|
Post by Nancy on Mar 7, 2009 12:01:07 GMT
Did you enjoy the film of Sir Henry? I enjoyed it somewhat but it could have been much better I was disappointed Viv didn't play Sir Henry, though he did play Hubert and Cuthbert very well and probably looked the parts better. They could have made him look different with costume and make up and he could have played all 3 characters if they'd really wanted, the other guys voice just isn't the same. And he never looked drunk enough, just angry.
|
|
|
Post by graytart on Mar 11, 2009 10:34:19 GMT
I was warned it was unwatchable, but I really liked it and must watch it again soon. The sepia tones, the madness, Vivian's voiceover, Denise Coffey's insane housekeeper, the bit with the prisoners, all great stuff. I actually am glad (visually speaking) that Vivian didn't try to play Henry as well, although I agree if you are accustomed to his radio versions it is hard hearing someone else voice those lines.
|
|
|
Post by doodahdiaries on Mar 12, 2009 7:09:23 GMT
Having absolutely loved the record and having had the good fortune to see Vivian Stansahll perform "Sir Henry", I must admit when I saw the film (at The Ritzy in Brixton if my memory serves me right), I was dissappointed. Having watched it on DVD several times now, I really do enjoy it so much more in retrospect. And it certainly is a unique film. The famous Neil Innes quote about the film is: "Written by a drunk, directed by a drunk and starring a drunk". For all that then, a blooming good film.
|
|
|
Post by gwood on Mar 13, 2009 11:08:22 GMT
I thought it was interesting as a historical artifact, but kind of slow going and disjointed. I'm not much of a film watcher anyway, my attention usually wanders and I always think about what else I could or should be doing besides sitting on the couch.
|
|
|
Post by Nancy on Mar 13, 2009 17:02:16 GMT
Some bits were good, like the plasticine genitals on the gnomes, jokes like that are good done visually, and filming it in black and white made it very atmospheric.
Another fault I remembered with it though, the woman who played Aunt Florrie looked far too young, she's supposed to be middle aged, and she looked much younger than Hubert who's meant to be her son.
Apparently Viv ended up hating it so much he nearly stabbed the director, luckily his wife was able to stop him.
|
|
|
Post by gwood on Mar 15, 2009 14:58:06 GMT
How would our perception of Viv have been different, had he stabbed the director? And did he in fact actually attempt the assassination, weapon in hand? Or was it limited to verbal ideation? Or maybe he just wanted to stab him with a sausage? Or is that too drearily Freudian?
What a can o' worms, my world is all topsy-turvey. Or is it topsey-turvy? Inverted, let's say.
|
|
|
Post by Nancy on Mar 15, 2009 17:35:47 GMT
Apparently it was at the première and he had the knife but his wife talked him out of it, I heard it in an interview Viv gave himself so it must be true. I heard from people who used to live in London around the time that he was sectioned shortly after too so the film obviously put a lot of stress on him.
|
|
|
Post by gwood on Mar 16, 2009 11:08:42 GMT
"he was sectioned"
What does that mean?
|
|
lou
Shirt Shaker
Posts: 56
|
Post by lou on Mar 17, 2009 21:00:50 GMT
gwood, I work in this area, as an advocate (not a lawyer, it means somthing else in the UK), so here goes! In the UK, the Mental Health Act 1983 is divided into different Sections. When you are admitted to hospital compulsorily for treatment (i.e. not voluntarily), this is known as "being sectioned". A person can be sectioned under different sections to be assessed for or to get treatment for a mental disorder.
A person can be sectioned if they are perceived to be a threat to themselves or other people. If a patient is sectioned as an emergency then they are detained under section 4 of the Mental Health Act, which means doctors can detain them for up to 72 hours. If doctors believe that further assessment or treatment is necessary then the person can be detained under section 2 of the Act for up to 28 days to receive a full psychiatric assessment.
There are other bits, too, but this is what it generally means. Never thought I'd be explaining this on here!
|
|
|
Post by Nancy on Mar 23, 2009 17:23:46 GMT
That's exactly what it means, he had Bi-polar disorder (previously known as manic depression) and looking at his life it seems that every time he approached real commercial success he had some kind of break down and had to stop it's very sad. There's the famous story other band members talk about in various documentaries of how after the Bonzo's American tour they didn't see him for a few weeks and when they next saw him he'd shaved his head and had a haunted look about him. It was around this time the mental health services in this country got him addicted to toxic doses of valium and other similar drugs so he had to recover from that too. It really is amazing the amount of work he was able to produce in his life time if you look at what he went through. I suffer from a similar illness myself (anxiety based depression) and thankfully doctors are more aware these days of what those pills do to someone in the long term so they don't prescribe them so readily. There are much better drugs now that have fewer side effects and you can stop taking much more easily (though some people can "spiral" when they try to come off meaning you get more depressed than you ever were before so you have to be reduced slowly.) I just thank my lucky stars I was born in the decade I was and not earlier as I'd either rattle when I walked I'd be so full of pills or be dead by now I'm sure.
|
|