She is surprisingly young and pretty when you watch it now. She, naturally enough, never seemed that way when I was 5 and watching it.
The Good Life Page 3
Well I think it showed there that the makers wanted us to see her as a Thatcheresque harridan for much of it, so they put her in unflattering clothes and hair etc. But those few scenes of her with her hair down and dressed glamorously showed how well she scrubs up, so to speak, a very attractive lady really. But most people were looking at the over rated sexiness or whatever it was of the frog faced one next door. I'd probably pick Margot at her best, but then I do love a bit of character in women, far sexier than magazine looks alone.imo.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ March 5 2011, 7:07 PM GMTBut most people were looking at the over rated sexiness or whatever it was of the frog faced one next door. I'd probably pick Margot at her best, but then I do love a bit of character in women, far sexier than magazine looks alone.imo.
Lol. Yes, they made out her next door was the 'pretty one', so Margot never got a look in. 
It was Barbara when I was a lad but now I'm older Margot is one classy sassy piece.
Margot's a bit horsey. Barbara was a sexy little imp.
Certainly a lot of middle aged, middle class men made her their fantasy muse and desired to see her appear like a magic gnome (she was only a little thing) in their neatly kept gardens attending to their weeds with just her wellies on.
And she may indeed have had a very pinchable botty but imo she had a punchable face. But I'd take Margot and tame her. Morning.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ March 7 2011, 9:59 AM GMTCertainly a lot of middle aged, middle class men made her their fantasy muse and desired to see her appear like a magic gnome (she was only a little thing) in their neatly kept gardens attending to their weeds with just her wellies on. And she may indeed have had a very pinchable botty but imo she had a punchable face. But I'd take Margot and tame her. Morning.
Why would Margot want you, Kipper, when she's got Jerry? He's a top bloke, much better than Tom.
Jerry was AWESOME.
A million times better than Tom.
This is what made the show interesting for me, the fact that Tom was after the good life but it never made him happy and Jerry loved his corporate lifestyle and was a lot happier and at ease with himself. Tom was tight and stingey and whinging all the time while Jerry was generosity itself.
The show was really having a dig at the ideology behind the ultra liberal lifestyle that the Goods took up. It was a more a celebration of the Leadbetters' conventional suburban middle England lifestyle and Conservative type aspirations and their materialism, as their posessions more than once saved the day for their opt out neighbours.
This was hardly touched on by the prog which was okay but left an awful lot out that it could have focused on, but then The Good Life is an unusually deep and well rounded Britsih sitcom, pretty unique, on the opposite end of the scale of one dimensional sitcoms like Ab Fab.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ March 8 2011, 9:58 AM GMTThe show was really having a dig at the ideology behind the ultra liberal lifestyle that the Goods took up. It was a more a celebration of the Leadbetters' conventional suburban middle England lifestyle and Conservative type aspirations and their materialism, as their posessions more than once saved the day for their opt out neighbours.
I don't think it was. I think you're reading that into the show basaed on your own political leanings. Of course the Goods struggled, but good sitcom needs conflict, and without that struggle there'd have been no comedy. Personally I think if it had been a tiresome hectoring attack on liberalism it would have been one hell of a dreary sitcom, which it wasn't. It was a lot of fun.
No I really believe it was poking (gentle) fun at an ideology that many were fond of putting up as an alternative to the savage Capitalism of the day which alienated so many.
It didn't have to be hectoring, as most people knew this hippyish type of self substaining lifestyle was a bit of a joke in reality anyway, so that's what the writers did, made fun of it. The Goods were hopeless at it, always poor, always cold, etc. but determined to show their corporatist neighbours they wouldn't give up. But they only survived through the continuous charity of their better off neighbours.
It was a feel good show yes, as you say, but it was really on the side of the Leadbetters, definitely. If it wasn't, then The Goods would have succeeded on their own and not had to be bailed out all the time. That was the model of the storylines all the way through - soppy Goods have mad new idea, doesn't work, rich neighbours take pity on them, buy their machine or animal for them and get them through it. It was a massive thumbs up for charitable capitalism and middle England values over soppy daft impractical liberalism (which was strong in the 70s as the counter ideology). It was a gentle, comedy debunking of it.
I still think you're imposing your own political values on it. Which is fair enough, art is one big Rorschach blob.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ March 8 2011, 10:42 AM GMTIt was a feel good show yes, as you say, but it was really on the side of the Leadbetters, definitely. If it wasn't, then The Goods would have succeeded on their own and not had to be bailed out all the time.
And if they had succeeded there would have been no comedy. Comedy derives from failure and conflict.
Anyway, if it was or it wasn't, it remains one of the greatest sitcoms ever, extremely rewatchable even though it's dated a lot, maybe that's why it's so enjoyable to watch now, to look back at what they wore!
It is indeed great, although I prefer Esmonde and Larbey's much darker Ever Decreasing Circles.
Recently bought the boxset but haven't got round to watching it yet, haven't seen since the first time so I'm hoping it holds up well. The Good Life for me though, it was really strong all the way through and looks great today. If EDC is half as good now, I'll enjoy it.