Talk:Tony Hancock/Archive 1

Archive 1

Corrected details

Changes made 12/5/2005. Hancock died on 24th June and not 26th as previously written.

I changed "a RAF regiment" -> "the RAF Regiment". In any case you can't say "a RAF", it would be "an". However, more serious is the fact that there aren't a load of them so you can't say he just joined one of them - there is only one, a fighting force called "The RAF Regiment", and that is what is appears he joined. 82.35.17.203 18:18, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The section about The Punch and Judy Man doesn't really sound unbiased, not least "The film's humour is bitter-sweet and nicely understated and perfectly tailored to British audiences. American audiences might not understand it."... even given the context (H's failure to break into the US) it needs revising.

Bold textHancock Bio Movie?

I saw a movie about Tony Hancock back in 1990-91. I can't remember what it was called and can't find any info on it, if anyone knows anything about this please inform.

There were a couple, mainly made for TV. Paul Merton the UK Tv comedian models himself on TH and has tried to do a couple of the scripts as well. I listened to TH on the radio in the 50's when i was 10 years old, he was my first hero..... Lincolnshire Poacher 17:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Merton shows were made in about 1996. You're probably thinking of a BBC Screen One film from 1991/92 called "Hancock" with Alfred Molina. JW 5 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)

Pruning needed

It is doubtful if there still are people who find patterns not intended in the wallpaper – Laurence Llewellyn-Bowen and numerous makeover clones have put a stop to that. In the not too distant past some clever publishers made quite a little industry of the "hidden picture" phenomenon – would they have been able to do that if there were still had bunches of grapes wallpapers rather than magnolia walls with a dado rail to stare at? Is staring into space a lost art? The frustrating experience of someone not seeing what we think we are seeing and the final "wait till you want me to see something" perfectly encapsulates the wearisome nature of such a futile enterprise.

This may be an interesting philophical musing but it will make absolutely no sense at all to anyone who has not heard the relevant episode. With this discussion of the Sunday Afternoon at Home episode -- just one among dozens episodes he made -- we have strayed a long way from the subject (Hancock's Peak Years), and it's a long way from being encyclopaedic. With respect to its author, it should be deleted and the rest of the aricle heavily pruned for relevance and comprehensibility. Flapdragon 12:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It's very well written and interesting but a bit too exhaustive, and goes off at a tangent more than once. I made a slight alteration to remove a POV, but it does need some editing. JW 5 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)

Roger Hancock

Agent to Hancock scriptwriter Terry Nation . I read recently that he was Tony's brother. I had not heard this before 2005 so find it hard to believe that nobody would have mentioned it. Is it correct? DavidFarmbrough 09:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, quite true, see the Wilmut book, and I think confirmable via web sources also. Philip Cross 14:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Agent to many other notable showbusiness people too: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/roger-hancock-agent-who-guided-many-showbiz-careers-and-protected-legacy-his-brother-tony-2313129.html 2.28.151.178 (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Introspection: use of actors

In this section, it is stated that Hancock began using actors for roles such as policemen, rather than using Kenneth Williams for these parts, in his last television series. I'm pretty sure that this actually began in his sixth (and final) radio series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvmodel (talk • contribs) 21:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A citation for Hancock's views on realism is given in Nathan and Hancock's biography. I'll try to hunt this up Chrismorey (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC) - dpne, as work was already cited

POV

This section is so much POV I don't know where to begin. Even though it is possibly right and an accurate assesment of The Punch & Judy Man's failure, it is equally possible that the film failed because it wasn't that good. To change this section to a neutral POV is difficult. Nevertheless I am having a go at this today. Any further revisions in the same vein (i.e. removing POV but keeping something of the comment) will be gratefully received!

"Hancock always dreamed of being a major international star, but tradition holds that he failed to realise how uniquely British his style of humour was; too uniquely British, that is, to have universal appeal. This was demonstrated by his second starring vehicle, The Punch and Judy Man (1962), in which he plays a struggling seaside entertainer who dreams of a better life; Sylvia Syms plays his nagging social climber of a wife, and John Le Mesurier plays a sand sculptor. The film's humour is bittersweet and understated and was perfectly tailored to a particular British audience of the time. The vast American entertainment industry, whose moguls were used to a more brash style of humour, dismissed it as slow-moving and dull. His BBC shows were, however, frequently broadcast in Australia and Canada." DavidFarmbrough 10:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

East Cheam

If East Cheam is next to Carshalton, what happened to Sutton ? -- Beardo 06:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Have changed it.

