The Great British Sitcom

[Mel O'Drama]

That makes much more sense thank you.

Oh great. I'm glad it was useful.

This really is a fascinating trip down memory lane for me. It's bringing up so many shows I'd simply forgotten about.
And I only joined to talk about Dallas!

I hear you there. I only really only came to talk about a few American soaps, then I found everyone chatting about so many other things I loved. And not just obscure British and Australian series that I can't talk about with anyone else, but films and music. I've discovered so many different music artists and all sorts of things I'd never have expected before I joined.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Series One of On The Buses drew quietly into the terminal yesterday.

Since I'm concurrently watching 1984 Brookside, I'm finding the hierarchy at the depot interesting. The delicate balance between workers (us) and management/inspectors (them) with Jack playing the Bobby Grant role of steward. It's interesting to note that Bobby - despite being far more volatile in nature - has far more sensitivity and across-the-board understanding and is (mostly) geared towards finding a workable solution, whereas Jack - ostensibly the amiable, friendly type - is the one looking for the opportunity to flex his muscles and hold things up. There were echoes of this political side, too, when Stan briefly became assistant Inspector, and so effectively one of "them".

The work environment does open up possibilities for such dynamics. All the same, even at this early run it feels that the series has begun to exhaust its own potential in this regard. In just seven episodes, Stan has dated a clippie and had a go at being Inspector; Olive has been brought out of the house and briefly became a clippie herself, before she and Mabel made a mess of running the staff canteen. It's feeling as though they're on the verge of having "done" everything to play around with things before resetting, and I find myself wondering how much more they can do without simply getting into a lather, rinse, repeat cycle.

Even an ITV sitcom has an element of social documentary to it. Invariably, it's attitudes towards race that seem most noticeable. The Canteen had the most glaring example here, in the form of Mr and Mrs Sharma. Mr Sharma - a previously unseen colleague of Stan's - smiled and said "goodness gracious me" while wobbling his head, which was enough to get his wife the job. Mrs Sharma didn't speak a word of English, wore a sari in place of an overall and served up exclusively food that was hot enough to blow everyone's heads off. Then, after the inevitable first-day sacking, Mr Sharma was money-savvy enough to demand (with Jack's help) a week's pay for his wife as well as severance and whatever else. It's at least something that the characters were played by genuine Indian actors, though I really felt for them (and other actors of the time) that the only parts available played up to stereotypes. They came across as nice people, but I'm not sure this helped since there was still a patronising view of them as vastly different and very non-British. For all the controversy around Alf Garnett at least, from the little I've seen, it's Alf himself who is the ridiculous one, with characters like Winston in on the joke.

On the other hand, On The Buses has included a few non-white actors playing colleagues, mostly without comment which at least suggests a degree of progressiveness. Rudolph Walker's character springs to mind (I liked him in his single episode and was sorry to find he wasn't a recurring character).

I'll also note that these first seven episodes have felt a bit of a trudge at times. Already I've found myself starting to think of On The Buses in terms of simply getting through it while anticipating the next sitcom (I've even found myself slightly enviously watching the odd clip of Till Death Us Do Part thinking it looks more accessible than I'd imagined and half wishing I'd given that it's inaugural viewing instead). I'm sure the black and white hasn't helped because psychologically it just makes things look drabber and feel slower. The 1970s sitcom is just one of those creatures that seems better suited to colour. But, of course, we haven't yet even reached the Seventies.

One significant disappointment in the latter part of Series One was that the episodes appeared to have been from a secondary source. Early episodes not only correctly had the LWT idents and ad bumpers (signifying End Of Part One and Part Two), but also the little Easter egg of the VT clock at the beginning of episodes. The last few episodes, however, had none of this. The theme just seemed to start out of nowhere, while the breaks between Part One and Two were a dissolve that sometimes seemed to occur mid-sentence. This left me feeling I'd missed something. It also might explain why the series began to feel like a drag, since if it wasn't from the master then it would have lacked that crispness. This, in turn, becomes like watching through a veil which makes it a less immersive experience.

Thankfully, having popped in the disc for Series Two, I did note that its first episode featured a VT clock (and it looks a particularly good one, beginning with a long shot of a chair sitting in the middle of a set, before the camera zooms in). This bodes well.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Series Two of On The Buses is nearing its end. I've now watched five of its six episodes.

