| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
 Posted - 04/12/2008 : 15:27:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
"A wise American reporter based in London once told me that every British news story is, deep down, about class. Every American story, he said, is about race."
I'm not sure I buy this at all - just look at our current Presidential primaries - ok well that's not a good example. I think the race issue is overplayed outside of the United States, but class is perhaps less of an issue because class is far more fluid (upwards and downwards) here as well that throughout much of Europe where there tends to be more of a de facto regression to the mean economic reality.
The point about British class is that it's not fluid and has nothing to do with money. If the queen - unlikely scenario - somehow lost all her wealth and got a job as a sales woman, she'd STILL belong to the aristocracy.
|
 |
|
|
MguyXXVI 
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 19:44:00
|
That's a very astute observation, BB. One encounters exactly that scenario in many of he classics, where poor aristocrats strugle to hide their lack of wealth or connive to marry into another, more wealthy aristocratic family. While their relative wealth is an issue, it's their perception of class that does not waiver.
Your observation quite informs the consideration of this topic.  |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 20:45:49
|
B.B. is right about the true upper class, i.e. the aristocracy. They are essentially fixed. However, their influence is not what it was not so long ago, either in principle or in practice. They are also not so removed from the rest of society, in that they would all (including royalty) rub shoulders with upper middle-class people in all of their affairs.
The other classes are less fixed than they once were, i.e. are moving towards the American model. I'm not suggesting class is gone or wholly financial by any means (I've always been quite poor but am definitely middle class), but there is more fluidity. It's reasonably common for people to consider themselves a different class to their parents: although this is usually upwards, it's not necessarily inaccurate (i.e. I think in general others would agree with them). If a working-class person makes a lot of money before their children are too old, they will essentially never consider themselves working class. (I guess this means that class is indeed definitely still there, but people can move between the definite categories generationally. Individuals' own class cannot really change, although it does become fairly meaningless at a certain level, e.g. Alan Sugar.) And certainly the most severe class problem is that of the underclass as opposed to working-class people in general, i.e. people relegated to housing estates where children grow up in a culture of unemployment. This is really not so different from American projects, i.e. they're pretty damn hard for anyone to work their way out of. |
Edited by - Sal[Au]pian on 04/12/2008 20:50:01 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 07:26:34
|
There are two different things being talked about here - historical classes and economic classes. The historical ones are fixed, as Bafta says. What you're born into, you're stuck with - and no amount or lack of wealth will change that (except perhaps through either a very good or very bad marriage - but that was always the case). The economic ones are, of course, very fluid.
Historical classes is something that is today, almost totally ignored. From what I can see, none of the countries that still have any type of monarchy seem to have retained much in the way of any historical classes. Sure, they're still there beneath the surface, but its mostly "in name only". England's historical classes are still more outspoken and visible than others, but it isn't like Lord muckety-muck's son will be disowned or sent off to the East Indies in the dark of night if he falls for a lower class working girl anymore.
(Sorry, Fanny Hill was on TV yesterday.)
|
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 09:14:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
England's historical classes are still more outspoken and visible than others, but it isn't like Lord muckety-muck's son will be disowned or sent off to the East Indies in the dark of night if he falls for a lower class working girl anymore.
(Sorry, Fanny Hill was on TV yesterday.)
Yeah, sure ... let's just see what happens when William dumps Kate and takes up with a lap dancer and announces they got hitched in Vegas and let's just see who gets to be king! 
|
Edited by - BaftaBaby on 04/13/2008 09:14:29 |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 13:04:37
|
Speaking of class and sophistication, I saw a stat in the May 2008 Harper's Index that astonished me:
Percent of Britons who believe that Winston Churchill is a mythical figure: 23
[Source: Taylor Herring Public Relations, Ltd. (London)]
Who are these people?
Also,
Chances that a story in a British newspaper is a reprinted or rewritten press release: 3 in 5
[Source: Andrew Williams, Cardiff University (Cardiff, Wales)]
Oh. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 13:42:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Speaking of class and sophistication, I saw a stat in the May 2008 Harper's Index that astonished me:
Percent of Britons who believe that Winston Churchill is a mythical figure: 23
[Source: Taylor Herring Public Relations, Ltd. (London)]
Who are these people?
Also,
Chances that a story in a British newspaper is a reprinted or rewritten press release: 3 in 5
[Source: Andrew Williams, Cardiff University (Cardiff, Wales)]
Oh.
re: Churchill ... I heard a discussion about this on the radio and the presenter elaborated that on further questioning, some of those believed him to be a dog. That's explained because there's a series of insurance ad on telly, featuring a talking bulldog called Churchill who offers great deals and always says Yes!
There's a whole generation + � of people who only associate the name with that dog.
I guess this is the cue for much ranting in the marsh about the state of education 
|
|
|
|
duh 
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 18:00:45
|
This discussion brought to mind a complaint I've long held against the Kansan dialect: to pronouce e words that sound like 'eh' as short i words.
Examples: She got a crick in her nick.
Crick, in that sense not to be confused with 'creek.' Kansans use 'crick' interchangeably for 'creek.'
Another typical Kansan pronunciation: "He didn't know how to warsh his own clothes."
I was in theater in high school and have always made a habit of trying to pronounce words correctly and clearly. This stems also from having had a hard-of-hearing dad (and now, a hard of hearing son).
