The following is commentary on Episode No. 1 ("The Facts of Life") from members of AFAMILYATWAR-LIST. If you wish to add your thoughts to what is being said on this page, become a part of our discussion group by clicking the "Join" button.

 

 


 

 

Richard Veit

I watched Episode No. 1, “The Facts of Life,” a couple of days ago, and I was struck anew by how pleasant and inherently cheerful the Ashton family are when we first meet them, compared to when the harsh realities of war inflict their blows. Jean and Edwin have a warm relationship that sours so gradually over the course of the first two seasons that it is entirely believable and makes them seem like real people. That is painting on a large canvas and bringing it off beautifully.

I also marvel at how subtly the writer (our own John Finch) establishes each character in that initial episode, making certain that viewers are aware of the relationships but doing so naturally and without calling attention to the process.

I always enjoy watching the wonderful affinity between Edwin and Sheila, which is just as supportive as a later in-law pairing will prove to be, that of Margaret and Harry Porter. Very special bonds indeed.

A couple of questions come to mind:
-- Why was it decided that the Ashtons would have three sons and two daughters? Were they modeled after an actual family, or did this arrangement just work well dramatically?
-- Why was Robert said to be away at nautical school, not arriving on the scene until the eleventh episode? Obviously, this might well happen in real life, so I have no problem with it, but I cannot help but wonder whether the role was not yet cast or if David Dixon was unavailable until late in the first season of production.

I smiled upon hearing Freda’s playful comment that Tony shaved off his moustache. We never do see him with facial hair, so this revelation dates back to her school days, when she had a girlish crush on her older cousin.

 


 

Paul Cook

Theme - Choices and Options

Edwin learns from Tony that he has decided, albeit reluctantly, to accept the post of Print Works Manager, offered to him by his father, Sefton, following the death of Reg Clark. Tony believes he has no option in this matter, to which Edwin replies bitterly, “We all have choices”. In contrast, Tony states repeatedly, (with I feel, a hint of martyrdom), “But can’t you see I have no choice?”

Of course, Tony does have a choice. This decision effectively denies his Uncle Edwin the job he has been doing, in effect, for several years, covering for Reg’s incompetencies at the printing works. For me there is a sense of moral injustice, verging on castration here, for Edwin. Edwin has earned the right to get this job through his sheer dedication and hard work. Interestingly, this travesty is glossed over by the rest of the family, who have a real affection for Tony. Perhaps Tony is more like his father Sefton than we are led to believe?

Edwin chose to stay working for his father-in-law Sefton for 30 years, which we learn has always been difficult, and at times, an almost impossible task to carry out. He tries to convey this difficulty and pain of assuming responsibility, in his confrontation with David, when he discovers that David has given up his job at the docks. Through his frustration towards David, some of this pent up angst is released. Edwin berates David for his lack of responsibility, and his selfish attitude towards life. Yet, at the same time, it is as if Edwin is being critical about his own self, and the decisions he has made for himself and on behalf of his family over the preceding years.

Edwin is almost venomous in his lack of regard for his father-in-law, and employer, Sefton. He feels let down and abused by him, a man “I don’t want to be equal of”, indeed “a second rate human being”. In this scene I have sympathy for this moment of seeing such a crushed man. He has very little respect for himself, hating himself at times for what he has tolerated and endured over the years. Clearly Edwin’s life choices have resulted in heartache and disillusionment. There are very few times during the series that we are privy to such intense self disclosure.

Edwin is jovial at the start of the episode, but we now see the deeper, distressed levels of Edwin’s private life experiences, presented in a shocking and powerful way. Edwin has clearly sacrificed a great deal of his self respect over the years. In a desperate state, he tries to communicate to David that taking decisions as an adult is a painful, sometimes lonely, (yet always difficult), process. We are later to discover through the choices David takes, and the options he pursues, that David is not going to be a happy man for some years, (indeed only perhaps after the series has finished).