This series features an early version of the famous caricature opening credits. Not only is it more visually interesting, it now features all six key players (albeit with one glaring error in the first couple of episodes when Anna Karen's surname is misspelt "Karan"). This promotes it as more of an ensemble series which increases my enjoyment, since I'd rather watch this than a series built around one or two "stars".

Of course, one of Series One's two "stars", Cicely Courtneidge, is now gone, replaced by Doris Hare. Even though the actresses look and sound a little different it feels a smooth transition because the chemistry with the rest of the cast works wonderfully well. I haven't stopped to question which version I prefer since I've just accepted the change, so I suppose I wouldn't be without either.

It's more good news with the VT clock and ad bumpers. These have been present and correct in every single Series Two episode, helping things feel more complete. The sound and picture quality has been consistently good as well, so it seems the couple of Series One episodes that suffered here were an anomaly.

The episodes themselves have been fine. From the little I'd seen when I was young, I'd anticipated that this series would feel predictable, formulaic and a little repetitive at times, and I'd say all three hold true. This isn't meant in a disparaging way. It's simply that kind of sitcom. Of the twelve I've watched so far, I'm not sure I could single out an episode as a classic. They just all do their thing.

In terms of characters, it's actually Arthur who is the standout for me. His sardonic quips - usually at someone else's expense - rarely fail to make me laugh. Yes, it's frequently a cheap laugh but Michael Robbins' almost disinterested delivery makes them fly. The fact that Arthur is living with his in-laws adds interest. Even though it's rarely mentioned and he's ostensibly one of the family, him being an "outsider" feels like the elephant in the room, informing his scenes in the same way as those of his latter day namesake in EastEnders.

I generally like brevity with my British sitcoms. Six or seven episodes per series is perfect for me. We'll see how I feel when I get to the 13+ series beginning in a couple of episodes' time, but I'm sure the introduction of colour will aid its watchability.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Last night I entered the Seventies with On The Buses. And in glorious technicolour.

In-keeping with the saucy picture postcard bawdiness of the decade, the first episode included a subtly risqué line when attractive clippie Suzanne Vasey was feeling further up the Inspector's injured leg:

Better find out if it's swelling up.

It is swelling up.

As well as the line, Blakey squirming ecstatically in his seat and the silly grin on his face (Stephen Lewis trying valiantly not to corpse, I think) drove home the gag.

This is the episode that appears to have had debuted Blakey's trademark "I 'ate you, Butler", something that I believe became strongly associated with the character and the series in much the same way that "I'm free" was with Are You Being Served? (despite that, too, almost never being used in that series' early years)

Seventies toilet humour became quite literal in the second episode with the Butlers choosing a new low level loo. Thanks to the switch from black and white, we could see that the basin was the colour of Shield soap, but Mabel chose a black seat (with a lid which was apparently an optional extra) and a cistern that was a light grey/putty kind of colour. Welcome to the decade that taste forgot.

Speaking of forgotten taste, Blakey's stunning young niece was inexplicably torn between Stan and Jack. We've already spoken about this but it just comes as seedy as it does inexplicable. But hey ho.

Sadly, the first and second episode have no VT board, no LWT ident at the beginning or end, and no ad bumpers (once again there's just a dissolve between scenes). These were thankfully present and correct in the third episode, but we appear to be back to second generation for the fourth episode.

Network are (or were, I should say with a sigh) incredibly good at using the best sources and presenting the episodes as complete as possible - right down to the stuff we didn't get to see when aired - so there must be a good reason for these episodes not being first generation masters. I wonder what it is.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

To satisfy my own curiosity I did a bit of digging around to check whether or not the films are in-canon with the series and found this:

The films are set within a slightly different canon from the TV series: Stan and Jack work for a different bus company (Town & District instead of Luxton & District), and the three films form a loose story arc where Arthur and Olive become parents (despite their apparently sexless marriage).

The thing that got me wondering was seeing that Olive was in the last stages of pregnancy in the first OTB film. I wasn't sure if this was the end of an arc from the series that would make it helpful to watch the films as part of the chronology.

I'm quite relieved this isn't the case, because the OTB feature films I've pre-ordered aren't released until the end of the year. I suspect I'll be nearing the end of the series - or even finished - by the time they arrive from Australia.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Series Four of On The Buses came to a close yesterday.

