A classic snapshot of social gymnastics and the ridiculousness of the trappings of class playing out in a truly awful brown and mustard living room! I loved this play, in fact I rewatched it just before Christmas and enjoyed. Fantastic review as always Luke!
Very astute commentary. I think it's stood the test of time extremely badly. One ends up despising the impetus of Leigh in writing it rather than the characters themselves. And your observation that in the Seventies, the aim was the acquisition of the trappings if Old Money was spot on.
Thanks for that. Appreciated. I'm on the fence. There's now a cringe-factor- are we sneering at these people through the eyes of poor, Radio 4 Sue? I rather like the Laurence character, who works bloody hard and is more than keen to embrace the finer things in life. Good on him. Are we supposed to mock him for this? For his lack of education? I'm still not sure if we are- or not? It's really ambiguous.
And yes, linking back to your perceptive Roald Dahl post- wasn't there this great shift in perception in the 90s? When everything went street. You might even call it dumbing down. Remember the 1970s antiques programme 'Going with a Song'? With plummy Sotheby's experts discussing antiques in considerable detail, 'Lovely chair that? Cuban Mahogany. 1764ish? Or perhaps, 1762? By John Linnell?' That was on prime-time BBC2. And if you trawl through 70s advertising, people aspired to refinement and sophistication- cognac, old sherries, expensive cigarettes, a country house or an 'Old Master' painting, stuff like that, or alternatively a sort of Bondish, proto-yuppie jetset existence, like in McCann-Erickson's brilliantly cinematic Martini ads. These days, I'm not really sure if anybody aspires to anything?
I have to agree. I remembered it so fondly, then re-watched it and it was truly dreadful. Hammy, over acted and without it seemed any whiff of truth. Traumatised, we immediately turned to Nuts in May. Which thank goodness, is even more insanely beautiful and profound after all these years!
Good one. Definitely worth another watch. I've seen it several times now, and I'm still on the fence... but, then, perhaps, that's a sign of something interesting. What I hadn't completely grasped until now, was that Leigh's pinpointing a new class of monied, aspirational suburbanites. They're on their way up and the trad, respectable, 'Radio 4 on the wireless' middle-middle class are on their way down. It's not just a satire on flowery wallpaper, polyester and babycham.
Another fantastic piece, LH. Particularly appreciate positioning it as a late-'70s thing, because that was an odd time indeed.
I'm also on the fence about the tone of this one, as much as I love it. The play itself has layers of empathy on the page - there's a just-out-of-view tragedy with Bev and Laurence, kind of a Poundland Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? - but the performances tend towards the broad, which leaves me thinking that Leigh's misanthropy has a way of curdling the comedy here. It's also the danger of letting actors improvise and devise a comedy - there doesn't tend to be much nuance, though it did allow for the hyper-specific Crystal Palace reference, which is fun.
And poor Janine Duvitski - forever the butt of jokes and bullying, even in Waiting for God. She's particularly sad in Blue Remembered Hills (talking of Dennis Potter).
To be fair, I haven't seen a stage production of it (the Jill Halfpenny-led production from a few years ago sounds like it hit the right notes), but I get the feeling it comes across as a period piece these days. It's a shame, because there's some lovely dark-heart-of-Britain stuff happening in it.
I can see, I think, what it’s trying to do, but I don’t think it succeeds, well, not entirely, at least. For it does encourage sneering from a more privileged distance; something I’ve witnessed when watching it with those who might fit the description of ‘old and established’ middle class, soft centred left on the surface, but hard hearted right when push came to shove. And that, quite obviously was not Mike Leigh’s intention. He wanted us to laugh at the idea, the lie, if you will, and not the people who fell for it.
But you’ve got to admire the intent, ie the worthlessness of a consumerist led life, and the performances are all terrific, despite, or perhaps because of?, the one dimensional nature of their characters.
As for the prescience you noted, Luke, I couldn’t agree more, and I always have to double check when events I relate to Thatcher, such as the three day week, often happened before 1979.
And it may be a coincidence, or perhaps a deliberate choice, but the music dimly emanating from Abigail’s party is the Jam’s News of the World, which is ‘punk’ of a kind, but not punk as the Sex Pistols displayed it, so reflecting Beverley’s faux new middle class, just as the Jam were considered more new wave than the real deal. Well, at least that’s what I’d like to think anyway…ha-ha!
And, spot on also, Luke, about your observation that life in Britain in the 1970s wasn’t all terrible. I’d argue the 1980s to come were far worse, and the lasting damage of that era still haunt us, whereas the 1970s was fairly progressive in comparison.
