MovieChat Forums > The Curse of Steptoe (2008) Discussion > Misgivings About the Series

Misgivings About the Series

posted 16 years ago by pullgees
8 replies | jump to latest

Is this another knock at Britain's greats, this time by denigrating our heroes of comedy? I have to admit it makes compulsive viewing but does no one care for legends anymore?

[–] trevorwomble 16 years ago

Actually I would have thought that shows like this, providing they were done responsibly, would help to keep the legends going. It would be nice to think that some of the youngsters who saw this or any of the others in the series would be curious enough to investigate more and discover the legacy these comedy geniuses left behind. The alternative is that the names could fade into obscurity as they are forgotten with time (much like Arthur Haynes or Charlie Drake).

[–] ColinBaker 16 years ago

What about all the warts and all biopics of music stars, eg Lady Sings The Blues, Ray, Coal Miner's Daughter, Walk The Line. This notion of depicting lives off stage/camera is hardly new.

[–] imdb-6540 16 years ago

on the contrary

... this gives the sense of what is a comedy series having shadows far more deep than would first appear.

[–] wj-n3 15 years ago

Anyone who watched the show also read the newspapers so there's nothing here that's a surprise.

To be honest this dramatization seems to be weighed pretty heavily in the favour of Harry H Corbett. All I remember from that time was what a canute he was supposed to be to work with and how Wilf carried the show.

I think this is an interesting take on things but not one I'd put much faith in.

[–] bellapeligrosa 9 years ago

I felt the same... it wasn't long enough to really give the characters much depth and don't feel like it was that worthwhile. As someone mentioned people read the papers, and perhaps there was a certain amount of speculation about them, but this made them appear grumpy, self-obsessed and charmless.

It's too cerebral! We're trying to make a movie here, not a film!

[–] Helena727 9 years ago

it wasn't long enough to really give the characters much depth and don't feel like it was that worthwhile. As someone mentioned people read the papers, and perhaps there was a certain amount of speculation about them, but this made them appear grumpy, self-obsessed and charmless.

I respectfully disagree. Phil Davis and Jason Isaacs are such great actors that they were able to draw, in mostly broad strokes but also thru tiny illuminating moments, meaningful portraits of these men in little more than an hour. And I found the fictional Harry and Wilf complicated, striving, in pain, and ... tremendously human -- I think the actors portrayed them with compassion and respect.

"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of people."

[–] Helena727 9 years ago

Is this another knock at Britain's greats, this time by denigrating our heroes of comedy? I have to admit it makes compulsive viewing but does no one care for legends anymore?

1. To look more truthfully at another person is an act of respect, not disrespect. And this was a truthful look at their strengths and flaws, which is not at all the same as a hatchet job or grotesque smear campaign.

2. The greats are great enough to withstand our acknowledgement of their flaws.

3. To look upon someone with only a positive gaze does no one any favors -- not the person gazing, not the person being gazed upon, and not anyone else who's in the sphere of either. Only through examining and accepting the truth of what it is to be human will we have meaning in our lives -- and, in time, a less-contentious world.

"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of people."

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]