After the switch from black and white to colour, short series to long and Mabel swapping heads, Series Three and Four have been a period of relative stability, allowing me to get a proper feel for the series as it was for most of its run. Indeed, it was somewhere in the middle of Series Three that the series properly clicked with me and became one to which I look forward to viewing, and one which raises quite a few laughs. And the cheaper the gag, the bigger the laugh.

This series frequently goes for the easy and the obvious one-liners, with arguably cruel gags about Olive's weight, Jack's teeth or Arthur's infamous "operation". But because they're delivered by pros and the political incorrectness is evenly distributed it all works. Even though this is my first time out with the series, it's not like I'm a stranger to the culture and sensibilities of the time and feel a sense of relief at the lack of restriction.

Most of the gags wouldn't fly today, but there's nothing extreme or overtly offensive. Most importantly, I can laugh at them without endorsing the views held, which is something that cancel culture consistently fails to recognise. And it's telling that these gags are often the funniest, which makes it sad that new series are mostly stifled by self-censorship informed by the fear of offending and being cancelled. It is interesting to see, though, that On The Buses has been repeated on ITV3 as recently as last month. I find myself wondering if there have been any edits for 2023 sensibilities but, as mentioned, there's very little that is explicitly offensive. Because of this, if one accepts the world in which these characters live, it actually lacks the controversies of many other series of the era and could be viewed as progressive in others. A number of black colleagues have been seen at the depot, mostly without fanfare (though one, admittedly, was known as "Chalkie").

To my mind, Stan's age remains the elephant in the room to my mind. While Arthur has put out an occasional quip about Stan no longer being a spring chicken, the script mostly turns a blind eye to this. And further, it disingenuously writes against it, with young clippies regularly finding Stan highly desirable. We've discussed it already, and I'm learning to accept it as a quirk (in much the same way that the Carry Ons have dollybirds lusting after Sid James). All the same, it strikes me as a curious line in the sand for the script to draw for a series so outspoken about its other characters' (and actors') shortcomings, and I can't help feeling perhaps Reg Varney had more vanity than some of his colleagues when it came to these gags.

Even with the series being settled in now, a bit of a spanner has been thrown in the works with the notorious Colour Strike badly affecting Series Four (the Colour Strike most recently affecting Crossroads in O'Dramavision). It's surprising how much difference can be felt by a series not being in colour. For me, everything felt as though it sprang into life with Series Three when colour found its way into the series. I knew the temporary switch back to black-and-white was coming, but it still makes the series feel psychologically slower-paced and - in this case - less visually interesting. One thing that helped a little was that the first affected episode was the series' first seasonal offering, Christmas Duty. With the episode effectively being a Christmas special, it somehow made the switch to black-and-white feel like a considered decision rather than an enforced regression.

In terms of characters, Arthur remains far and away the favourite in this household. Michael Robbins' dry deadpan delivery never fails to engage. Looking at his IMDb, he's done single episodes of an awful lot of series and films I've already enjoyed, and I'm sure I'd enjoy them even more when spotting him on a rewatch. He's also done some stuff I haven't seen, a couple of which (the film version of Till Death Us Do Part and his final role in an episode of In Sickness And In Health) are lined up for me to watch soon.

Sadly, the LWT ident and VT clock were absent for most of Series Four, as were many of the ad bumpers. Having popped in the next disc ready, I was happy to see a VT clock at the beginning of Series Five's first episode.

because the OTB feature films I've pre-ordered aren't released until the end of the year. I suspect I'll be nearing the end of the series - or even finished - by the time they arrive from Australia.

Despite not being released for another couple of weeks, I'm happy to report my films were sent out a few days ago. Looking at the tracking on Australia Post, it seems they were passed on to the air carrier yesterday. From experience, I'm sure it'll still be a good while before they arrive, but we're moving in the right direction.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I'm happy to report that my On The Buses Film Collection Blu-ray set has landed in the UK.

​

Next stop: my place!

