How The Other Half Live -- Channel 4, Thursday 9pm
- Thread starter kabbes
- Start date
I spent a while trying to work out what was wrong with this programme/why it made it feel a bit odd. I think I was unhappy at the fact that one family was simply able to sponsor another because of the extreme differences in their circumstances. Its just worrying that situation can arise in the first place in what is supposed to be a "developed" country.
It was good that the guy in the first programme got snapped out of his illusions that people weren't trying hard enough to get out of poverty though I suppose..
It was good that the guy in the first programme got snapped out of his illusions that people weren't trying hard enough to get out of poverty though I suppose..
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
I presume the poor family gets paid for participating. If they didn't the exploitation just broadens out.
Gromit
International Man of Misery
At the end of the day if these programs trick rich cunts into redistributing some of their wealth by promising to put them on telly. Instead of them spending it on another gucci handbag for the missus. Thats not a bad thing is it? Even if we don't enjoy watching the resulting telly.
I saw one secret millionaire where this guy had never married his girlfriend because all their money went on helping the kids down the community centre. He didn't really need a hand out but he did deserve a reward for all his volunteer work.
So the guy bought him a wedding.
Now that was a good one. But I guess its difficult to find cases like that week after week.
I saw one secret millionaire where this guy had never married his girlfriend because all their money went on helping the kids down the community centre. He didn't really need a hand out but he did deserve a reward for all his volunteer work.
So the guy bought him a wedding.
Now that was a good one. But I guess its difficult to find cases like that week after week.
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
The rich family last night were fine, actually. His dad had built a business from scratch and she'd lived on an estate similar to where the poor family lived until he married her. They were classic working class made good and you got the impression that they knew exactly what it was like to have nothing.
I'd say that the programme was unsatisfying because it blatently revealed its skeleton of the programme-makers telling the poor family "write about how you never have a holiday" so that the rich family could read it and take them on holiday. There was no subtlety to it at all -- we could all see the man behind the curtain. Which made it feel even more manipulative than these things normally feel.
I'd say that the programme was unsatisfying because it blatently revealed its skeleton of the programme-makers telling the poor family "write about how you never have a holiday" so that the rich family could read it and take them on holiday. There was no subtlety to it at all -- we could all see the man behind the curtain. Which made it feel even more manipulative than these things normally feel.
Looby
Well-Known Member
I thought it was quite a good one tonight. 40 million quid-that is fucking mental!!
The money in trust for the kids is good and helping them to get out of london by offering him a job is better than just temporarily helping them pay the rent. I thought it was really sweet that they've offered to pay for their wedding too.
The money in trust for the kids is good and helping them to get out of london by offering him a job is better than just temporarily helping them pay the rent. I thought it was really sweet that they've offered to pay for their wedding too.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
The only one I’ve seen of these and it happens to have been the last. Interesting stuff.
I though the first challenge was for me; I would imagine the notion of personal charity is uncomfortable for very many who’s cultural identity is (western) European, we are used to, and therefore comfortable with, a very different socialist-based philosophy toward need. But we all need challenging so that was a good start.
I think I twigged quite early the motivation for the rich – and shrewd - parents was primarily that the exercise act as an educational course for their daughters, kind of GCSE Humility. For the initial two grand, plus another £2,500 after viewing the CD, it was cheap and achieved exactly the goal.
It did feel as if both sides were involved in the concept primarily for the benefit of their children and it seemed both sides got a good deal from that early letter writing and CD period. On that basis, there was nothing to feel uncomfortable about imo.
Then the implicit quid pro quo of educating the kids became something else; a life changing opportunity for a whole family sponsored by another family.
I came away thinking you have to have a very developed sense of respect to give charitably directly in that way and not feel awkward or worse, and you have to be quite special to accept it with the grace and dignity the north Londoners did.
This would have been so easy to duck for both families, easy for Save The Children to turn down and, even after that, there was still a real challenge to present it. I'm glad they all had the balls.
I though the first challenge was for me; I would imagine the notion of personal charity is uncomfortable for very many who’s cultural identity is (western) European, we are used to, and therefore comfortable with, a very different socialist-based philosophy toward need. But we all need challenging so that was a good start.
I think I twigged quite early the motivation for the rich – and shrewd - parents was primarily that the exercise act as an educational course for their daughters, kind of GCSE Humility. For the initial two grand, plus another £2,500 after viewing the CD, it was cheap and achieved exactly the goal.
It did feel as if both sides were involved in the concept primarily for the benefit of their children and it seemed both sides got a good deal from that early letter writing and CD period. On that basis, there was nothing to feel uncomfortable about imo.