Many thanks- really kind. The Three Day week was during Ted Heath's watch ie 1974. Well before Mrs T. The point to make, I think, is that both Conservatives and Labour (ie Heath, Wilson and Callaghan) were pursuing similar policies which led to economic disaster. Hence the reaction which followed ie Mrs Thatcher & Monetarism. But you can detect a change in the air well before 1979- I would pinpoint it to 1977 or so. One might even argue that the true 1970s only existed between 1972 and 1977. Where I differ from Mike Leigh, is that I rather like consumerism- don't think it's worthless at all! Work hard and you can afford that beautifully designed bottle of Martini. Which is why I rather admire the Laurence character's aspiration. But then I'm an unashamed, die-hard Capitalist and my father was a 1960s/70s adman, pedalling the wonder that was Rolls-Royce, Old Spice and Booth's Gin.
Always enjoy your turn of phrase, but particularly like 'a garden of sodden rhododendron bushes surrounded by new-build estates sprouting like tarmacked mushrooms'.
I love, love, love this play. I once went to a local production and it was my Auntie Anne's dining room as the set. I was roaring with laughter before the play even started.
Not a coincidence, as is my understanding. Part of Mike Leigh’s process - certainly on Abigal’s Party - was to have long improv sessions in which the actors fleshed out the backstories to their own characters, which is where the Palace reference comes from. John Salthouse was by all accounts a really promising player - England U-18s level - but suffered a broken ankle which was misdiagnosed as a sprain, so he played on it and made it far worse. He seems OK with the way his life turned out though as he would probably never have turned to acting if his footy career hadn’t come to a halt. Played DI Galloway in The Bill, as well as a long and successful writing and production career.
Can only imagine how a professor would preface a brief video showing of this: Class, please observe the impact of cigarettes/polyester/70's UK economics/suburbia/hair styles and how it relates to the characters.
A classic snapshot of social gymnastics and the ridiculousness of the trappings of class playing out in a truly awful brown and mustard living room! I loved this play, in fact I rewatched it just before Christmas and enjoyed. Fantastic review as always Luke!
That chocolate brown- dead trendy in 1977.
Very astute commentary. I think it's stood the test of time extremely badly. One ends up despising the impetus of Leigh in writing it rather than the characters themselves. And your observation that in the Seventies, the aim was the acquisition of the trappings if Old Money was spot on.
Thanks for that. Appreciated. I'm on the fence. There's now a cringe-factor- are we sneering at these people through the eyes of poor, Radio 4 Sue? I rather like the Laurence character, who works bloody hard and is more than keen to embrace the finer things in life. Good on him. Are we supposed to mock him for this? For his lack of education? I'm still not sure if we are- or not? It's really ambiguous.
And yes, linking back to your perceptive Roald Dahl post- wasn't there this great shift in perception in the 90s? When everything went street. You might even call it dumbing down. Remember the 1970s antiques programme 'Going with a Song'? With plummy Sotheby's experts discussing antiques in considerable detail, 'Lovely chair that? Cuban Mahogany. 1764ish? Or perhaps, 1762? By John Linnell?' That was on prime-time BBC2. And if you trawl through 70s advertising, people aspired to refinement and sophistication- cognac, old sherries, expensive cigarettes, a country house or an 'Old Master' painting, stuff like that, or alternatively a sort of Bondish, proto-yuppie jetset existence, like in McCann-Erickson's brilliantly cinematic Martini ads. These days, I'm not really sure if anybody aspires to anything?
I have to agree. I remembered it so fondly, then re-watched it and it was truly dreadful. Hammy, over acted and without it seemed any whiff of truth. Traumatised, we immediately turned to Nuts in May. Which thank goodness, is even more insanely beautiful and profound after all these years!
Hmmmm. Point taken, But seriously, I think it's better than that. There's still quite a bit to say about it.
Aye, will give it another try!
Good one. Definitely worth another watch. I've seen it several times now, and I'm still on the fence... but, then, perhaps, that's a sign of something interesting. What I hadn't completely grasped until now, was that Leigh's pinpointing a new class of monied, aspirational suburbanites. They're on their way up and the trad, respectable, 'Radio 4 on the wireless' middle-middle class are on their way down. It's not just a satire on flowery wallpaper, polyester and babycham.
A genius play and startlingly good film however I still find it strangely difficult to watch . Rather like The Office with Ricky Gervais !
Spot on.
Another fantastic piece, LH. Particularly appreciate positioning it as a late-'70s thing, because that was an odd time indeed.
I'm also on the fence about the tone of this one, as much as I love it. The play itself has layers of empathy on the page - there's a just-out-of-view tragedy with Bev and Laurence, kind of a Poundland Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? - but the performances tend towards the broad, which leaves me thinking that Leigh's misanthropy has a way of curdling the comedy here. It's also the danger of letting actors improvise and devise a comedy - there doesn't tend to be much nuance, though it did allow for the hyper-specific Crystal Palace reference, which is fun.
