigham wrote: Still, a timely reminder of why I don't subscribe to today's BBC.
Why, because it's much more aware of cultural sensitivities than in the 70s, when if you weren't white, your opinion didn't matter?

And it's not as if IAHHM has been completely suppressed the way The Black & White Minstrel Show has. It was a regular on UK Gold up until at least 2008, and you can buy it on DVD. Nobody's stopping you watching it, you just can't see it on BBC-1 or BBC-2.
I'm not sure that the first line's entirely true.I'm also a bit wary that the impression might be being built up in the media that in the past-and now-British people are the most racist,wife-beatingist,and most-intolerant-of-homosexuality people on earth.

User avatar
Juswuh
D-MAC
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:04 pm

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by Juswuh »

The question is, whose sensitivities? There were plenty of white people whose opinion didn't matter then, and just as many now.

Mike S
D-MAC
Posts: 725
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:05 pm

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by Mike S »

How likely would an IAHHM repeat be in 2014 anyway? He might as well moan that the BBC 'refuse' to repeat Fingerbobs.

IAHHM isn't particularly good - that's the main reason it isn't wheeled out as often as Dad's Army.

Mike S
D-MAC
Posts: 725
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:05 pm

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by Mike S »

Juswuh wrote:The question is, whose sensitivities? There were plenty of white people whose opinion didn't matter then, and just as many now.
Which white racial stereotypes/anti-white language are you talking about exactly?

JWG
D-MAC
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:08 am

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by JWG »

Mike S wrote:
Juswuh wrote:The question is, whose sensitivities? There were plenty of white people whose opinion didn't matter then, and just as many now.
Which white racial stereotypes/anti-white language are you talking about exactly?
Juswah was making the point that there are rather a lot of un-privileged White people.Even shock! White men.I wasn't allowed to have my disabled child live at home for eight years because of a fear that I might "show a lack of deference to social services",even though I'm White..
I'm getting a bit fed-up with both Sky and the BBC saying "bombing of the urban areas has taken a more serious turn with women and children among the casualties"!

Mike S
D-MAC
Posts: 725
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:05 pm

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by Mike S »

It's just a bugbear of mine - people responding to any discussion of racism/sexism with 'But white men get discriminated against too!', as if that makes the original objections invalid. Prejudice against white men is seldom brought up as a gripe in its own right.

brigham
HD
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:59 pm

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by brigham »

JWG wrote:
GarethR wrote:
brigham wrote: Still, a timely reminder of why I don't subscribe to today's BBC.
Why, because it's much more aware of cultural sensitivities than in the 70s, when if you weren't white, your opinion didn't matter?

And it's not as if IAHHM has been completely suppressed the way The Black & White Minstrel Show has. It was a regular on UK Gold up until at least 2008, and you can buy it on DVD. Nobody's stopping you watching it, you just can't see it on BBC-1 or BBC-2.
I'm not sure that the first line's entirely true.I'm also a bit wary that the impression might be being built up in the media that in the past-and now-British people are the most racist,wife-beatingist,and most-intolerant-of-homosexuality people on earth.
White British people, that is. For 'racism' only applies to white people, doesn't it? And of course wife-beating and homo-hating are perfectly acceptable as long as they are part of your non-white culture.

User avatar
Simon36
HD
Posts: 1079
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:43 am

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by Simon36 »

I started this thread because I was interested in Perry's point about the BBC, in his eyes, turning their back on history, so am gonna try now and steer it back on course.

It's an interesting point, because when BBC4 repeated the Stand Up Nigel Barton some years back I had a bit of a barney about the announcer insisting on saying something about this being a drama that expresses attitudes from a different time, which insinuated that Potter himself shared them, and was also spectacularly inane.

But I think the previous poster saying that IAHHM isn't shown because it isn't very good is the truth of it. It's not deemed un-PC simply because it deals with ethnicity but because it deals with it in, to say the least, an unsophisticated manner. That's why it isn't shown, and also why it isn't very good. Just a thought.

Mike S
D-MAC
Posts: 725
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:05 pm

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by Mike S »

Handling race/pillorying racism in a sitcom requires skill and care, which is why it's not really enough for Vince Powell's heart to be in the right place - he was a rotten writer, which is the main reason his work isn't generally defended. People will defend Eric Chappell's Rising Damp, though, because it was a much better show.

Similarly, the odd bits of racism in Dad's Army (fuzzy-wuzzies, etc) get overlooked because it's an A-list sitcom. I suspect whoever rejected the IAHHM repeats felt it really wasn't a battle worth having.

