Vicar of Dibley

Well I certainly have perspective, and I'd expect the majority of those at this forum to have that perspective as well. But this being a forum related to TV, people are expressing their opinions about The Vicar Of Dibley.



Everybody recognises the serious need for donations and support for such causes. At the same time, I'm sure most here recognise the power that television has for raising awareness. The Vicar Of Dibley has, in the past, raised important issues in a brilliant way.

It happens to be a major opinion (and that of mine) that's tonight's episode was not done brilliantly. It was way over the top, completely out of place and came across to me as cringingly awful. By all means, raise the issues. But ending the programme with five second shots of each character staring directly at the camera really is not the way to do it.

And that's exactly the sort of the claiming the moral high ground that I was getting annoyed about. People who rush on and condemn others for having a go at a TV programme which, in their opinion, was abused to shove the director's political opinions down others throats, on the basis that 'well, we should think ourselves lucky'.

Once again, I didn't see it. Therefore, I'm not going to judge the programme. The general point I made, which prompted the 'ignorant' comment, was that, as always, the general public is made to feel guilty and begged for money, when people who could afford to make a difference don't bother. It's always poorer people who give proportionally most to charity.

Political points can be made in a comedy series, while being part of the plotline. The Simpsons has done it in the past. Many other great comedies have also done it. Whether the line was crossed on this occasion is for others to judge. However....

You can argue that the political point was worth making, and to hell with the viewers. You can argue that the programme was perfectly fine. But I hate it when people claim the moral high ground and go straight for the "Well it's ok for you, you've not got AIDS" rubbish. Argue the point on its merits please.

I read many of the comments on here before I'd actually watched the show, so when I played the video back I wasn't sure quite what to expect. The beginning of the episode I found relatively watchable, though not outstanding compared to previous episodes. However, the comments by Geraldine and David about the traffic lights, playing golf etc seemed to sit rather awkwardly beside references to third world poverty. In hindsight, though, the message the writer was trying to portray was quite clear.

Having read this thread, I wasn't totally surprised when the video of the children in Africa began playing. I actually found the ending - with no closing credits or scene of Geraldine telling Alice a joke - quite effective and sobering. Yes, it wasn't what we expect when we tune in to see TVOD, but that was why it hit home.

I respect the views of everyone who has contributed to the discussion above, and many of the points raised I can identify with. Personally, though, I was not offended, nor did I feel 'cheated' when I watched the programme.

It's my opinion that several of the opinions have been expressed far too strongly in order to be classed as a criticism. Anyone who gets angry over the way an appeal for african aid obviously doesn't have a sense of perspective.

If you disagree with it, fair enough, but not to that sort of extreme.

I honestly can't get my head round your point that "Anyone who gets angry over the way an appeal for african aid obviously doesn't have a sense of perspective." I take that to mean that because I find five second shots of comic actors staring at me with white armbands WAY over the top and very badly done, I don't have perspective about African aid.

If that IS the case, I'm not only insulted by your oversimplification, but I find that a ridiculous point to make. My point of view is not "extreme" - I happen to believe the ending was poorly orchestrated and out of place. I found it out of place and way over the top. I wasn't offended by it, nor did I find it wrong in some way. Where The Vicar Of Dibley can raise such points very well, it didn't tonight.

If that isn't the case, please do clarify.

Considering some of the bloody battles fought in this forum over ballons and dancers, that's a bit rich.

I feel quite entitled to feel aggrieved that prime time TV was given over to a fund raising appeal without warning.
Let me clarify a few things.
1. I choose which charity appeals I give to
2. I regularly watch charity appeals on television
3. I rely on TV news and documentary programmes together with newspapers to understand the situation in distant places
4. I watch TV comedy programmes to be entertained
5. I would've been happy if there'd been an appeal directly after the end credits - even if it was done by DF in Geraldine character.
6. I am concerned about appeals being slipped into other programmes at the whim of the writer.
7. Bring back the balloons

In an earlier comment, Big Brother wrote: "Fundraising has to be done with tact, essentially nowadays you lazy lot have to have it marketed to you like a sale in a shop. It's sad but it's true. "

If that's the case, then what we saw was blatent product placement.

As others have commented, charity fundraising etc works best if it's in the right place at the right time. This was neither, and despite it's apparent good intentions, seems to have alienated quite a few people who might have otherwise made a donation if it had been 'marketed' with more care.

Brian

DAS, I don't know why you seem to think my comments are aimed at you, because they're not, and I see nothing wrong with the way that you have expressed your criticisms.

My point was that there are some members who seemed angered, and i mean angered, not mildly dismayed or disappointed, at a 5 minute ending of a sitcom.

I believe that 100% of any anger in this situation should be aimed at the way some parts of the world have been allowed to develop into the way they have.

You seem to be missing the main point most people are making - yes I'm sure 100% of us get angry about what happens in the world and have full sympathy with the cause featured. It is the ramming in of a political message and a very blatent charity appeal into a place where it was least expected which is the issue here for me, and also the very clumsy, preaching way it was done.

With regard to your last point, you at least had the benefit of knowing in advance that something was coming up. I feel this show would have worked brilliantly as part of Comic Relief or a signposted charity launch programme - not sprung on viewers tuning in for light entertainment.

That's not the point I was making, though I fear it's been lost in the rest of the arguments so I'll say it again...

My point is simply that if the programme helped one child in any way, then it was worthwhile.

What I'm asking you is - do you disagree with that statement? Are you saying that your enjoyment of a comedy is more important than helping an orphaned child? I'm sure you're not, but if you step back from your argument for a little while then you'll see that your replies leave me unsure.

[quote="marksi"]

Marksi... you're missing the point. This is a COMEDY programme.

Comedy shows like this are supposed to provide an escape from the world, so we don't have to feel constantly depressed. The Vicar of Dibley is so surreal on this level that it is hard not to see it as escapism.

I just find it baffling that in one programme we were treated to hearing about how these characters thought Margaret Thatcher was still the Prime Minister, and by the end of the evening they were telling us all to save victims of AIDS in Africa. That is not appropriate in a comedy programme.

I agree that it would be fantastic if the programme helped one child... but there are more appropriate ways of doing it. It would have had the same - if not more - impact had it been shown separately.