Menu
Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Awards
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Global Telly Talk
Classic UK TV
The Great British Sitcom
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mel O&#039;Drama" data-source="post: 374187" data-attributes="member: 23"><p>There's a morbid fascination to seeing how the sad, sudden loss of Richard Wattis translates to on-screen sitcom episodes which is really my only frame of reference given my lack of insight into what discussions were had and decisions taken. And what comes across in <em>Sykes</em> is a writer and ensemble struggling to regain footing.</p><p></p><p>Having watched the whole of Series Four, I now know that the first four episodes all took place away from Sebastopol Terrace and that familiar living room set. The reasons for this aren't clear. As I previously surmised, it could well be something done to gain some time to decide what the new home life would look like. Or to more easily recycle <em>Sykes And A...</em> scripts which either hadn't featured Fulbright-Brown or could be easily adapted.</p><p></p><p>It's also occurred to me that staying away from home could be an attempt to avoid awkward questions from the audience. By the time we returned there we were in the latter part of Series Four, so perhaps it was hoped that viewers would simply forget. It's certainly worth noting that Fulbright-Brown hasn't been even implicitly referenced. Through Twenty-First Century eyes, this seems rather dismissive of the Richard's importance to the series and, I would hope, the cast. The message seems to be that the loss of a key character from a small ensemble is so unimportant that it doesn't even require an explanation or acknowledgement.</p><p></p><p>Yet bearing in mind the times, it also feels inevitable. It's all guesswork, but one comes to feel that Sykes or the Beeb felt maintaining a dignified silence was the preferred option. Perhaps there was a fear that even mentioning the character's name would invoke a harsh reality for which there is no place in sitcom world. I can respect this, yet at the same time it feels there is very much an elephant in the room that has been unacknowledged. The loss of this comfortably familiar face is actually <em>compounded</em> - not helped - by the absence of the comfortably familiar cosy set for the first two thirds of the series. And so the viewer struggles as much as the cast might be.</p><p></p><p>Naturally, whatever struggles are going on behind the camera don't come across on screen. That is, not specifically. As mentioned, there's just a strange lifelessness to the series which I already found a little dry and flat anyway.</p><p></p><p>The good news is that, upon returning to Sebastopol Terrace, the absence of Richard Wattis is mitigated by the presence of Joan Sims. Having been mentioned regularly, Madge Kettlewell appeared in two consecutive episodes. And it <em>did</em> help. Hers is such a familiar face and warm presence that it softens the blow significantly. Indeed, <em>Marriage</em> - with its sitcom standard of crossed wires leading to a reluctant bridegroom - is one of the series' most enjoyable episodes so far. What a shame she won't appear again until one final outing towards the end of Series Six.</p><p></p><p>As much as I enjoy Deryck Guyler, I also feel his increased presence isn't an improvement on his scene-stealing smaller role in earlier series. He was a bit of a caricature to begin with, and making Corky a more central character has a negative impact on the series as a whole. The increased dialogue has also highlighted Deryck's tendency to end sentences with pause then a throwaway "you see" (popular during the era with actors trying to sound terribly grand during interviews. See also: Jimmy Jewel). All the same I'm glad he's here and I find him an avuncular presence.</p><p></p><p>Having begun Series Five, I can confirm it's more of the same. Hat remains as reliable as ever, and Sykes remains perfectly tolerable so long as he doesn't start going overboard or trying to work the audience.</p><p></p><p>Perhaps it's not a good sign that <em>Lodgers</em>, the latest episode I watched, felt like the longest to date. A lengthy scene of Eric destroying every item in the room while he and Corky moved a bed in the latter's bedroom felt interminable and painfully unfunny. Physical comedy is one of those things one has to be an absolute master at in order for it to work, and here it just felt like watching the class clown reaching new levels of desperation in trying to make everyone laugh.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mel O'Drama, post: 374187, member: 23"] There's a morbid fascination to seeing how the sad, sudden loss of Richard Wattis translates to on-screen sitcom episodes which is really my only frame of reference given my lack of insight into what discussions were had and decisions taken. And what comes across in [I]Sykes[/I] is a writer and ensemble struggling to regain footing. Having watched the whole of Series Four, I now know that the first four episodes all took place away from Sebastopol Terrace and that familiar living room set. The reasons for this aren't clear. As I previously surmised, it could well be something done to gain some time to decide what the new home life would look like. Or to more easily recycle [I]Sykes And A...[/I] scripts which either hadn't featured Fulbright-Brown or could be easily adapted. It's also occurred to me that staying away from home could be an attempt to avoid awkward questions from the audience. By the time we returned there we were in the latter part of Series Four, so perhaps it was hoped that viewers would simply forget. It's certainly worth noting that Fulbright-Brown hasn't been even implicitly referenced. Through Twenty-First Century eyes, this seems rather dismissive of the Richard's importance to the series and, I would hope, the cast. The message seems to be that the loss of a key character from a small ensemble is so unimportant that it doesn't even require an explanation or acknowledgement. Yet bearing in mind the times, it also feels inevitable. It's all guesswork, but one comes to feel that Sykes or the Beeb felt maintaining a dignified silence was the preferred option. Perhaps there was a fear that even mentioning the character's name would invoke a harsh reality for which there is no place in sitcom world. I can respect this, yet at the same time it feels there is very much an elephant in the room that has been unacknowledged. The loss of this comfortably familiar face is actually [I]compounded[/I] - not helped - by the absence of the comfortably familiar cosy set for the first two thirds of the series. And so the viewer struggles as much as the cast might be. Naturally, whatever struggles are going on behind the camera don't come across on screen. That is, not specifically. As mentioned, there's just a strange lifelessness to the series which I already found a little dry and flat anyway. The good news is that, upon returning to Sebastopol Terrace, the absence of Richard Wattis is mitigated by the presence of Joan Sims. Having been mentioned regularly, Madge Kettlewell appeared in two consecutive episodes. And it [I]did[/I] help. Hers is such a familiar face and warm presence that it softens the blow significantly. Indeed, [I]Marriage[/I] - with its sitcom standard of crossed wires leading to a reluctant bridegroom - is one of the series' most enjoyable episodes so far. What a shame she won't appear again until one final outing towards the end of Series Six. As much as I enjoy Deryck Guyler, I also feel his increased presence isn't an improvement on his scene-stealing smaller role in earlier series. He was a bit of a caricature to begin with, and making Corky a more central character has a negative impact on the series as a whole. The increased dialogue has also highlighted Deryck's tendency to end sentences with pause then a throwaway "you see" (popular during the era with actors trying to sound terribly grand during interviews. See also: Jimmy Jewel). All the same I'm glad he's here and I find him an avuncular presence. Having begun Series Five, I can confirm it's more of the same. Hat remains as reliable as ever, and Sykes remains perfectly tolerable so long as he doesn't start going overboard or trying to work the audience. Perhaps it's not a good sign that [I]Lodgers[/I], the latest episode I watched, felt like the longest to date. A lengthy scene of Eric destroying every item in the room while he and Corky moved a bed in the latter's bedroom felt interminable and painfully unfunny. Physical comedy is one of those things one has to be an absolute master at in order for it to work, and here it just felt like watching the class clown reaching new levels of desperation in trying to make everyone laugh. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What month follows July?
Post reply
Forums
Global Telly Talk
Classic UK TV
The Great British Sitcom
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top