The exception to this was the recent cut to Fawlty Towers, although I think that was chiefly down to its 7:30 timeslot.

User avatar
Beaker
625 lines
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:22 pm

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by Beaker »

I have to admit that I watched some IAHHM on DVD recently and it is nowhere near as funny today or as enduring as Dads Army. I doubt a modern audience would warm to it as well as they do the Walmington on Sea Home Guard and it'd certainly not attract the kids to watch.

It'd still be nice to see a run of it though as in my 'umble opinion it is no more racist that Ali G or Borat.
If I were creating the world I wouldn't mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o'clock, Day One!

User avatar
Simon36
HD
Posts: 1079
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:43 am

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by Simon36 »

Mike S wrote:Handling race/pillorying racism in a sitcom requires skill and care, which is why it's not really enough for Vince Powell's heart to be in the right place - he was a rotten writer, which is the main reason his work isn't generally defended. People will defend Eric Chappell's Rising Damp, though, because it was a much better show.

Similarly, the odd bits of racism in Dad's Army (fuzzy-wuzzies, etc) get overlooked because it's an A-list sitcom. I suspect whoever rejected the IAHHM repeats felt it really wasn't a battle worth having.

The exception to this was the recent cut to Fawlty Towers, although I think that was chiefly down to its 7:30 timeslot.
Hear hear.

Although I have to say, I've always thought Fawlty Towers was an example of someone very gifted aiming low. But that's another debate for another day.

GarethR
HD
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by GarethR »

Mike S wrote: Similarly, the odd bits of racism in Dad's Army (fuzzy-wuzzies, etc) get overlooked because it's an A-list sitcom
I'd've thought it's more down to "fuzzy-wuzzies" being an archaic expression that doesn't really register as racism to modern ears in the way some other words would. If Jones had used a racial epithet that was still widely recognised as such today, the BBC would be actively censoring it now.

IAHHM is really all about Windsor Davies. I think the Sergeant-Major would still be popular, but most of the concert party are lumbered with poor lines and undeveloped characters.

User avatar
Nick Cooper 625
D-MAC
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:42 am
Location: Hither Green, London
Contact:

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by Nick Cooper 625 »

Juswuh wrote:The question is, whose sensitivities? There were plenty of white people whose opinion didn't matter then, and just as many now.
"These days, if you say you're English, they'll arrest you and put you in prison...."
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." [Wells]

Mike S
D-MAC
Posts: 725
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:05 pm

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by Mike S »

I know they're probably semi-stitched up by the newspapers the articles appear in, but people like Jimmy Perry (and John Cleese, David Jason, Carla Lane, the list goes on) really need to change the record on issues like this. All they ever seem to do is moan about their shows being 'banned' due to 'political correctness', even though they've done incredibly well over the years when it comes to repeats.

User avatar
Simon36
HD
Posts: 1079
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:43 am

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by Simon36 »

Mike S wrote:I know they're probably semi-stitched up by the newspapers the articles appear in, but people like Jimmy Perry (and John Cleese, David Jason, Carla Lane, the list goes on) really need to change the record on issues like this. All they ever seem to do is moan about their shows being 'banned' by 'political correctness', even though they've done incredibly well over the years when it comes to repeats.
I remember Carla Lane on some programme a few years back ranting about how "in those days" you just met your friend who was a tv producer in a corridor, told him an idea and he said "darling let's make it." We all know the value of this particularly in terms of the single play, but looking at the majority of CL's output, she was shooting herself in the foot grumbling after having had such an easy life for so long.

JWG
D-MAC
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:08 am

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by JWG »

The modern version is Lenny Henry's call this week for the racial ratios on TV to mirror those of London.I thought that the BBC,for one,was meant to reflect Britain,rather than the capital?

RobinCarmody
625 lines
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:53 pm

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by RobinCarmody »

As has already been stated more than once in this thread, It Ain't Half Hot Mum has by no stretch of the imagination been "banned" - because the whole series is available commercially, it is by definition easier to see for most people than many of the programmes made in the same era which reflect radical-Left politics. It is considerably more exposed in the public domain than Daily Mail-unfriendly stuff (then and now) also produced by the BBC in the 1970s and generally more favoured by the Oxbridge graduates Perry dehumanises, such as the works of Trevor Griffiths and indeed Play for Today generally.