Both educational opportunity and choices have given Phillip a place at Oxford University, as well as a moral choice of going off to fight in Spain. Margaret’s choice was also to become a teacher. On the other hand David “..should have done his homework”, choices which are mapping out his life as we see him in Episode 1. The social divisions resulting from this are quite stark. David does not seem to be able to assume personal responsibility, and is also full of envy towards his siblings, (once again, a consequence of David’s choices). We experience some early examples of David’s failings and weaknesses, seen with the highly expressed emotion between himself and Sheila. When Freda says that David is feeling sorry for himself, when all the family are in the sitting room, all goes quiet. It is as if David’s situation is an embarrassment – (nobody wants to see the elephant in the room). Sheila comments to him later in the episode, “Don’t you think about anyone but yourself?”, but this is interestingly tempered, almost in the same breath, by “But you do your best”. In other words, “How do you solve a problem like David?”

Preparations for the engagement party are a perfect foil to present and show off the characters. We see Margaret as the didactic teacher, taking charge, telling the others what to do. Phillip retorts with a, “Yes, miss”, and David gets away with calling her “Maggie”. Is Margaret going to be as controlling as she appears in this first episode?

It is interesting that Sefton is not present at the party, which I feel is symbolic for the emotional distance that he keeps from the Ashton family. Sefton is very much the private man, and certainly is not contained within the bosom of the Ashton household.

John comes into the Ashton household out of the rain. This is one scene that does not work particularly very well for me. The reactions of all the family towards John seems to me dissonant and out of place, almost malicious. I am puzzled by the extreme reaction they have towards him. Phillip tries to hide a guffaw, Freda hits a dissonant chord by sitting clumsily on the piano keys, and David is outright supercilious and rude. This childish behaviour is acceptable by all of them. I am wondering if this scene was acted this way to get a quick, superficial impression of John, something akin to sympathy, thus defining John’s role within the series. For me, it certainly serves a purpose, setting a tone for my own experience of John throughout the series, as being rather down trodden, anxious and depressed.

With regard to the relationship between Edwin and Jean, I like the scene where they are alone together in the sitting room and the door-bell rings. Jean asks Edwin, “Who is it?”. A ridiculous question of course, but it feels like a subtle order from Jean for to Edwin to answer the door, which he does without deferment. Jean is often in the command seat, although it is sometimes not always obvious.

This is an impressive episode. Every line feels taut, and each word important. Within 5 minutes from the opening titles, we are not only introduced to the family members through the canny vehicle of the engagement party, but develop a sense of the complex dynamics between the family. In the portrayal of the characters of Edwin and David in particular, so much is packed in, in such a short space of time. What a wonderful way to start a series. I wonder what if felt like for John to view this on air in 1970?

 


 

John Finch

Responding to Richard:

The family was chosen as a balanced representative family at the time. More would have been false, while a smaller family would have been restrictive in creating a balanced picture. My first crisis came with the announcement that the actress playing Margaret became pregnant in reality, the timescale being such that it would not have been possible for John (missing in action) to be the father and some thought we should lose the character. I was shattered by this possibility and devised a way round it in the story which became central to the series and gave us some fine scenes right through to the last episode. It is shattering, to think what we would have lost had we lost this character.

You have caught me out with the late intro of Robert. I can’t completely remember why this was, except that I was keen to show how war affects others than those actively engaged. i.e. Jean Ashton. To some extent he was based on my own experience as a 16-year-old wireless operator in the Merchant Navy, except of course that I am still here. What, more than anything the character gave us, I think was a picture of the anguish which mothers must have felt with their sons living almost permanently at the receiving end of a torpedo, or flying over Germany, or in other theatres of war.

I can remember boasting to my mother that I would get another shilling (I think it was a shilling) a day for the extra danger of being on a tanker. I am ashamed, in retrospect, of how she must have felt about this, especially as we were a one-parent family, and my sister was partly disabled. I guess some of us just shut our minds to the dangers as a way of surviving and selfishly closed our minds to the fears of others.

Just a few of the characters were based on members of my own family. In the wider family, which included cousins, we were represented in the RAF, the army, the navy, the nursing profession and civil defence. All survived. Of close friends one, serving as a tank driver, lost both his hands. Others were lost in the siege of Malta and various other theatres of war. Few families were unaffected in some way or other. Some had been affected by the previous war. ( father had been wounded in France and my mother was a nurse who had lost her fiancé).

