Talk:G.B.H.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the last episode when Palin's character argues for "moderation" he bizarely refers to the boorish "militants" having only read one book: das kapital. is this meant as a joke? folling on from that, he suggests that this book has some kind of programme for political action -- but this is the communist manifesto, he's got the two confused. now, if these are not jokes and it is bleasdale speaking thru jim, what does this say about bleasdale? the whole series was too long & i only watched to see how the political side would pan out. to the viewer who knows nothing of marx, the fictionalisation of the militant tendency doesn't do more than reinforce what they might've picked up about... well. i can't think of anything that the ruling class could say to criticise the militant. as jimmy mcgovern said through one of his characters, all's they ever did was build council houses. does anyone know how all this played out? what did the militant have to say about g.b.h? in my view g.b.h. just adds to the bad vibes -- the discourse of derision -- associated with them. but on the other hand, the state's role in fomenting riots to discredit the far-left shows there's some depth to bleasdale. now the question is, if your enemy is willing to go to such lengths -- what good will "moderation" do? so if bleasdale was trying to make a case for moderation, he fails. in fact, viewed now, bleasdale's case is further undermined -- the New Labour government being more right wing than the Conservatives could have dreamed of being.
[edit] Reply
from Duncan Disorderly
On the DVD set there is an interview with Alan Bleasdale where he explains this very scene. Jim Nelson does reflect Bleasdale's own thoughts here. You obviously know more about politics than I do but I think it's safe to say that Bleasdale knows what he's talking about. If there are any mistakes here I imagine it is poetic licence rather than any ignorance of the facts. But lets not forget that the politics here is merely a backdrop for a Dickensian size cast of characters. The plotting is exquisite and I have to disagree that it was far too long. Indeed, huge chunks of the original screenplay were removed which give the the final series a tremendous pace and brevity.
[edit] Reply to Duncan
(I wrote the original comments, by the way!) Bleasdale's stance is, as far as I know, apolitical -- meaning to say he does not view his work as a writer as part of any kind of political activity, and he is not a "political" writer. If Nelson's speech reflects Bleasdales position (at the time, at least) then Bleasdale is either trying to distort the views of the far lefts or he really does not grasp their politics. Whatever his intentions as to creating a work of drama, GBH leaves the impression that the moderates are the good guys -- people who, in effect, support ineffectual reformist politics. I say ineffectual, because at the time the Labour Party was actually abandoning the social democratic politics supported by Nelson (and Bleasdale) and beginning to embrace market economics. Nelson's distaste for Marxian economics mirrored the higher echelons of the Labour Party who were keen to abandon any talk of socialism, first through supporting "social ownership" and eventually retreating from any "socialistic" intervention in the economy. Kinnock wooed the City to the extent that the Financial Times backed Labour in '92. The redistribution of wealth is now from the bottom to the top under a New Labour government. The Jim Nelsons of the world were "useful idiots" -- supporting "democracy" to the advantage of the ruling class, perhaps completely unaware of what they were doing. Nelson appears to be genuine in his political beliefs compared to the hard lefts who are mostly duplicitous. It appears though, that those who called for moderation in the real world Labour Party were puting ends before means -- they were not Labourites at all. I stand by my position on the drama as a drama -- it's an effort to watch so it doesn't hook you like a mystery thriller and while there are some laughs, the attempt at mixing comedy and drama misfires in the end -- being neither comedic nor dramatic, in toto. This clumsiness is also clear in the handling of the political subject matter -- it is not always clear what is being satirised (though we know it is revolutionary politics) and what is being proposed (which is reformist politics). The effect is to neither be a satire nor a polemic. My suspicion is that is was lauded because it mocks revolutionary politics (i.e., Marxism) and the political activity of the working-class (strikes, protests, etc), and holds up the bougeoisified Nelson as an example to working-class people of the right way of doing things (scabbing, eschewing militancy).
[edit] Setting
The article previously said this was set in the mid 80's, I changed this to late as in the series his doctor reads back a medical record made in 1988 there fore this would have to be later than the mid 80's, since he spoke about 1988 in the past tense, I think it would mostl likely be 1989 atleast.