Incidentally it's debateable as to how far East Cheam "exists" in the present day. There was a village of East Cheam centuries ago, but in the late 16th century it was aquired by the owners of West Cheam and the two slowly merged into the larger parish of Cheam. Nowadays it would probably be West Sutton and St Dunstan’s Hill area. There are present day organisations and estate agents who use the term "East Cheam" but I'm not sure how many of these aren't just capitalising on the Hancock connection. "Welcome to Hancock's world" from the Sutton/Epsom Guardian Timrollpickering 00:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

East Cheam never existed in reality. The point was that Cheam was posh and trendy at the time, and Hancock rationalised that the character wasn't quite smart enough to get into Cheam, so he made it East Cheam, making him just fail at that a well. 82.21.206.85 (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Suicide

I think the article never mentions, but should, the method of suicide. Every other notable person who has committed suicide (as far as i have seen), mentions at least in passing the method. --Storkk 00:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I inserted a reference to this, but it was deleted. The story confirms his intensely self-critical nature. When they found him dead in his hotel room, the TV was still on, at the channel where his show had just been broadcast. Obviously he had viewed it, and it brought it home to him how low he'd sunk. Then he took the overdose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.247.240 (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The reference as it is currently is incorrect, i.e. that Hancock overdosed on amphetamines, which is clearly an impractical way to kill yourself. The tablets were barbiturates - sleeping pills; anyone want to correct this, or shall I? reineke (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"... the TV was still on, at the channel where his show had just been broadcast. Obviously he had viewed it, and it brought it home to him how low he'd sunk". Well, no. Certainly, it's a nice romantic notion - but his program was still in pre-production, and hadn't aired; a 60 second clip from it was shown as part of a tribute the night his body was discovered. The three completed episodes wouldn't air until January 1972. There were no Hancock programs screening on Sydney TV the night he took the overdose, nor in the week leading up to it. Chris Keating (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hancock.jpg

Image:Hancock.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Legacy

The Libertines link as in Pete Doherty's former band takes you to The Liberties as in Dublin 8

Technical error

in the passage:

"Returning home with his wife from recording "The Bowmans" episode, a parody of The Archers, Hancock was involved in a minor car accident. He was not badly hurt, despite going through the car windscreen, but he did suffer concussion and he was unable to learn his lines for "The Blood Donor", the next episode to be recorded. The result was that Hancock had to perform by reading from teleprompters (TV monitors displaying the relevant sections of script). Viewers of the programme may notice that he is not always looking at the other actors, but in another direction entirely. Hancock came to rely on teleprompters instead of learning scripts whenever he had career difficulties."

IN fact the use of teleprompts was still in its infancy, and limited to news programs and announcers. Hancock used 'Idiot Boards' , large sheets of white cardboard with the lines written on.

This article also fails to place sufficient recognition to certain advancements made by Hancock in the way sitcoms were made, which are historically important. Until Hancock came along, all TV comedy programs were made 'live', with multiple sets, and switched between sets masked by various devices, such as in Jimmy Edwards series 'Whacko', where the few seconds taken to whisk all the cameras over to the next set were hidden by insert shots of the school clock. Hancock rejected this Heath Robinson method of production and eventually pioneered the technique of recording on 16mm film stock, and then cutting the scenes together, in the same way a film is made.

Hancock, along with Galton and Simpson, were also the first persons on UK television to be paid more than £1000 for a single episode.

Hancock also championed the use of straight actors instead of comic actors to make the comedy 'realistic' - all the actors in the Blood Donor, for example, such as June Whitfield and Patrick Cargill, were straight actors. The idea was taken to its conclusion by Galton and Simpson in Steptoe and Son, but the concept was entirely Hancocks.

June Whitfield is surely the epitome of a comedy, rather than a straight, actor? A case could also be made that Kenneth Williams was a straight actor, with acclaimed performances as the Dauphin in Bernard Shaw's St Joan, and his radio performance of Gogol’s Diary of a Madman, so perhaps the distinction is not as clear as is being suggested here? Jock123 (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

John Le Mesurier and Jack Watling (from "The Lift") were certainly (quite famous) straight actors though. Even if Le Mesurier later came to fame in one comic role (Dad's Army), at the time he often played criminals and shady - if refined - villains in films and series like "The Avengers". 2.28.151.178 (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Hancock, and Galton and Simpson, invented the modern situation comedy in the format it is still used to this day. And that demands recognition, because that is Hancocks true legacy to us. Without Hancock there wouldn't have been any of the magnificent comedy of the 70's, 80's and 90's, in the form it was. Even John Cleese, arguably the finest comedy writer of the latter part of the 20th Century, acknowledges Hancock, and takes Hancocks invention to its pinnacle in 'Fawlty Towers', the 12 definitive textbook examples of how to write sit com, which all budding script writers should read, learn and understand. 82.23.22.234 (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)