And poor Janine Duvitski - forever the butt of jokes and bullying, even in Waiting for God. She's particularly sad in Blue Remembered Hills (talking of Dennis Potter).
To be fair, I haven't seen a stage production of it (the Jill Halfpenny-led production from a few years ago sounds like it hit the right notes), but I get the feeling it comes across as a period piece these days. It's a shame, because there's some lovely dark-heart-of-Britain stuff happening in it.
I can see, I think, what it’s trying to do, but I don’t think it succeeds, well, not entirely, at least. For it does encourage sneering from a more privileged distance; something I’ve witnessed when watching it with those who might fit the description of ‘old and established’ middle class, soft centred left on the surface, but hard hearted right when push came to shove. And that, quite obviously was not Mike Leigh’s intention. He wanted us to laugh at the idea, the lie, if you will, and not the people who fell for it.
But you’ve got to admire the intent, ie the worthlessness of a consumerist led life, and the performances are all terrific, despite, or perhaps because of?, the one dimensional nature of their characters.
As for the prescience you noted, Luke, I couldn’t agree more, and I always have to double check when events I relate to Thatcher, such as the three day week, often happened before 1979.
And it may be a coincidence, or perhaps a deliberate choice, but the music dimly emanating from Abigail’s party is the Jam’s News of the World, which is ‘punk’ of a kind, but not punk as the Sex Pistols displayed it, so reflecting Beverley’s faux new middle class, just as the Jam were considered more new wave than the real deal. Well, at least that’s what I’d like to think anyway…ha-ha!
And, spot on also, Luke, about your observation that life in Britain in the 1970s wasn’t all terrible. I’d argue the 1980s to come were far worse, and the lasting damage of that era still haunt us, whereas the 1970s was fairly progressive in comparison.
Great read as ever, Luke!
Many thanks- really kind. The Three Day week was during Ted Heath's watch ie 1974. Well before Mrs T. The point to make, I think, is that both Conservatives and Labour (ie Heath, Wilson and Callaghan) were pursuing similar policies which led to economic disaster. Hence the reaction which followed ie Mrs Thatcher & Monetarism. But you can detect a change in the air well before 1979- I would pinpoint it to 1977 or so. One might even argue that the true 1970s only existed between 1972 and 1977. Where I differ from Mike Leigh, is that I rather like consumerism- don't think it's worthless at all! Work hard and you can afford that beautifully designed bottle of Martini. Which is why I rather admire the Laurence character's aspiration. But then I'm an unashamed, die-hard Capitalist and my father was a 1960s/70s adman, pedalling the wonder that was Rolls-Royce, Old Spice and Booth's Gin.
Always enjoy your turn of phrase, but particularly like 'a garden of sodden rhododendron bushes surrounded by new-build estates sprouting like tarmacked mushrooms'.
Too kind! Not sure where that one came from. I have a thing about tarmacked drives. Like the M1.
To be fair, the M1 is a lovely bit of tarmac.
I find it really hard to watch. I know how I feel about Beverly, and it's definitely my middle class snobbishness.
I love, love, love this play. I once went to a local production and it was my Auntie Anne's dining room as the set. I was roaring with laughter before the play even started.
The Man-Made Fibres - saw them back in the day when they opened for Thomas Dolby.
Lovely piece on a classic bit of telly, Luke.
Fun fact - John Salthouse, who played Tony the ex-footballer for Crystal Palace, was actually an ex-footballer - for Crystal Palace.
I vaguely seem to remember that. Presumably he added that to the script for the BBC production, or was it a coincidence? Surely not?
Not a coincidence, as is my understanding. Part of Mike Leigh’s process - certainly on Abigal’s Party - was to have long improv sessions in which the actors fleshed out the backstories to their own characters, which is where the Palace reference comes from. John Salthouse was by all accounts a really promising player - England U-18s level - but suffered a broken ankle which was misdiagnosed as a sprain, so he played on it and made it far worse. He seems OK with the way his life turned out though as he would probably never have turned to acting if his footy career hadn’t come to a halt. Played DI Galloway in The Bill, as well as a long and successful writing and production career.
I’ve seen the play too as well as the TV piece. A great write up, Luke. Thank you.
Too kind!
Can only imagine how a professor would preface a brief video showing of this: Class, please observe the impact of cigarettes/polyester/70's UK economics/suburbia/hair styles and how it relates to the characters.
'Man-made fibres'. Brilliant phrase that. I nicked it from my former English master at school, the poet Duncan Forbes. Sorry, Duncan.