The sliding panel between the living room and the kitchen, which proved so useful in the way the set was used, was based on a similar contraption in the home of a relative. I sometimes heard things I wasn’t supposed to hear, through this hatchway.

The character of Sefton was partly based on a relative. The character of Mrs Porter was simply a creation, and as a counter to Jean Ashton. If all mothers had been like Mrs Porter we would have lost the war, though many mothers must have had the same fears they did not express them.


Responding to Paul:

I think what you have spotted, revealed in these very perceptive comments is that I have a tendency to write between the lines. The truth can be in people’s reactions, and behind what they say, rather than in what they actually do say. Logic is not always evident in people’s surface behaviour.

I appreciate your comments on David. I wanted this to be a flawed family, and David’s situation in this episode is very important to later developments.

I agree that there are aspects of Sefton in Tony’s character (inevitably, perhaps) and the antagonism between them does in some ways point this up. With hindsight I wish I had made more use of this.

I share your reaction to the piano scene when John arrives. It wasn’t in the script, and when I saw it on taping it was too late to make a change. A pity, since if it had been done with more subtlety it could have worked. Frankly, I think it was one of the mistakes we made along the way.

It is very gratifying that you appreciate how hard it is to paint an accurate and revealing picture in the first episode of anything. I think I have said, somewhere, that Granada desperately needed a good drama series at this stage in the company’s development. I needed one even more than they did. I was so relieved by the positive reaction to the first episode, when it was viewed by employees of the company, that I wept!

 


 

Richard Veit

If you will indulge me, I have a few random, follow-up thoughts.

John says that it would have been shattering to lose the actress who played Margaret. I totally agree. Lesley Nunnerley was superb in that role, and John’s solution to the dilemma produced a poignant plot twist that was, I’m sure, all-too-real for countless families during the war.

He mentions the sliding panel or hatchway. That is an endearing bit of scenery that proves dramatically useful in several episodes. Besides the Ashton home, do I not also spot it in the hospital kitchen where Freda and Doris are working? Did studio carpenters perhaps borrow the same wall for use in both settings?

I have always thought that the character of Mrs. Porter was a most vivid creation. She was not likeable, to be sure, but she was very true to life, and Margery Mason was brilliant in an unsympathetic role.

True, there is antagonism between Tony and Sefton, but I also sense a deep-seeded quality of love (and, yes, even respect) that I am certain neither of them would be comfortable acknowledging. Their interaction is one of my favourite aspects of the series — often dramatic and confrontational, but also quite amusing at times. Some of Tony’s cynical lines and facial expressions when conversing with his father are absolutely hilarious, and cause me to laugh out loud. Great writing!

Paul’s tag of “Choices and Options” nicely encapsulates this initial episode’s underlying theme, and he has eloquently put into words many of my own thoughts. The disparity between Philip’s station in life and David’s is a natural reflection of decisions they have made.

I think Paul may have been a little hard on Tony. Living with a domineering father like Sefton Briggs cannot have been easy, and I suspect that Tony really had no viable choice in the matter of accepting the managerial position. As we learn much later in the series (with Eric Fraser), Tony really does have his uncle’s best interests at heart.

The party (anniversary, not engagement) was, as Paul notes, very revealing. It is also quite humourous. I enjoy the playful dialogue between Philip and Margaret, and it is amusing to see the the fumbling attempts at folding napkins by Philip and Edwin, not to mention the scarcely concealed looks of relief when Tony announces that his father will not be present. (No doubt that deprived us of yet another of Sefton’s stuffy speeches at such gatherings!) On a more serious note, it is affirming to see Margaret’s take-charge attitude around the house (something that will serve her well in later years), and the dialogue between David and Sheila about the borrowed dress is quite sad to see.

I too was a bit shocked by the Ashtons’ response to encountering John Porter for the first time, but I always figured it was because Margaret had kept her boyfriend a mystery for so long that the others were amused by how shy and unassuming he turned out to be. Margaret’s evident embarrassment during the course of the awkward introductions only added to the others’ need to chuckle — rather like trying to stifle a laugh where one is deemed inappropriate, like at church or a funeral.