 

[Angela Channing]

Most of the gags wouldn't fly today, but there's nothing extreme or overtly offensive. Most importantly, I can laugh at them without endorsing the views held, which is something that cancel culture consistently fails to recognise. And it's telling that these gags are often the funniest, which makes it sad that new series are mostly stifled by self-censorship informed by the fear of offending and being cancelled. It is interesting to see, though, that On The Buses has been repeated on ITV3 as recently as last month. I find myself wondering if there have been any edits for 2023 sensibilities but, as mentioned, there's very little that is explicitly offensive. Because of this, if one accepts the world in which these characters live, it actually lacks the controversies of many other series of the era and could be viewed as progressive in others. A number of black colleagues have been seen at the depot, mostly without fanfare (though one, admittedly, was known as "Chalkie").

You make some really interesting points. When I watch old TV series and they make racist jokes it still triggers strong negative feelings within me. My jaw literally drops or I physically gasp because it reminds me of how overtly racist the UK could be during that period. However, I do think there is a strong case for continuing to broadcast these shows to remind all viewers of what the UK was like during the 1970s which was far from being the generous, welcoming country we sometimes like to fool ourselves that we were. Similarly with the misogyny and behaviour which today would correctly be called out as sexual harassment or assault but in 1970s sitcoms would be dismissed as men being randy or playful and so was a totally legitimate thing to find funny.

In terms of characters, Arthur remains far and away the favourite in this household. Michael Robbins' dry deadpan delivery never fails to engage. Looking at his IMDb, he's done single episodes of an awful lot of series and films I've already enjoyed, and I'm sure I'd enjoy them even more when spotting him on a rewatch. He's also done some stuff I haven't seen, a couple of which (the film version of Till Death Us Do Part and his final role in an episode of In Sickness And In Health) are lined up for me to watch soon.

I agree, I think he's great. Olive and Blakey were funny and likeable, they were more caricatures, whereas Arthur was a more grounded and believable character and Michael Robbins was great in the role. I remember him also being in a sitcom which I really liked but few other people did because it wasn't particularly successful and only ran for one or maybe 2 seasons. Looking on IMDB it was possibly called How's Your Father? but I can't remember enough about it to be sure. When I Google the sitcom title I just get a load of stuff about a Harry Worth sitcom with the same name.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I do think there is a strong case for continuing to broadcast these shows to remind all viewers of what the UK was like during the 1970s which was far from being the generous, welcoming country we sometimes like to fool ourselves that we were. Similarly with the misogyny and behaviour which today would correctly be called out as sexual harassment or assault but in 1970s sitcoms would be dismissed as men being randy or playful and so was a totally legitimate thing to find funny.

Yes. I'm strongly against censorship of these programmes and feel there's value in preserving these things not only because they're a kind of art (yes, even cheap and cheerful sitcoms) but more importantly because television and film so often reflects society of the era in which they're made and so act as a kind of time capsule/social document. And I think seeing these things serves as a reminder to us.

You're right that British culture of the time was much less inclusive than today in more or less every regard, and that doesn't always sit well, but context is everything and I think it's important to see how things were, warts and all. The worst thing that could happen would be for a younger person to look at an old series edited for 21st Century sensibilities and say "I don't see what was so bad".

I do feel that OTB is mostly mild in most regards, considering when it was made, but I also say this as someone who grew up in the era and so knows what to expect. Even so, there have been a good few moments where my partner and I have looked at one another with a weary eyeroll at jokes that simply haven't dated well at all. Even without those, I'd imagine many might still be horrified at the social constructs within the series: Olive at home and let out to work or shop once in a while when Arthur isn't making remarks about her lack of sex appeal; Stan and Jack chasing the clippies round. Possibly the non-reactions of others to this would also be viewed as enablement.

Along similar lines, last night I watched a 1985 episode of Brookside in which a peripheral character discussed a regular character with someone and casually described her as a "darkie". The most surprising thing about it for me was that that there was no further comment about what had been said and no sense of a "statement" from the series (i.e. . It was so matter-of-fact it's hard to gauge the intent, but the feeling I came away from it with was that - beyond simply demonstrating that the person who made the comment was narrow minded - it was the series showing a naturalistic conversation of the time. There's nothing to suggest that it represented the views of any main character, nor the writer, but neither was it challenged as it would almost certainly be today (the character to whom it was said - a housemate and friend of the character under discussion - just laughed it off in a "what are you like?" kind of way which felt quite shocking to watch through 21st Century eyes). It's an uncomfortable moment, but I'm still glad it remained intact as a reminder of what society was like at the time. And (since Brookie was probably the most progressive soap of the time), I like to think that was in large part what was intended with it.

