6 ms·

This doesn't look adventurous to me. It's more like an extension of "Page 3" culture that spilled over to TV. It's not that much different to the "Hot Gossip"

This doesn't look adventurous to me. It's more like an extension of "Page 3" culture that spilled over to TV. It's not that much different to the "Hot Gossip" dancers on Kenny Everett's TV show or "Top of the Pops" at the end of the decade. Old UK TV shows look weird to todays audience (not adventurous) because they are a reflection of a time we have long moved on from. The pandering racism of "Love Thy Neighbour" and "The Black and White Minstrel Show", the scantily clad "totty" in Benny Hill. I suppose on an incredibly naive way it might seem adventurous but I'm very glad we've moved on.

Gordonjcp 4y ago
> The pandering racism of "Love Thy Neighbour" You get that both parties - the white guy and the black guy - were bigoted racist idiots, neither were right, and their wives who actually got on fine were exasperated with them, right? I mean, you've actually seen the series, I'm sure? Because if you'd seen Love Thy Neighbour, you'd know that both guys were racist bigoted idiots. You'd also know that even in the 1970s when it was aired, everyone thought it was shite.
- smackeyacky 4y ago
  Yes, I'm old enough to have seen the show when it aired in period. No, I don't think the show was self aware enough to have the nuance you are ascribing to it. It was outright pandering to people who felt that saying "nignog" in public should still be allowed, and gave them a licence to do it by allowing a black man to say "honky" on TV occasionally. That the show was shite is neither here nor there.
flumpcakes 4y ago
I don't see how we went from interpretive dance by a mixed group of men and women to sexualising the women as "page 3" and "totty"?
- harry8 4y ago
  It's a reasonable point, but I think both points of view are valid and I offer no answers. The first is the reason the dancers are there is classic "for the dads" tv to check out the bodies of some young, fit, conventionally physically attractive women. The men being involved in the dancing is a fig-leaf to enable the pretence that its motivation is some higher, more noble artistic endeavour for both performers and audience. If there is some small amount of "for the moms" going on as well then fine but that's not why its there. The second is that this is dance. By its nature dance is sexual "vertical expression of the horizontal desire" and all that. There is nothing inherently exploitative about having a choreographed, mixed group of young fit humans, dressed for dance on tv dancing. Dancers self-select for physical fitness. Conventionally physically less-attractive dancers don't fare much better than conventionally physically less-attractive movie-actors. Pick your fight with what humans like but don't cry exploitation. So would these dancers be on tv without a background "for the dads" mindset from tv producers? If not, does that matter? (For me, those last two are "no" and, "yeah, maybe it does." At least to the extent its worth point out but not necessarily raging against). YMMV.
  - smackeyacky 4y ago
    A lot of that era of dancing involved men it's true, but largely as props for holding the women in provocative poses. You might argue that is some extension of classical ballet (or of the natural strength advantages that men have) but it makes no difference to the titillation factor of TV dance segments of the era.
    - harry8 4y ago
      I'd actually make much the same argument about classical ballet as it developed only with different technology, (stage, theatre) and a different, more segregated and selected audience, some of whom counted more than the rest combined. Tremendously fit women showing off their shape and astounding levels of flexibility has always been a large part of that appeal and I believe knowingly so. I say that without trying to denigrate an art-form I don't understand and appreciate (or even like) on a refined level. The man who hasn't seen a ballet dancer of either sex they found attractive doing remarkable things with their body and let their imagination go at least a little probably has some pretty profound health issues and my sympathies. Something similar may well be true for women in the audience, not sure if this is really the place to ask for people to speak up on the point. tl;dr sex sells and always has.

Gordonjcp 4y ago

> The pandering racism of "Love Thy Neighbour" You get that both parties - the white guy and the black guy - were bigoted racist idiots, neither were right, and their wives who actually got on fine were exasperated with them, right? I mean, you've actually seen the series, I'm sure? Because if you'd seen Love Thy Neighbour, you'd know that both guys were racist bigoted idiots. You'd also know that even in the 1970s when it was aired, everyone thought it was shite.

smackeyacky 4y ago
Yes, I'm old enough to have seen the show when it aired in period. No, I don't think the show was self aware enough to have the nuance you are ascribing to it. It was outright pandering to people who felt that saying "nignog" in public should still be allowed, and gave them a licence to do it by allowing a black man to say "honky" on TV occasionally. That the show was shite is neither here nor there.

flumpcakes 4y ago

I don't see how we went from interpretive dance by a mixed group of men and women to sexualising the women as "page 3" and "totty"?

harry8 4y ago
It's a reasonable point, but I think both points of view are valid and I offer no answers. The first is the reason the dancers are there is classic "for the dads" tv to check out the bodies of some young, fit, conventionally physically attractive women. The men being involved in the dancing is a fig-leaf to enable the pretence that its motivation is some higher, more noble artistic endeavour for both performers and audience. If there is some small amount of "for the moms" going on as well then fine but that's not why its there. The second is that this is dance. By its nature dance is sexual "vertical expression of the horizontal desire" and all that. There is nothing inherently exploitative about having a choreographed, mixed group of young fit humans, dressed for dance on tv dancing. Dancers self-select for physical fitness. Conventionally physically less-attractive dancers don't fare much better than conventionally physically less-attractive movie-actors. Pick your fight with what humans like but don't cry exploitation. So would these dancers be on tv without a background "for the dads" mindset from tv producers? If not, does that matter? (For me, those last two are "no" and, "yeah, maybe it does." At least to the extent its worth point out but not necessarily raging against). YMMV.
- smackeyacky 4y ago
  A lot of that era of dancing involved men it's true, but largely as props for holding the women in provocative poses. You might argue that is some extension of classical ballet (or of the natural strength advantages that men have) but it makes no difference to the titillation factor of TV dance segments of the era.
  - harry8 4y ago
    I'd actually make much the same argument about classical ballet as it developed only with different technology, (stage, theatre) and a different, more segregated and selected audience, some of whom counted more than the rest combined. Tremendously fit women showing off their shape and astounding levels of flexibility has always been a large part of that appeal and I believe knowingly so. I say that without trying to denigrate an art-form I don't understand and appreciate (or even like) on a refined level. The man who hasn't seen a ballet dancer of either sex they found attractive doing remarkable things with their body and let their imagination go at least a little probably has some pretty profound health issues and my sympathies. Something similar may well be true for women in the audience, not sure if this is really the place to ask for people to speak up on the point. tl;dr sex sells and always has.