The following is commentary on Episode No. 14 ("The Other Side of the Hill") 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
“The Other Side of the Hill”
concerns itself primarily with two developing story lines. One is Edwin Ashton’s
difficult decision over whether to desert Briggs & Son for a similar position
with Pringle’s, Printers of Distinction. Much to his disillusionment,
the interview with Dennis Pringle does not go well. Pringle, it is plain to
see, runs a fastidiously taut ship, and Edwin can sense that he would be granted
little freedom in supervising the firm’s production. Worse yet, Edwin
resents Pringle’s condescending attitude toward the typical working
man, who the owner believes is incapable of managing his own affairs. Souring
Edwin’s prospects even further is the guilt he feels in betraying his
brother-in-law behind his back. When Pringle winks at him whilst on the telephone
with Sefton, the fair-minded Edwin is struck by his own disloyalty. Clearly,
the grass is not always greener…
Another continuing story line is David Ashton’s utter disregard for
the marriage bond. After placing an obligatory telephone call to his wife,
he quickly abandons that notion when the line is engaged. Then he becomes
a drunken boor during the New Year’s Eve party at the WVS Study Centre,
resorting to a cruel disparagement of his friend, Richard Norris, for being
so polite and educated in the arts, much like his brother, Philip. The following
day, he descends to a new low in crassness by vowing to ring Sheila—in
the very presence of Susan Reynolds—and inform her that their marriage
is over, presumably leaving him free to court his former pilot’s widow.
David is a brilliantly drawn character, full of human weakness and selfish
indulgences, and yet not beyond hope of redemption, as we shall see much later
in the series.
A few random comments about “The Other Side of the Hill”…
Tony’s sister, Jo, is said to be a nurse with the Australian army. She
always has seemed to me a shadowy character, serving no perceptible purpose
in the narrative. Why was the concept of “our Jo” ever created,
unless it was planned that someday she would accompany her Aunt Helen back
to England. Or was Jo simply needed to make the shares of the Briggs estate
add up in dramatic fashion to heighten the suspense?
It was an endearing touch to have Edwin switch on the radio to hear the chiming
of Big Ben on New Year’s Eve. This comforting routine would seem to
be borrowed from the writers’ own experiences, and it is finely-etched
details such as this that make “A Family at War” so true to life.
Airman Richard Norris appears to be a fine, responsible young man, and he
provides a perfect foil to the scoundrel that David is, at least at this stage
of his life.
I am impressed by the warmth that exists whenever Edwin and daughter Margaret
have heart-to-heart conversations. I always sense true compassion and understanding
between these two wonderfully developed characters.
Though essentially dramatic in nature, there are several lighter moments in
this episode as well. It is amusing to learn that the sailor who followed
Freda home to the Ashton gate turns out to be none other than her own brother,
Robert. Similarly, it is funny to watch Sefton Briggs and Dennis Pringle match
wits in their discussion of managerial poaching, with both shrewd businessmen
knowing full well what the other is thinking.
In hindsight, we all know that the likeable Robert will prove to be a tragic
figure in the Ashton saga. After his bold assurance to Freda that “Of
course I’m not scared!” he proceeds to tremble, wide-eyed, at
the sounds of aerial combat overhead. Despite his professed bravado, we sympathise
with the human qualities that lie beneath.
It is a profoundly sad moment at the train station to witness his mother’s
joy turn to despair when she is told that the lad’s 48-hour leave is
coming to a close, not about to begin.
I cannot help but wonder if the principal players during the taping/filming
of this series were made aware of their characters’ fates ahead of time
or only when they received each successive script. For purposes of dramatic
intensity—to enable actors to get “inside” their roles—was
it beneficial for writers and directors to provide their major cast members
with an overview of the series? In other words, did all actors (including
David Dixon) realise that Robert would meet death at the age of sixteen? Did
all of the cast (including Shelagh Fraser) know that the character of Jean
would not live to see the war’s end? Just curious how this aspect of
production was treated…
Gert Bak Pedersen
To me the highlight of this episode
is Lesley Nunnerley - Margaret has certainly had an important role in the
previous episodes as well, but I think that both the script for Margaret's
role and Lesley's acting is exceptional good in 'The Other Side Of The Hill'.
Last time I wrote that Colin Douglas and Barbara Flynn seem to raise each
other's acting to great hights, but the same can be said about Colin and Lesley.
There's one scene in this episode that I would like to hear your opinion on:
When Jean visits Sefton she tells him about the Pringle-letter to Edwin -
how do you interpret that? Is she telling Sefton because she wants to help
him (losing Edwin would be catastrophic)? Edwin and Jean's marriage is not
too well at this moment, so her loyalty could be more with Sefton than with
Edwin - even if it means that Edwin wil not get the new job. Or is she telling
Sefton to make him improve Edwins situation (wage etc.) at Briggs & Son?
Who is she primarily trying to help?