Olive and Blakey were funny and likeable, they were more caricatures

Funny and likeable is a perfect summary of them both.

Something I've meant to say (but probably forgotten) in recent posts about the series was that I'm pleasantly surprised how much I'm enjoying Blakey. I wasn't hugely looking forward to the character. Stephen Lewis used the same mannerisms and characterisation in Last Of The Summer Wine, and his character Smiler was never a favourite of mine. I knew enough about OTB to realise it was essentially a reprise of what he'd done before and feel he was a bit of a one-trick pony. Still, I've found him perfectly tolerable here, and quite funny at times. In the context of this ensemble he works perfectly.

I remember him also being in a sitcom which I really liked but few other people did because it wasn't particularly successful and only ran for one or maybe 2 seasons. Looking on IMDB it was possibly called How's Your Father? but I can't remember enough about it to be sure.

Oh yes. I saw that one when I was looking up to see what else he'd been in. I don't think I remember it, but would certainly watch it given the chance.

I noticed he was a regular in Fairly Secret Army as well, which is a series I was aware of but don't remember ever actively watching.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I'm happy to report that my On The Buses Film Collection Blu-ray set has landed in the UK.

And now it's landed on my doormat:

Along with some other films based on British sitcoms:

​

The release date for On The Buses is actually 27th December, so I feel extra-lucky.

 

[Angela Channing]

I'd imagine many might still be horrified at the social constructs within the series: Olive at home and let out to work or shop once in a while when Arthur isn't making remarks about her lack of sex appeal

I can't remember On The Buses in any detail but it was also quite common in sitcoms of that era for the husband to go out to work and would give he stay at home wife weekly housekeeping money in a way that looked a bit like giving a child pocket money which seems like a ludicrously patriarchal set up today but I can imagine it was how some households were run in the 1970s.

Stephen Lewis used the same mannerisms and characterisation in Last Of The Summer Wine, and his character Smiler was never a favourite of mine. I knew enough about OTB to realise it was essentially a reprise of what he'd done before and feel he was a bit of a one-trick pony.

He was also in a sitcom call Don't Drink The Water and in it the character he played was essentially Blakey in another setting. I think the character became so popular and iconic that writers just created variations of the same person because it was how the viewers wanted to see him.

And now it's landed on my doormat:

Along with some other films based on British sitcoms:

​

The release date for On The Buses is actually 27th December, so I feel extra-lucky.

I hope you enjoy them. I've seen the Are You Being Served film (I don't rate it but it has a few laughs in it), I've seen at least one and possibly both of the Steptoe films but have no memory of it/them. I've not seen the Dad's Army film, in fact I've never watched a whole episode of the series, although I have seen clips of it on other T shows. My favourite films based on 1970s sitcoms are the first On The Buses one, Bless This House, Love Thy Neighbour and Please Sir.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I can't remember On The Buses in any detail but it was also quite common in sitcoms of that era for the husband to go out to work and would give he stay at home wife weekly housekeeping money in a way that looked a bit like giving a child pocket money

Yes, it's almost the standard for many of the family-based sitcoms.

I can imagine it was how some households were run in the 1970s.

I'd say so. In fact my own family wasn't a million miles removed from this.

He was also in a sitcom call Don't Drink The Water and in it the character he played was essentially Blakey in another setting.

I believe Don't Drink The Water was a spin-off of On The Buses, with Blakey in Spain. There's an episode on my DVD box-set, and I'm pretty sure another version of the OTB set includes the entire series of Don't Drink The Water.

I hope you enjoy them.

Thanks. I'm sure I will (whenever I eventually get round to watching them.

I've seen the Are You Being Served film (I don't rate it but it has a few laughs in it)

I already had the AYBS film on DVD and have watched it a number of times. I'd agree with your view of it. It's so-so, with many of the situations and lines being lifted from the TV series, but feeling a bit flatter here. All the same I view it fondly.

I've not seen the Dad's Army film, in fact I've never watched a whole episode of the series, although I have seen clips of it on other T shows.

