The Vicar of Dibley.

Now, I don't know if any of you watched the New Year's Special tonight. If you didn't, then oh well... but if you did, then I want to say how appalled by it I was.

I am a huge fan of the show, and have adored every episode. But tonight's took the biscuit. The plot centered around Geraldine wanting to commemorate Live Aid and featured scenes about writing letters to Tony Blair about poverty in Africa, and various 'speeches' by Geraldine about the problems, and finished with a video showing the situation in Africa, and a sombre conclusion showing all of the principal characters wearing white armbands.

I was absolutely appalled at this blatant 'preaching' (forgive the pun) by Richard Curtis from the sitcom pulpit. A gentle, sometimes rude, and definitely silly comedy show like The Vicar of Dibley is NO place to start hammering home messages about poverty in Africa. It wasn't even subtle about the subject, and really went to town, basically forgetting the show is there to make you laugh, not move you to charity.

I can accept sitcoms doing it in specially designated specials maybe on Comic Relief night or something, but not in a New Years episode. This was not the correct territory for The Vicar of Dibley. The episode didn't even work as an episode, and I really struggled to stick with it.

The cause of Live Aid and the plight in Africa is of course, a very worthy one, but it is NOT the place of a sitcom to devote an episode to a cause in the way a telethon might. A show can subtly aim it's plotline at a topic, but it should not throw itself headlong in a direction to which it does not belong. It was struggling under the wieght of it's chosen subject matter, and the whole thing looked strained and awkward.

Disgraceful.

The way to harness the power of sitcom is to pick a show that naturally lends itself to the appropriate cause. BlackAdder Goes Forth is the obvious example. The final episode of that is a wonderful comiedic tribute to those who died, and the episode managed to juggle it's comic responsibilities with a heartfelt message of rememberance. The two came together in perfect harmony, because the show matched the cause, and vica-versa. Tonight's 'Dibley' was an appalling misuse of beloved characters, blatant opportunism by Richard Curtis, and an all round cowpat on the face of the cause it tried to champion.

 

ill admit, im not the biggest fan of the show. ( but if i gave it a chance i sure i could well be)

but even i notice who your description of this episode is different from the entire series'(ies)

 

Appalled, has the program not made you think about others who are more needy than yourself! Just because it is a comedy series does not mean that issues of such implacable magnitude, and grief sould be over seen.

 

I was watching it with a couple of mates, and we all felt the same way at one point...After the end credits, the voice over guy said "If you have found the ending of The Vicar of Dibley disturbing, blah, blah, blah,", we all thought, yeah. I found it disturbing. I thought it was ****!

That episode was complete ****.

 

http://www.cafod.org.uk/get_involved/campaigning/make_poverty_history/white_band

 

Yeh, who cares about the starving and the weak! I just want my Christmas laughs!

UKS: Who never realised that the Vicar of Dibley was supposed to be a comedy.

 

How on Earth can you be appauled? You might want to hide away from the reality that we are causing this through ignorance, such as that which you have voiced, but how can you object to drawing attention to such a worthy cause?

Our lives are not affected by what happens thousands of miles away... so does that mean we should turn our noses up at it and carry on in blissful ignorance - strangely reminiscent of the Holocaust and Nazi Germany.

And "preaching"? What type of person are you to deny others the right to use a vehicle such as a popular sitcom to help the less fortunate?

Tell me, what bugged you more? The fact that the episode was crap, or the fact that the video was so appauling it moved half it's viewers to tears?

Seb

 

Well at least I got a reaction.

Yeh, who cares about the starving and the weak! I just want my Christmas laughs!

As I have already said, there is a place to do it (which can, and has, involved sitcom) and a place not to do it.

You might want to hide away from the reality that we are causing this through ignorance, such as that which you have voiced, but how can you object to drawing attention to such a worthy cause?

I never said I wanted to hide away. I never said I objected to drawing attention to a worthy cause. I object to the manner in which Richard Curtis chose to do it.

In the right circumstances (of which there are multitudes) the same message would have moved me terribly... but not in, what seemed to me, the manner of an ambush in completely alien territory.

Tell me, what bugged you more? The fact that the episode was crap, or the fact that the video was so appauling it moved half it's viewers to tears?

The fact that the episode was crap. Yes, I'm sure I'm a horrible person. You can feel better now.

But righteousness aside, the choice Richard Curtis made was the wrong one. A normal good quality episode of the show, and then a charity themed special featuring the same cast (without a lame attempt to mash the two together) would've satisfied me. The laughs and the serious message apart please... not a poor attempt to do both. The Vicar of Dibley in it's natural habitat, as I have already said, is not appropriate ground for this sort of message. BlackAdder Goes Forth was.

So don't immediately jump down my throat saying how heartless I am for ignoring the plight of Africa. Because that wasn't what I was saying at all.

What type of person are you to deny others the right to use a vehicle such as a popular sitcom to help the less fortunate?

I'm not denying others the right. I'm voicing my disappointment at their choice.

Television comedy and charity can work together well, I'm sure, but just because charity is invovled seems to me no good excuse to make a botch job of one, the other, or both.

EDIT:

so does that mean we should turn our noses up at it and carry on in blissful ignorance - strangely reminiscent of the Holocaust and Nazi Germany.