The Mail and its ilk sometimes seem curiously unaware of the very existence of DVD, even fifteen years on. The vast majority of programmes from that era don't get shown on the main channels - Dad's Army is the exception that proves the rule, and until BBC2 started its Afternoon Classics strand it was more or less the only one. So it's not as if they're even drawing reasonable comparison points. If a wide range of 1970s programmes was routinely shown on the mass-audience channels, then they would at least have a case in the context of How Things Are. But they aren't, so they don't.

Perry and his ilk are also often curiously confused (perhaps understandable, given their age, but still) about the comedy that does get shown. Sometimes they seem to be stuck in a 1980s/90s timewarp, thinking "everyone's so politically correct these days", but when they do talk about the likes of Baron Cohen, Gervais and Lucas & Walliams who moved away from that model (and yes, I know their main work was quite some time ago now, but still) they often say "why do those Oxbridge graduates get away with it because they say it's 'ironic', when we can't?" They have a smidgeon of a point if you see this stuff as acceptable, and we all know that much of the audience for the mostly Oxbridge-educated "refreshingly politically incorrect" set who so blighted the 2000s decade were/are no more "ironic" in their understanding of the work than most of the original audience for It Ain't Half Hot Mum were, but I'd turn the argument round the other way and say that the discrediting of these 1970s sitcoms is justification for not bringing all that stuff back in wafer-thin (and invisible to much of the audience) inverted commas, not for bringing the original shows back as well.

Interestingly, Peter Hitchens - who often seems like the single most reactionary writer even the Mail has on its roster - has more than once defended the re-editing of TV series such as Fawlty Towers (and indeed films such as The Dam Busters) to remove racial epithets, which probably shows something other Mail writers don't want to admit.

Duncan
625 lines
Posts: 202
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:45 pm

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by Duncan »

RobinCarmody wrote:and we all know that much of the audience for the mostly Oxbridge-educated "refreshingly politically incorrect" set who so blighted the 2000s decade were/are no more "ironic" in their understanding of the work than most of the original audience for It Ain't Half Hot Mum were
Do we?

JWG
D-MAC
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:08 am

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by JWG »

I'd suggest that any 'racial epithet' which is used for dramatic purposes,as a quote,in a work of criticism,etc.,isn't actually a racial epithet.

Mike S
D-MAC
Posts: 725
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:05 pm

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by Mike S »

I rewatched the first episode of IAHHM on YouTube out of curiosity and it really is bloody awful. Too scattershot to work as a serious satire of imperialist attitudes etc, but too feeble to work as an enjoyable piece of silliness either. I'd genuinely rather watch Oh Dr Beeching.

Also, the usual defence of Michael Bates ('He was the only genuine Indian in the cast, lol!') misses the point - the average viewer at home would simply see a browned-up white bloke, which would be jarring in 2014. There's no real argument about that. Although I take the point that Lucas and Walliams are inexplicably given licence to do exactly the same thing, so I agree there's a lot of double standards.

JWG
D-MAC
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:08 am

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by JWG »

O/T but I felt that nothing became Half Hot so much as the ending.The return home,getting the demob suit,the Sergeant-Major left alone but then urged to join his son...Call me a sentimentalist.It is at least one of those sit-coms,Hi-de-Hi' is another,which has a genuine finale.

User avatar
Nick Cooper 625
D-MAC
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:42 am
Location: Hither Green, London
Contact:

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by Nick Cooper 625 »

JWG wrote:The modern version is Lenny Henry's call this week for the racial ratios on TV to mirror those of London.I thought that the BBC,for one,was meant to reflect Britain,rather than the capital?
Henry was a complte idiot for saying that the 5.4% BME presence in the "creative industries" is "an appalling percentage because the majority of our industry is based around London where the black and Asian population is 40%." Given the it's actually 12.4% for the UK as a whole, while 5.4% clearly is an under-representation, a figure close to 40% would be a massive over-representation. It's even more crazy considering Henry admitted that much TV production - including half of the BBC's spend - now takes place outside of the M25. It's also worth bearing in mind that broadcasting is an industry that clearly attracts talent from outside the "local" area, i.e. lots of people working in it in London don't originally come from London.
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." [Wells]

billo
405 lines
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:19 am

Re: It Ain't Half Un-PC Mum...

Post by billo »

I see a few members of the old time honoured : 'Their opinions = FACT' brigade..... are posting away merrily on here...!

er in truth....'Their opinions = Their opinions' - and nothing more !

Post Reply