I suspect I watched the Dad's Army film when I watched the entire series some years ago. In fact I just looked back through this thread to confirm, but it seems I must have watched the series before the site crash, which feels shocking to me as it feels far more recent than that.

The series is really good and worth a look if the opportunity comes along. I must confess I barely remember the film, but that's possibly as much a statement on my terrible memory as it is the quality of the film.

I've seen at least one and possibly both of the Steptoe films but have no memory of it/them.

Like you with Dad's Army, I've never actually watched any Steptoe & Son. I have invested in the series on DVD as well as the films on Blu-ray, so I'll be watching at some point. I've liked all the Galton & Simpson material I've encountered so far so I felt it worth the risk.

My favourite films based on 1970s sitcoms are the first On The Buses one, Bless This House, Love Thy Neighbour and Please Sir.

That bodes well. I really enjoyed Bless This House and Please Sir as well. I'd also throw in Man About The House, The Lovers and Porridge.

My set of the Love Thy Neighbour series includes the feature film, so I'm glad to know it's a good one.

 

[Angela Channing]

I believe Don't Drink The Water was a spin-off of On The Buses, with Blakey in Spain.

I didn't know that, I just thought it was Stephen Lewis playing a similar character. The vague memory of the series was that it wasn't very good and I think LWT agreed as it was broadcast at around 5.15 on Saturday, so outside of peak time.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

The vague memory of the series was that it wasn't very good and I think LWT agreed as it was broadcast at around 5.15 on Saturday, so outside of peak time.

It ran for two series, so the first probably performed reasonably well, but I don't ever remember it screening, so it's safe to say it wasn't popular enough to repeat much - if at all. The premise appeared to be Blakey retiring to Spain with his sister.

An even more curious spin-off was the LWT revival of The Rag Trade, from the same writers as On The Buses. They included Anna Karen's Olive as one of the factory workers, which is a little bizarre when it's considered that Reg Varney had played a main character - entirely unrelated to Stan - in the earlier BBC series.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

As I begin Series Six, I feel a little sad that I now only have half a dozen episodes featuring Arthur left to watch. I suspect the final series will be a bit of a struggle for this reason.

The sixth is the shortest series since Series Two, and less than half the length of Series Five. I find myself wondering about the reason behind this. OK, so Mutiny On The Buses came almost immediately after Series Six, which might have affected shooting at least a little. But then the first On The Buses film came in between two of the longest series.

Reasons aside, part of me feels a little relieved about the brevity. Even with the cast intact, there's a growing sense that the series is becoming tired.

One significant change is that the inmates are beginning to take over the asylum behind camera. The first 51 episodes had the continuity of being penned creators Ronald Chesney and Ronald Wolfe. Towards the end of Series Five, series actors Bob Grant and Stephen Lewis took over writing duties for a couple of episodes and, looking ahead, they also wrote the majority of episodes on Series Six, as well as almost half the episodes in the final series. Indeed, The Other Two Ronnies write no episodes at all for Series Six, and a paltry three episodes out of the thirteen in the final series.

Grant and Lewis both have writing credentials that pre-date the series. Stephen Lewis wrote Sparrows Can't Sing (which I've never seen but have read good things about. My fascination with British films of this era means it's on my viewing bucket list). It's fair to say they "get" the characters, but it's also notable that their episodes to date have also featured their own characters more heavily than your typical episode (their first had Jack promoted to Inspector and working alongside Blakey as a tyrannical duo). This simply doesn't work. For this reason, it feels a little tempting to lay the blame for the downhill trend at their feet.

As the series has progressed, I've realised why I had this association of Blakey as a gurning caricature. He's become less and less restrained as the series has progressed and consequently less and less watchable (God spare me from "breakout" characters where the writers lose sight of their scene-stealing appeal and feature them too heavily. The Fonz from Happy Days and Sophia from The Golden Girls can both be filed in the same drawer). A scene I watched recently in which Blakey was upset about something or other saw Lewis move his gurning mug back and forth like an oscillating fan for what felt like the best part of a minute, presumably to ensure that everyone in the studio audience could get a good look at his "hilarious" reaction. It was painful.

Likewise, Jack is a character who really makes little sense. Like Stan, he's a most unlikely sex symbol and it stretches credulity. He's also a terrible friend to Stan, invariably screwing him over by stealing his date or whatever, then apologising and all's back to square one. It adds to the feeling that Stan is a bit of an idiot.

