Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

l'angelo mysterioso

Brian Sewell The man is a god

77 posts in this topic

1 so the quality of a tv programme is related directly to its viewing figures?

2 only good programmes win awards and if a programme doesn't win an award it is no good? 

3. to have an educated  and valid opinion on something you have to have done it yourself to the highest level?

 

What Dali and Sewell did together is neither here nor there. I hope they enjoyed themselves

 

1. The BBC has a duty to try and educate and explain in its factual programmes. It has to make its programmes accessible to the lay person. 

 

2. But if his programmes had been so much better than theose that he is criticising, he would have been at least nminated for an award within that arts/culture sector.

 

3. He has made documentaries; I would guess that, for the average lay viewer,  all they attracted was the remote control button

 

 

It appears to me that he's basically 'all mouth and no trousers'. Especially, reportedly, in his dealings with Salvador Dali.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See my post on the previous page.

well he's right about the middle classes being the catalyst for change sounds pretty Marxist to me.

 

as for the sewage I think he over states his case, but the working classes never brought about any social change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well he's right about the middle classes being the catalyst for change sounds pretty Marxist to me.

as for the sewage I think he over states his case, but the working classes never brought about any social change.

How the hell could they? They were too busy working all hours in order to eat.

You sound like Frank Marshall. ...'if the working classes can't afford to organise themselves into powerful political parties, then that's their fault'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The BBC has a duty to try and educate and explain in its factual programmes. It has to make its programmes accessible to the lay person. 

 

2. But if his programmes had been so much better than theose that he is criticising, he would have been at least nminated for an award within that arts/culture sector.

 

3. He has made documentaries; I would guess that, for the average lay viewer,  all they attracted was the remote control button

 

 

It appears to me that he's basically 'all mouth and no trousers'. Especially, reportedly, in his dealings with Salvador Dali.

but there has to be some actual substance to gain access to, otherwise the viewer is being patronised-which is Sewell's point

 

no he wouldn't

 

you can guess what you like it means nothing. Should all programmes be aimed at the average viewer? What on earth is the 'average viewer'? Is that a way of saying programmes should be dumbed down? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How the hell could they? They were too busy working all hours in order to eat.

You sound like Frank Marshall. ...'if the working classes can't afford to organise themselves into powerful political parties, then that's their fault'

middle class people work all hours as well

it wasn't Marshall who said that.

 

Lenin

Castro

Marx

Guevarra

Allende

even Pinochet

 

all middle class and many more besides

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but there has to be some actual substance to gain access to, otherwise the viewer is being patronised-which is Sewell's point

no he wouldn't

you can guess what you like it means nothing. Should all programmes be aimed at the average viewer? What on earth is the 'average viewer'? Is that a way of saying programmes should be dumbed down?

IIRC the remit of the BBC is to inform, educate and entertain which would imply that factual programmes should be aimed at varied ages and learning. IMO Sewell is unfair to the BBC in his criticism. He has form with these types of comments and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaks his mind.

 

And so eloquently.

 

If what he gets up to with Salvador Dali is "his own business", why publicise it on a wiki page?

 

The man makes a fair point about much of the BBC's output being formulaic, but he is dead wrong in absolute terms. Last night's Horizon on Black holes was both interesting and informative, without getting too involved with the extremely complex maths that underpins the theories. I enjoyed it immensely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC the remit of the BBC is to inform, educate and entertain which would imply that factual programmes should be aimed at varied ages and learning. IMO Sewell is unfair to the BBC in his criticism. He has form with these types of comments and shouldn't be taken seriously.

and neither should threads declaiming that he is a god

 

but there is a kernel of truth in what he says

 

I'm quit fond of Sewell all the same

 

I wonder if he saw the documentary about Vivian Maier? qv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

middle class people work all hours as well

it wasn't Marshall who said that.

Lenin

Castro

Marx

Guevarra

Allende

even Pinochet

all middle class and many more besides

How many middle class people worked in the mills or down the pit then? I make it about none.

I know he never said that, that's why I said 'like'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The working classes voted in the 1948 Labour Government.

and?

they voted Thatcher in aswell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many middle class people worked in the mills or down the pit then? I make it about none.

I know he never said that, that's why I said 'like'

so what

 

working in a mill or down a pit doesn't make you a better person it doesn't make you a worse person either

same with middle class people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well he's right about the middle classes being the catalyst for change sounds pretty Marxist to me.

 

as for the sewage I think he over states his case, but the working classes never brought about any social change.

I think "the working classes are quite happy to roll about in sewage" is more than overstating the case. It's just offensive and not remotely true. The working classes pretty much had to accept their lot pre-WW2 because there was sod all that they could do about it. I don't think anyone enjoyed filth and squalor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and?

they voted Thatcher in aswell

 

Both had a significant effect on British society ... for me, one good and one bad.

 

Overall, the working class wouldn't have voted Thatcher in if Labour had been a credible alternative. Traditional working class areas remained Labour strongholds.

