Talk:G.B.H. (TV series)

Politics
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.

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.

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).

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.

It is set in the 90's: one of the characters says, "This is the Nineties!" Pololei (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Real-life inspiration
I'm adding this here because it's too original research for the article itself, but the inspiration for the plot line of the council employee standing out against the council's strike, and then being victimised with their workplace being closed down and demolished, was almost certainly the Harthill greenhouses. They were the base for Liverpool's Botanic Garden and had an international reputation for cultivating orchids.

After the council came under the control of Militant in 1983, it began to call 'Days of Action'. The gardeners did not join in, and the council determined to get rid of them - first by transferring them to a completely different area of work, and then (when this was ruled unlawful) by closing down the entire unit and demolishing the greenhouses themselves.

See this speech by David Alton mentioning the Harthill gardeners. The Liverpool Daily Post reports on what became of the orchids and some of the gardeners. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Title
Have removed this from the article's information on the title: The title "GBH" is never explained within the series. Aside from any metaphorical use of the term, the series concerns a plot to implicate Murray in a conspiracy to cause GBH. (In the final—seventh—episode, a warrant is issued for Murray's arrest on the charge of "conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm.")

The article states: however, the actual intent of the letters is that it is supposed to stand for Great British Holiday (as revealed by Bleasdale in an interview on the DVD). It would be helpful if someone could check the DVD. It's possible that Bleasdale's comments are entirely tongue-in-cheek. The claim is referred to on some websites, though it's often treated cautiously or with suspicion. Pololei (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:GBH-DVD-COVER-2.jpg
File:GBH-DVD-COVER-2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing Cast Identity!
In the plot description there is a mention of the character "Academic Mervyn Sloane", but he's not in the cast list. I can still remember this series (far better than the "Prime Suspect" which somehow beat it to the BAFTA that year) and my memory is suggesting it was Paul Daneman - is this correct? PDR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the character was important enough that he ought to be added to the list. His first name was not "Academic", though!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on G.B.H. (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111122212352/http://www.offthetelly.co.uk/?page_id=242 to http://www.offthetelly.co.uk/?page_id=242

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)