Well, Jason got this part a year later...
New Dad's Army film Page 4
Quote: Lazzard @ 11th October 2014, 11:50 AM BSTWell, Jason got this part a year later...
What on earth is that from? 
Quote: Lazzard @ 11th October 2014, 12:30 PM BST
You're pulling my plonker - I can't find that image. >_<
Maybe this was why he was turned down AFTER he was cast?
Dithers
Quote: Lazzard @ 11th October 2014, 5:14 PM BSTDithers
At last! God, this has been like pulling teeth. 
There was a clue. If you were in the clique you would have seen it. 
Quote: Marc P @ 11th October 2014, 8:23 AM BSTMore conceptual I think. LM would have been pompously of a higher class (as were all other officers in the show who guest appeared) and AL would have been the put upon middle class manager who can manage. So it was the concept and not just the casting that was reversed. In doing so they were really commentating too on the way a Word War was breaking down the established notions of class structure. For a unique look at post war restructuring of same, and it's not my favourite show, look at Are You Being Served?. It is a beautifully observed examination of that deconstruction thanking a model to mirror the hierarchies post and pre war in that most English of establishments the independent department store. It is genius in its apparent simplicity. Most people won't see it as such but I think the two boys, LM Croft and Walker Perry knew exactly what they were doing.
It took me a couple of reads but I like what is being said. There is that aspect of enjoying a programme not just because it is entertaining but because it chimes. It isn't necessarily clear why it chimes - there is no usual need to think it all through - but when it is thought through in that way it does make a lot of sense.
Quote: A Horseradish @ 11th October 2014, 6:19 PM BSTIt took me a couple of reads but I like what is being said. There is that aspect of enjoying a programme not just because it is entertaining but because it chimes. It isn't necessarily clear why it chimes - there is no usual need to think it all through - but when it is thought through in that way it does make a lot of sense.
I do wonder though whether we can read more into a sitcom than was originally intended or even meant.
Quote: Marc P @ 11th October 2014, 5:41 PM BSTThere was a clue. If you were in the clique you would have seen it.
Don't start that again........my trick-cyclist had managed to get me to move on, and now.......... 
Go on then, smarty pants - what was the clue? 
Quote: Hercules Grytpype Thynne @ 11th October 2014, 6:38 PM BSTI do wonder though whether we can read more into a sitcom than was originally intended or even meant.
Sorry that is simply not true. You can engage at whatever level you like in your relationship with any art form. That is it's primary function. You may choose to be a simple watcher and enjoyer. And why not? It works on that level for you. Others choose to engage more with the 'makers' intent/ideas/vision and place that in a wider and social and cultural context. To look at meaning and craft below the surface. And also, why not? Maybe it is a writer thing, but I don't think so. Sitcom at its best is by no means a trivial thing at all. Very much the opposite. When it is good it is never a construct of animated lolly sticks after all.
And remember the artist's intent is only part of it when it is made and released into the world. After that the way a viewer or listener or reader interacts with it is beyond their control. And rightly so. It's part of the fun. Not just of art or sitcom - but being human!
And the clue by the way was 3 Down.
Quote: Marc P @ 11th October 2014, 9:54 PM BSTSorry that is simply not true. You can engage at whatever level you like in your relationship with any art form. That is it's primary function. You may choose to be a simple watcher and enjoyer. And why not? It works on that level for you. Others choose to engage more with the 'makers' intent/ideas/vision and place that in a wider and social and cultural context. To look at meaning and craft below the surface. And also, why not? Maybe it is a writer thing, but I don't think so. Sitcom at its best is by no means a trivial thing at all. Very much the opposite. When it is good it is never a construct of animated lolly sticks after all.
And remember the artist's intent is only part of it when it is made and released into the world. After that the way a viewer or listener or reader interacts with it is beyond their control. And rightly so. It's part of the fun. Not just of art or sitcom - but being human!
And the clue by the way was 3 Down.
I have commented in the past where I have noticed a back story within a sitcom that I have just watched, so I see your point; but some years ago I did a postal course on sitcom writing with two well-known writers of that genre and I don't remember them saying you had to get in some sort of comment on life - just write, make them react to each other and make it funny, of course.
Oh, and as you enjoy an enigma within an enigma:-
3 Down - sgeg (9,4)
Quote: Hercules Grytpype Thynne @ 12th October 2014, 11:45 AM BSTI have commented in the past where I have noticed a back story within a sitcom that I have just watched, so I see your point; but some years ago I did a postal course on sitcom writing with two well-known writers of that genre and I don't remember them saying you had to get in some sort of comment on life - just write, make them react to each other and make it funny, of course.
Did you follow this up and write something?
Nobody is saying you 'have to get some sort of comment on life in it.' Regardless of socio political and cultural intentions. One's life both imbues and informs one's work. Put simply - if you have nothing to say you will find it very hard to write and a very great deal harder to find some one to listen.
But enough about the abstract, how did you approach your writing? And how did you find the process you adopted?