Back when I worked as a clerk in a camera store, customers had no idea of what I was speaking of when I said the name of the store, "The Lens Cap." I pronounced it correctly as "lehns cap." My fellow Kansas understood what I was referring to only if it was pronounced as 'The Lins Cap.' Otherwise, they thought I was saying "landscape."
As for 'class,' it is amusing to observe people who think of themselves as 'high class' but one knows it is all in their heads. In these here parts, (lol) 'class' has more to do with how one treats other people. |
|
|
|
duh
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 18:06:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
The point about British class is that it's not fluid and has nothing to do with money. If the queen - unlikely scenario - somehow lost all her wealth and got a job as a sales woman, she'd STILL belong to the aristocracy.
I don't know why y'all don't fire the old bat and her inbred kin and make them get real jobs. |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 18:45:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
There are two different things being talked about here - historical classes and economic classes.
Hhmmm, I'm not sure. I realised after posting that my message was a bit inconsistent, as to start with I didn't think about the fact that the increased fluidity is still really generational, i.e. people cannot really change their own class. It's thus not a straightforward economic issue. |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 18:46:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by duh
Back when I worked as a clerk in a camera store, customers had no idea of what I was speaking of when I said the name of the store, "The Lens Cap." I pronounced it correctly as "lehns cap." My fellow Kansas understood what I was referring to only if it was pronounced as 'The Lins Cap.' Otherwise, they thought I was saying "landscape."
Are there a lot of South Africans there?! |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 18:57:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
To us, Americans (e.g. in the audience of television shows) seem overenthusiastic and fake (whooping away at the most fractionally funny lines), whereas to Americans we come across as cold, reserved and underenthusiastic/unsupportive.
I was thinking some more about this, and I really do think there is a strange converse whereby British television is in fact much more free-flowing and spontaneous. Many talk shows seem much more stilted and contrived than our own chat shows. A more extreme case is various kind of reality T.V. Even shows with very similar formats (e.g. talent shows) seem to have the American presenter sticking to a script that does not sound like their own words. And those of the type like Beauty and the Geek and Average Joe are really quite different to what we would have here, even though the former has had a series here. The presenter just seems completely out of place and false. I also know that they artificially film some scenes for 'entertainment purposes'. This has to be announced in advance here, and seems much worse than some of the falsifications which were treated as scandals here. In fact, I remember that some Americans on here felt that those incidents were no big deal.
Unlike the audience whooping, which I can empathise that some people might like, I cannot really imagine how anybody could prefer the more obviously set-up style to an apparently natural one. However, presumably viewers prefer that, or people wouldn't make programmes that way. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 19:16:25
|
| I repeat: THE YOUNG ONES. |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 19:36:21
|
Outside of Dancing with the Stars, which, for some perverse reason, I love, I don't watch the "reality shows." The talent search shows are all right, but most of them don't appeal to me. However, shows such as The Bachelor, Beauty and the Geek, Joe Millionaire, The Average Joe, The Bachelorette - all serve to set up a further dichotomy between an actual normal person and the pretty, fit, hand-picked cast put forth as run of the mill. They are as far from real as I am from the moon, and they are ultimately demeaning - not so much to the participant (although that's true enough) as for the viewer, as we sit and watch the thin and buff fight for... what?... a complete stranger who won't marry them anyway? Pass the popcorn, no wonder we're an overweight nation. The same goes for the competition based reality shows such as Survivor, The Amazing Race or Big Brother - the contestants are hand-picked, the setting is controlled and all it amounts to is unscripted drama. If I wanted that, I'd go visit my sister and niece.
I won't even attempt to address the personal makeover shows, which are, more or less, "Let's Humiliate Frank, He's (Fat / Ugly / Drugged Out / Dysfunctional / Styleless / A Loser Anyway)." Exploitation TV as far as I'm concerned, and much less focused on helping someone than on getting ratings. I'd lump Dr. Phil, Montel Williams and, yup, the actually fictional Jerry Springer Show in here.
What all of this does is effectively substitute for true production of entertainment. I have to wonder just how many actors are unemployed because TV networks are opting more and more for less costly drivel at the expense of good dramatic television programming. I do know that our friend John, who worked steadily for many years in small film and tv supporting roles had to pursue a real estate license in order to pay the bills, since reality TV has cut back drastically on the demand for actors in those roles. Those roles don't have the million dollar paychecks and there are hundreds of people who are losing jobs due to "reality programming." And I wonder just what will be in store when, for example, E.R. ends its run next year. "The Amazing Unemployed Auto Factory Worker Tries McDonald's"? For all the derision sometimes focused on Stephen King, television is moving more toward "The Running Man" all the time. Can "The Truman Show" be far behind? |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 20:01:00
|
Livie, the current spate of shitty reality shows, which began in the mid-90s, can be directly traced to the LAST writers' strike, in the late 80s. The nets essentially said, hmmm: let's see if we can do shows "without" "writers." Of course, reality shows actually have writers too, but the suits are trying very hard to obstruct their unionization.
Like Democrats, WGA members can reliably be counted upon to shoot themselves in the feet as frequently as possible. I loved that they begged the Stewart/Colbert production company for membership, then refused to negotiate with that same entity when they struck last year, claiming their beef was now with their corporate owners. Dickweeds. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Ramble ramble
