Whatever happened to Barry Norman? He was excellent.
He went to Sky about a hundred years ago, and personally I thought he was rubbish. His reviews on TV were sometimes totally contradictory to ones which appeared under his name in print.
So either he made it up as he went along, or was telling porky pies about who wrote his material.
Barry Norman did not review TV, he reviewed film. His long running programme on BBC 1 was originally called 'Film Night'. It then took the name 'Film' followed by the year, as in 'Film 89'. His long time US/Hollywood correspondent was Tom Brook, now of Talking Movies. To say that he was making it up as he went along or telling 'porkies' is a bit odd, as is your assertion that his reviews were different when published in print. I can safely say that this is not the case. Norman spent most weeks in the Soho viewing theatres. He then had the capability that only comes with being a top journo (he was originally showbiz editor of the old Daily Sketch) of going in to his producer's office at the BBC and writing the 30-minute script in one session that was not much longer than that, without ever needing to edit a word. His trenchant and sometimes highly amusing observations were very entertaining and frequently on the money. His intelligent film criticism is much missed. If anything is a shame it is that 'Film' has become a vehicle for the less well formed views of one Jonathan Ross.
Gavin Scott posted:
david price posted:
Whatever happened to Barry Norman? He was excellent.
He went to Sky about a hundred years ago, and personally I thought he was rubbish. His reviews on TV were sometimes totally contradictory to ones which appeared under his name in print.
So either he made it up as he went along, or was telling porky pies about who wrote his material.
I was referring to his film reviews which were broadcast on TV, and how they compared to his film reviews which appeared in tabloid newspaper print.
Which I think was clear enough if you had read what I wrote.
Ah, such great dialectic. As you don't seem to be blessed with an especially articulate style, it was easy to misconstrue the first lines of your original post.
But that was not the point of my response. Rather is was to counter your absolutely unfounded assertion that Barry Norman contradicted himself in print, or told 'porkies'. (Quite what you meant by that is beyond me.) Until he retired, he was a fixture on British TV screens for over two decades. He was highly respected as a film critic on both sides of the Atlantic. Having had the pleasure of working with him for a short period in the 1980s, I can attest to his professionalism, for which he was equally respected throughout factual at the BBC.
It's a shame that you should respond to my post so rudely. Another example of dumbed down, hectoring, whining Britain.
I was referring to his film reviews which were broadcast on TV, and how they compared to his film reviews which appeared in tabloid newspaper print.
Which I think was clear enough if you had read what I wrote.
Ah, such great dialectic. As you don't seem to be blessed with an especially articulate style, it was easy to misconstrue the first lines of your original post.
But that was not the point of my response. Rather is was to counter your absolutely unfounded assertion that Barry Norman contradicted himself in print, or told 'porkies'. (Quite what you meant by that is beyond me.) Until he retired, he was a fixture on British TV screens for over two decades. He was highly respected as a film critic on both sides of the Atlantic. Having had the pleasure of working with him for a short period in the 1980s, I can attest to his professionalism, for which he was equally respected throughout factual at the BBC.
It's a shame that you should respond to my post so rudely. Another example of dumbed down, hectoring, whining Britain.
You, sir, know nothing about my style, so I won't lose any sleep over whether you find it articulate or not.
I responded in the way that I did because of your particularly dismissive, supercilious tone; a skill you seem to posses in abundance as demonstrated by your latest response.
I would refer you to the back volumes of Private Eye magazine, who ran several features on the published and broadcast film reviews of Mr Norman - specifically the variance in reviews of the same film in different media - and it was they, not I, who suggested that ghost writers may have been involved in those reviews which made it to print.
These investigative reports were published on or around the time Mr Norman moved from the BBC to Sky.
So if you find it unlikely or improbable, then that's your prerogative - but I suggest you take it up with Mr Hislop at the Eye - not me.
Incidentally if you think that I am an example of "dumbed down, hectoring, whining Britain" - then I have to warn you, things may be even worse than you think when you return to these shores.
I've never heard of Barry Norman before but I have to side with Gavin here. His initial post quite clearly stated that Norman's reviews were of films, broadcast on TV and published in print, not reviews of television programmes.
I've never heard of Barry Norman before but I have to side with Gavin here. His initial post quite clearly stated that Norman's reviews were of films, broadcast on TV and published in print, not reviews of television programmes.
Couldn't agree more - it seems to me that only a pedant would choose to read that sentence in the way that "BBC World watcher" did.
Frankly, I have to commend Gavin on showing such restraint - I would have told "BBC World watcher" to shut the hell up and stop being a prissy little pr!ck, especially given that Gavin's response was no more abrasive than BBCWW's style of posting.
- - - - -
On a different note, and at the risk of receiving the "shut up, you're not a moderator" lecture, can I remind members that there is a seperate thread for discussing presenters and rotas, visible here.
I mention this because the last few pages of this thread have had relatively little to do with 'core' presentation, and a lot of the deviation has been down to presenter discussion - which I and many others find indescribably dull.
I must admit, I haven't noticed any missing frosted portions on the curtain wall. However, I will look right now in the bulletin starting in 30 seconds.
I hope that Linette Tye can look at the correct camera at least once during the upcoming bulletin. She hasn't been having a good morning on World thus far today.
And Carole Walker on Dateline London!!!!! Unobtrusive and let the battles run on - she was good and not interfering a la Esler. LOL.