Print

Print


In message  <[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
 writes:
> Ok, after much consideration, I'll give you overvalued instead of
> overrated.
 
Honoured, I'm sure.  (Think the others will get this Brit humour stuff?)
 
 
I stand by the fact that he is overrated but that may well be a
> symptom of the fact that he is overvalued.  There are/were few enough
> alternatives to turn to in the search for a "quality" television drama
> originator and that could almost inevitably lead to overvaluing of those
> available.
>
 
Well, you have to remember *who* Potter was, in terms of Hoggart and all
that jazz.  From the beginning, he had perfect credentials for being
seen as "quality"... scholarship boy made good, bringing all those
excellent documentary values of "real" working class life into the
fledgling tv.  I'd argue that the other contender for this position,
Alan Bennet, has had as much of the overvaluaing, but he, hasn't
shot himself in the foot as many times (because he didn't take the same
risks).
 
> Hmm... well, sort of.  Define 'stretching form' and we may have something
> to talk about there.
>
> Uh oh, "define", damn, now I'm in trouble.  Ok, my first feeling would be
> to look at his playing with narrative, his different points of view and his
> use of music.  In addition there is his choice of subject and character.
>  Overall I'd feel these were new to a television audience and so for that
> part I'd describe them as "stretching form".  But that remains specific to
> television.  Previous occurances in the theatre, novels and even cinema may
> well predate Potter's efforts.  But to my mind he was really only ever
> interested in television and it's own specific form.  I'm not making much
> sense here - oh well.  I think Dennis would forgive that.
>
 
Naw, no way hose.  Potter was quite conservative in form, for a *looong*
time, whilst others, such as Pinter, were doing more adventurous TV dramas.
It took Potter ages to work out he could play with genre, the way he did
with Pennies From Heaven.  His 'stretching' in terms of content, was
in context with all the other Bright Young Things around - look at Up The
Junction.... Potter was more establishement than most, in many ways.  Like
I said...straight back to bleddin' Hoggart!
 
 
 
> Yes.  But only he could have got the budget.  I preffered Cold Lazarus
> to Kareoke...
>
> Understood, only Potter had the clout to get this project going and that
> had to be amplified by his impending death.  But big budget or no I still
> say they are both single ideas stretched beyond all need.  I can understand
> the need to make a final significant and magnificent gesture but if they'd
> been a pair of linked single dramas instead of serials then I feel they
> would have been much more powerful and packed a helluva punch.
 
I felt they were both terribly self-indulgent, just like Blackeyes.  And
the distopic Thatcher thing was so dated by then.  I thoroughly enjoyed
the threads interweaving around the consciousness of the author stuff -
it was a pity it had to be wrapped up in such a megolamaniac way.
However, if you're not allowed to be megalomaniac and self indulgent on your
death bed...when are you?
 
It will always be Pennies from Heaven for my vote!
 
--
Morgan
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]