New posts

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mel O&#039;Drama" data-source="post: 382853" data-attributes="member: 23">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.</blockquote>

Verification: Who played JR Ewing?