 

In my opinion: -

 - It's having middle class Labour leaders like Foot (and I think Miliband) who can't marshall the working class vote that has resulted in the Tories have a clear run at elections. 

 -  Kinnock was working class and cleaned up the party  but was not up to leading the country.

 - Smith was middle class but was not up to leading the country or the party.

 - Blair was middle class but could just as easily have been a Tory leader. Still, he got us in. Ego got the better of him. I voted for him the first time, not afterwards.

 - Brown meant well but was not a good communicator with either the middle class or the working class. He commanded respect but not much loyalty. I hope he will come back a wiser man without the siege mentality and with a more inclusive style of leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think "the working classes are quite happy to roll about in sewage" is more than overstating the case. It's just offensive and not remotely true. The working classes pretty much had to accept their lot pre-WW2 because there was sod all that they could do about it. I don't think anyone enjoyed filth and squalor.

you are of course right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both had a significant effect on British society ... for me, one good and one bad.

 

Overall, the working class wouldn't have voted Thatcher in if Labour had been a credible alternative. Traditional working class areas remained Labour strongholds.

 

In my opinion: -

 - It's having middle class Labour leaders like Foot (and I think Miliband) who can't marshall the working class vote that has resulted in the Tories have a clear run at elections. 

 

I'd say it had more to do with the collapse of heavy industry and trade unions and the increasing tendency of people to think of themselves as "classless" or "middle class" myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both had a significant effect on British society ... for me, one good and one bad.

 

Overall, the working class wouldn't have voted Thatcher in if Labour had been a credible alternative. Traditional working class areas remained Labour strongholds.

 

In my opinion: -

 - It's having middle class Labour leaders like Foot (and I think Miliband) who can't marshall the working class vote that has resulted in the Tories have a clear run at elections. 

 -  Kinnock was working class and cleaned up the party  but was not up to leading the country.

 - Smith was middle class but was not up to leading the country or the party.

 - Blair was middle class but could just as easily have been a Tory leader. Still, he got us in. Ego got the better of him. I voted for him the first time, not afterwards.

 - Brown meant well but was not a good communicator with either the middle class or the working class. He commanded respect but not much loyalty. I hope he will come back a wiser man without the siege mentality and with a more inclusive style of leadership.

Attlee was middle/upper class

Wilson was middle class

Gaitskell was middle class

Kinnock working class? I don't think so, although he might have come from a working class background.

 

Benn is upper class

 

middle class people are working people as well ask your nearest ward sister, inner city school teacher or emergency department doctor for instance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. Kinnock working class? I don't think so, although he might have come from a working class background.

 

 

 

2. middle class people are working people as well ask your nearest ward sister, inner city school teacher or emergency department doctor for instance

 

1. Kinnock's dad was a miner

 

2. The Tories have always worked on the principle of persuading working class people that they are, in fact, middle class and "eligible" to vote Conservative.

 There will always be an active within-working-class snobbery, just as there is an active  within-middle-class snobbery What house you have, what car you drive, what educational achievements you hold, how much you earn ... all are elements for comparison and judgement. That's why the Daily Mail sells so many copies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:hi:  Aah. One of l'a m's teasing threads....................... :you:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sewell has never displayed anything but contempt for the working classes and the North. He has been quoted in the past as saying all great works of art ought to be housed in London where the people will appreciate them (impling us northern folk are too dense to appreciate them).

 

He also speaks with an accent so pretentious and put on it's almost impenetrable. I can imagine his disdain for people who speak with an equally difficult to comprehend speaking voice if they happened to speak that way with a regional accent and not his, over the top, false posh. After all the whole purpose of 'received pronunciation' is to make yourself better understood to the widest possible audience, something Sewell fails to do totally.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Kinnock's dad was a miner

 

2. The Tories have always worked on the principle of persuading working class people that they are, in fact, middle class and "eligible" to vote Conservative.

 There will always be an active within-working-class snobbery, just as there is an active  within-middle-class snobbery What house you have, what car you drive, what educational achievements you hold, how much you earn ... all are elements for comparison and judgement. That's why the Daily Mail sells so many copies.

Kinnock wasn't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so what

working in a mill or down a pit doesn't make you a better person it doesn't make you a worse person either

same with middle class people

It means that you had a hard bloody life and were generally too f*cked to ##### about looking at paintings like the likes of Sewell did.

That's assuming you didn't starve to death or get put in the army as cannon fodder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It means that you had a hard bloody life and were generally too f*cked to ##### about looking at paintings like the likes of Sewell did.

That's assuming you didn't starve to death or get put in the army as cannon fodder.

correct

in world war 1 and world war 2 , korea, Malaya, northern Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan,and probably in previous wars officers died alongside their men

read Robert graves, Wilfred owen, seigfried Sassoon, a message from the falkalnds, the dambusters  ec etc etc

 

the beef isn't with the middle class but the upper class the people with the real money and power

middle class people are working people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched a programme about women in India on BBC3 last night. That certainly didn't seem dumbed down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017