Incidentally, regarding Stan, a recent episode saw him pursued by a character played by Fanny Carby. He looked terrified at the idea of being with her, and that seemed odd since she's actually closer to him in age than any of his other pairings (and she's still a decade younger). The fact that it felt strange to see Stan with a woman almost his own age just reinforced the icky predatory vibe that comes across in his usual conquests. Naturally, he was soon back to chasing women barely into their twenties.

Of course, the feeling of flatness that's taken hold could simply be nature taking its course. A whole lot of episodes have been churned out in its short lifespan (less than three years, as Series Six begins) and the cyclical plots and recycled gags are feeling a little more tired with each episode. The series has had a good innings, to say the least. Plus I'm watching them at much faster rate than the once weekly output for which they were intended, so it could also be a case of viewer burnout.

I'm also noticing annoying little details, like the fact that almost all the dollybird or sexpot type female characters (the ones that always inexplicably fall for Stan or Jack or both) have exactly the same voice. They all speak in the same nasally whine that puts one in mind of a stereotypical beautician/nail technician (or Victoria Wood's demonstrator from the World Of Sacharelle).

That's not to say the series isn't still entertaining. It is. Arthur remains my firm favourite, and his flat, bitter-toned utterance of "How right you are"/"How very true" in relation to some comment which he clearly is repurposing as a criticism of Olive's abilities or attractiveness never fails to make me laugh. Olive's own catchphrase "Don't be so rude" is also a favourite. Blakey's "I 'ate you Butler" seems to be the one everyone remembers, and it's a nice surprise to find there's far more going on in the catchphrase line than just this.

Incidentally, the first episode of Series Six seemed to see a significant budget eaten up with lots of location work and a bus being burnt out on film, complete with time-lapsed circling aerial shots presumably done by helicopter. It looked impressive for a little sitcom. But the less said about the other time lapses in the same episode the better. They looked as though they belonged in a horror film and were jarringly malapropos.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Even with the cast intact, there's a growing sense that the series is becoming tired.

A few more episodes into Series Six and I've changed my outlook. Most of these recent episodes have been very enjoyable in their own ways. The George (It Ain't Half Hot Mum) Layton/Jonathan Lynn writing team's first episodes were fine (their very first being a memorable one with Stan and Olive going to marriage guidance).

The last episode I watched - smack in the middle of Series Six - was a flashback episode, with them remembering Blakey becoming Inspector, Jack's first day on the job and Arthur arriving to take the room at the house before accidentally stumbling into Olive's bed (leaving Mabel delighted since she had grounds to force him to marry Olive). These episodes are sometimes a sign of a series running out of story, but it actually freshened things up here, and the flashbacks were very well done with decent attention to detail.

I'm still not thrilled at the prospect of the upcoming Arthur-less series but, even if it's terrible, each episode brings me closer to watching the films in glorious HD.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

And then there were five.

Series Seven is underway and Arthur has gone. According to the script he ran off with some other woman a year or so earlier. Given the nature of sitcoms - where things invariably stay as static as possible, with characters frequently frozen in time - this lengthy period feels more surprising to me than the divorce - which itself feels as though it breaks a key sitcom rule.

Both are certainly feasible, though. Indeed, Arthur legging it seems almost inevitable given how unhappy he was not only with Olive but living with her family. In a genre where characters usually stay entrenched in their dysfunctional suffering for the duration of a series' run, Arthur's decision seems like a refreshing dose of sanity. Among Arthur's last episodes was the one mentioned above where we saw how Mabel forced him into marrying Olive for her own gain, presumably costing Arthur a promising medical career. And increasingly he'd been threatening to wallop Olive or whatever (I confess some enjoyment at the thought of horrified Millennials and Boomers watching these scenes). Really, his exit is a happy ending for his character, and perhaps in time for those who remain as well. Acknowledging his absence is also something I applaud. It's certainly preferable to a recast or the arrival of a new character who shares all of Arthur's traits.

As for the acknowledgement of the time jump, it's worth noting that the gap between Series Six and Seven was longer than that between any two previous series. Yes, there was Mutiny On The Buses to fill the void, but it seems that big screen OTB exists in a different canon/timeline/continuity to its small screen sibling.