Then the implicit quid pro quo of educating the kids became something else; a life changing opportunity for a whole family sponsored by another family.
I came away thinking you have to have a very developed sense of respect to give charitably directly in that way and not feel awkward or worse, and you have to be quite special to accept it with the grace and dignity the north Londoners did.
This would have been so easy to duck for both families, easy for Save The Children to turn down and, even after that, there was still a real challenge to present it. I'm glad they all had the balls.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
It was nice to be challenged in that way so I'm glad you mentioned the programme.
It'll be available to watch from the C4 site.
It'll be available to watch from the C4 site.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
Ah, it hasn't been put up yet:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/how-the-other-half-live/episode-guide/series-1
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/how-the-other-half-live/episode-guide/series-1
I deliberately avoided it because it looked like yet another example of televisual inbreeding.
"Oh look it's Secret Millionaire meets Wife Swap"
In fact having said this to myself, I then heard the continuity announcer say:
"It's Secret Millionaire meets Wife Swap!"
I've seen enough of these social contrivance set-ups. Isn't it possible to just make a documentary these days, rather than heavily engineered programme making leading to a compulsory Snow Patrol backed teary denoument
Anyway I've reached my tolerance threshold for that type of TV, I might actually vomit if I'm forced to view any more.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
I'm not familiar with the programmes you mention and I didn't recognise contrivance last night. Nor did it feel like the "poverty tourism" as stella mentions.
Among other things, I thought it worked hard to inform assumptions (about poverty and wealth) associated with a range of social classes.
Among other things, I thought it worked hard to inform assumptions (about poverty and wealth) associated with a range of social classes.
But isn't the entire set-up of rich family sponsoring a poor family created for the purposes of the TV programme? That's surely the very definition of contrived.
If it's not set up for the purposes of the programme, I'll stand corrected.
There's just so many of these 'documentary' type programmes where the entire narrative is created and controlled by the programme makers, and which seem to become more and more formulaic with each new iteration.
I watched these shows and actually thought they were ok. I assume the sponsorship money is tax deductable so wonder if the folk are really 'giving' anything. The episode with the femily in Brighton was the saddest imo as that little kid has mum to battle and when she bought the laptop ot said it all really. I'm glad he got his room and hope he does well. The first episode with the black family in London I thought was pitched in the right way. What the mother needed was a bit of confidence and help and I think the other family provided it. She didn't spend a cent on herself and was a good mum to the girls. I liked the mum from the sponsorship family too as she seemed like she didn't mind getting her hands dirty. The family from Nth London who wanted to move out also got some help I think and it was good the guy gave the dad a job as it is less charity and more graft.
I expected to despise the show but it actually gave me a lift.
I expected to despise the show but it actually gave me a lift.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
It was interesting how what I would think of as 'charity' played an oblique role; at the beginning it was definitely a quid pro quo focusing on educating both sets of children, and at the end it became a sponsorship arrangement where, as you say, what was given was a work opportunity.
And me. I was dead set against it based on what I'd read about it.
I can't comment on the antecedence. I would say if that is your working definition of contrivance I'm hard-pressed to think of a tv show which isn't contrived.
If, however, we assume contrivance is an issue for this programme, surely what matters is the result of the contrivance, in the same way you can accept a contrived plot if the outcome offers something new.
In this case, imo it did a lot of things well including testing a range of assumptions and potential prejudices in an intelligent way.
Could be that I'm less jaded by a genre new to me but I didn't think I witnessed too much charity and it is there to be viewed if you want to take a peek.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
I wonder how long it would take before the rich family get bored of their new plaything and sponser some goats in Africa instead.
It is all just probably another expression of the recession, keeping their charity at home as well as their holidays.
It is all just probably another expression of the recession, keeping their charity at home as well as their holidays.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
So you didn't see it either.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
I think that much is obvious.
Nor have I read any of the thread.
Nor have I read any of the thread.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
It is. But don't let that stop you.
Oh, you haven't.
Oh, you haven't.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
I didn't comment on whether it was any good.
I made an assumption based on nothing.
It's always funny when people lecture you about having to watch things to be able to comment. You didn't have to reply. You could have just ignored it because it was obviously based on nothing.
I made an assumption based on nothing.
It's always funny when people lecture you about having to watch things to be able to comment. You didn't have to reply. You could have just ignored it because it was obviously based on nothing.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
What is it, obvious day?
I guess my argument is that the same issues could have been explored in a more observational way, without the need to create a set-up specifically for the programme.
Maybe this is a better example of the genre, but coming after so many other programmes in the same mould, it's hard not to be a bit cynical about it. The basic format has been used again, and again, and again.