Poor attempt at sensationalism there. Read what I had actually said, and then read what you said back to yourself. Seemed to me you read a snatch of me being negative about a charity, ignored the rest and went off on autopilot.

EDIT #2: Messed up a sentence.

 

And "preaching"? What type of person are you to deny others the right to use a vehicle such as a popular sitcom to help the less fortunate?



How about a BBC license payer?

 

Wow, finally a decent debate in the FFUK. Apolgies for the heavy-handedness of my last post, but it was with the intent that I would receive a decent reply (which I did!) and a good debate would ensue.

I don't see why you disagree with using the sitcom as a medium for conveying such a message. Personally I think it was due to the fact that it was 'out of place' that it was so effective.

Also, I'm not sure that the programme did even completely stray from it's 'natural habitat'. Despite the humour and slapstick there is often a deeper more serious message or moral by the end of the show - such as female priests, homosexuality in the recent episodes, and especially class divide.

Seb

EDIT: Speeling

 

I don't disagree with using a sitcom for conveying such a message, I disagree with the choice of sitcom and the heavy-handed method employed. I'll mention the final episode of BlackAdder Goes Forth again. It leant itself naturally to a poignant message of rememberance (and extremely effective it was too), but the writers also realised the show's still very present responsibilities as a comedy show. Both mixed in an ideal fashion, providing (IMO) the best half hour of sitcom ever written. Saturday's 'The Vicar of Dibley' did not manage to pull the same trick off. Firstly it mixed charity and comedy in a very disjointed fashion. Geraldine's character often went off on long (ish) speeches about the sitation in Africa. She must have said the same thing about 30,000 people dying every day (forgive me I might have that wrong) three or four times, and each time the comedy that was there was simply 'put on hold'. I do not feel this worked very well at all.

The only time BlackAdder Goes Forth became entirely sentimental was the last shot of the poppy field... and that was after the story had finished, therefore not intruding on the sitcom itself. Even the scene where they are about to go 'over the top' featured jokes.

The part that worked best was Jim's letter to Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher. They used the comedy in his character (No, no, no...) and subverted it successfully. That was a good mix of comedy and charity, of the silly and the sombre. Elsewhere it was just (and I'm gonna use the word again) 'preaching' the message without any concession to the show's comic responsibilities. This was not advertised as a charity special, and the subplot about speed dating highlighted that fact even further... in a charity themed show (which would've been more acceptable) this subplot would not have been present.

However, the show's history of challenging social issues is a very good point. The issues of female priests and the class divide are issues ingrained into the show. They are the reason for it's very existence. Both are subtle themes running through all the episodes. But it always seems to be resolved with the use of comedy, and discussed within the territory of laughter. It is this that the final episode of BlackAdder Goes Forth did so well and so consistently, and Saturday's Dibley did so poorly.

Frank's sexuality was very much a character issue, and a valuable piece of character development... the issue came from within the show (was not surprising or out of place) and slotted perfectly into Frank's established persona. It was also resolved with a joke centered around none of the other villagers actually having heard his confession (played for laughs). The video Geraldine showed on her computer and the subsequent donning of white bands and the closing sequence, had none of the balance required (IMO) to successfully mix charity ('serious issues') and comedy. It therefore came across as heavy handed and put me right off.

Tackle the issue if you must, but bring it from within established character traits, play it small, and resolve it with comedy, and don't put the show on 'pause' therfore appearing to speak directly to the audience. It also pulls one out of the show's world.

I also felt uneasy about seeing characters, such as Alice and Hugo inparticular, suddenly completely understanding the issue and behaving in a very solemn and out of character fashion.

It needed jokes.

Richard Curtis, IMO, abused his position as treasured sitcom writing genius. He forgot to make it funny... and even in an episode that deals with important social issues, comedy is the most important thing. If you can't mix the two to satisfaction, then don't.

I read in zac's link that Richard Curtis reasoned Geraldine (given her age at the time) would be very interested in the situation in Africa, and so would want to investigate the issue. This may well be true, but I still say he should've tackled the issue by discussing it but still making it funny, (as the show has done before), or by splitting it off and devoting

 

I completely agree with Everton. There's a time and a place for that theme, this wasn't it.

 

You post should really have started :-

"Dear Points of View...... oh why, oh why, oh why"

Seriously, write to the BBC and ask for a response.

I can see both sides - you tune into a TV sitcom for laughs and merryment, not a documentary on the crisis in Africa.

However, you can't just complain because they covered an issue you didn't want them too. You could always have turned over.

 

You could always have turned over.

I could've done. But The Vicar of Dibley has earnt a lot of goodwill from me over the years... I wanted to see it through. I'm a big fan. And the bit a truly objected to was the very end anyway.

However, you can't just complain because they covered an issue you didn't want them to

My major complaint isn't that they covered it, because as Seb said The Vicar of Dibley had dealt with important issues in the past. My major complaint was the heavy handed and uncomedic way they chose to go about it. They could've dealt with poverty in Africa but still resolved it with comedy. That takes skill, and would've really affected me.

 

I just find it ironic that Dawn French also gets paid large sums of money to advertise the gluttonous consumption of chocolate.