On this note, I find it fascinating that two thirds of the cinematic On The Buses took place this late. Mutiny and Holiday were released either side of the final series, and both appear to have performed well at the box office, suggesting ongoing public interest in these characters. This makes me wonder if the decision to end the series came from within.

While I feel the series lost its purity once episodes were penned by anyone besides The Other Two Ronnies, there have still been episodes that worked fine. As Series Seven gets underway, the series has lost one main character, with another due to depart mid-series. Losing two-thirds of the cast within seven episodes seems to be a blow from which very few series could recover, and I'm very curious to know just what went on behind the scenes. The official line seems to be that Michael Robbins wanted to return to the theatre, while Reg Varney wanted to do film (though only made two... one of which was Holiday On The Buses).

It's probably too soon to judge how well the series works without Stan. The first episode of this series felt as though it was setting the stage and filling in gaps, so I haven't yet seen the "new look" series beyond the ugly, busy new opening titles.

With the billing suggesting Varney is the series' star and many scenes being built around him, I'm already interested to see what a Stan-less On The Buses looks like. While he's far from the main draw for me, I fear his departure means a whole lot more gurning and mugging from Blakey and Jack.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Series Seven is almost painful to watch so far. I managed one episode last night and tried another this afternoon. Part of me wants to just get it over, but it's almost soul-destroying to get through. The third episode, The Ticket Machine, is easily my least-favourite episode of the entire run so far. It's dire.

Arthur's absence is felt. It's perhaps less noticeable than the broader characters, but without him the importance of his scathing put-downs and disapproving looks is clear. As the only non blood relative (and so a relative outsider) in the household , Arthur added layers to the dynamics. More importantly, the cast has lost a terrific actor with a delivery that is sorely missed. Stan has inherited his lines about Olive being a "stupid great nit", and it just doesn't work.

Stan's absence just highlights how caricature-ish the rest of the characters are, and they suddenly all feel meaningless. There are endless attempts at slapstick physical comedy with Stan, Jack or Blakey which simply isn't well done enough to be funny (it's not even funny in a bad way. It's just bad and feels like a waste of my time).

Olive's character seems to be have been pushed to the Nth degree which, again, exposes the limitations of the performer. It all feels very out there and anything goes, but it feels that nobody is accomplished enough to pull it off so it feels rather like watching the series performed by an am-dram team with writers who think they know what funny is but actually don't. And perhaps I am.

 

[Angela Channing]

Stan's absence just highlights how caricature-ish the rest of the characters are, and they suddenly all feel meaningless. There are endless attempts at slapstick physical comedy with Stan, Jack or Blakey which simply isn't well done enough to be funny (it's not even funny in a bad way. It's just bad and feels like a waste of my time.

Olive's character seems to be have been pushed to the Nth degree which, again, exposes the limitations of the performer. It all feels very out there and anything goes, but it feels that nobody is accomplished enough to pull it off so it feels rather like watching the series performed by an am-dram team with writers who think they know what funny is but actually don't. And perhaps I am.

I didn't realise that Reg Varney left the series and it continued without him. I can't see how that would work as he was so central to everything that happened on that show. I'm going to have to look on YouTube to watch an episode from season 7 to see what it looks like.

Reg Varney isn't a bad actor, he was quite good in the film The Best Pair of Legs in the Business (1979) so I can totally get what you highlighted about the rest of the cast seeming even more like caricatures without Stan and Arthur being there to make up for their inadequacies. Doris Hare had a tendency to be wooden in scenes that I've watched and I'm always amazed that she was a serious contender for the role of Lou Beale in EastEnders. Stephen Lewis and Anna Karen are always pretty hammy in just about everything I've seen them in.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I didn't realise that Reg Varney left the series and it continued without him. I can't see how that would work as he was so central to everything that happened on that show. I

Oh sorry - that was my mistake. I wrote "Stan" instead of "Arthur".

You're quite right that Reg Varney left the series before it ended, though. It's halfway through Series Seven, so I'm just watching his last couple of episodes. Like you, I struggle to imagine what the series will be like without him since it was centred mainly around his character. Already Series Seven has tweaked the formula by removing Arthur and bringing Olive into the workplace as a clippie. Reg Varney leaving must have been the straw that broke the camel's back.