Richard, I agree that Colin Campbell as David is also doing a great job. You
can't help but being irritated about David's lack of maturity when it comes
to his marriage, but he is a more complex person than that. It is touching
to witness his lack of self-esteem, and when Sheila turns up, it seems as
if he is really happy to see her. His feelings for her are genuine, but when
she is not there he is turned into this egocentric and spoiled person, who
takes whatever/whoever passes by.
Richard Veit
Jean’s motive is, I think, purposefully
left a bit ambiguous, an intriguing touch that only the most innovative writers
would even attempt to bring off (rather than taking the easy, obvious path).
Personally, I feel almost certain that Jean informs Sefton about the letter
solely in Edwin’s behalf. Though their marriage has indeed reached a
rocky patch, still she feels loyalty towards her husband—and perhaps
some guilt too for her role in compelling him to sacrifice so many of his
life’s dreams for the sake of her and the children. Jean no doubt reasons
that if she lets her brother know that another printing works is interested
in acquiring Edwin’s services, perhaps Sefton will respond by giving
him his due appreciation and financial compensation.
I may be wrong, of course, but that is how I interpret the scene. It just
"feels" right for the characters involved.
Paul Cook
Gert and Richard have interesting
points of view in how Jean is behaving in "The Other Side of the Hill".
I feel we are witnessing Jean's slide into depression. Her behaviour reflects
her anger both towards Edwin and Sefton, as she is now starting to recognise
her own unmet needs which have remained unconsciously ignored until now. In
this episode she is angry with Sefton and with Edwin, but is struggling to
be direct and confrontational with them. Sefton represents her early life
of childhood, Edwin her adult life. I sense that her behaviour is actually
mostly about her own self, rather than rational and objective concerns about
either Edwin or
Sefton. At the start of the episode, when she is in the bedroom following
Sefton's crass comments, she says something like, "no one will mind if
I don't come down". This is a comment from someone who is depressed.
Jean believes that she does not matter to anyone, very typical of a response
to be expected from someone with a growing sense of low self worth and esteem.
She can not verbalise her needs properly, because her rational mind is starting
to slip away.
John Finch
Ref Gert’s query re Jean, I
think she is very torn at this time. Resentment re Robert, an obvious awareness
of Sefton’s shortcomings re Edwin, and divided loyalties between the
family she originated with and the family she has produced over many years.
I think the awareness of Edwin’s resentment has been simmering for some
years, but the Robert situation stirs all the old resentments and hidden conflicts.
A complex situation, in which, I think, she doesn’t quite know what
she wants. How would she deal with all this in the climate of present society
is an interesting point.
I think Paul sums it up very well when he suggests her rational mind is starting
to slip away. I had always imagined her going before the end of the series,
but realised it would be a slow burn and so it turned out.
The analysis of the Jo/ Helen business has revealed flaws in our story planning
at that point in the series. Around that time I was hospitalised, and someone
else had the unenviable job in retaining continuity through two or three episodes.
It was bound to happen in the course of 52 episodes in which, perhaps unwisely,
I had tended to keep my story options to myself. I have always thought that
there are limits to group thinking in some creative enterprises, and that
sooner or later some individual approach will prevail.
Rhona Connor
I always thought that she appears in this one to be stirring it—as you all know, not liking Edwin for going against her with Robert—for me the start of her depression, and this is like stirring it so that she can keep Edwin in some way tied to her brother and herself.
Paul Cook
As Richard mentions, the scene between
Margaret and Edwin conveys much of their close bond. Perhaps it reflects the
kind of relationship that we might all want with our parents, to be able to
be together is such an intimate way. What I find extraordinary is how much
depth of both feeling and meaning that Lesley Nunnerley is able to put into
just one word, "Yes". This has happened on several occasions in
previous episodes. She is able to convey a variety of subtle meanings to this
simple word in each conversation, it seems to me. The particular cadences
and intonation she uses each time with just this one word is so empathic and
seems to convey so much that doesn't actually need the words said out loud
(if you get what I mean). I guess this is also how we build up different views
of the characters, as we each pick up more of the things that are unsaid,
as perhaps with the words that are actually spoken. The more I watch her,
the more impressed I am with how she is developing the character of Margaret.
I am struck by how much there is to take note of in each episode, and the
different ways we make sense of the different characters. Goes to show how
much work went into the whole enterprise, that there is something that touches
us all in the members of the Ashton family. They are certainly a diverse bunch.
One interesting thing, of course, is that there is no one that actually has
a scouse accent. David has a bit of one at the start, but this gets very wobbly
as the series progresses, with his move away from some of his roots. Today
such an approach would not be countenanced (even to the point of political
incorrectness), and I imagine there would be complaints about it not being
a truthful representation. Is this because it was filmed so long ago, when
such issues were not seen as important? Did producers think that the general
audience would not understand the accent, or was it more of a pragmatic situation,
as it would have been impossible to get the quality of actors if they all
had to have authentic regional accents?
John Tomlinson
Of interest may be the fact that the ITV colour strike, which resulted in the final eight episodes of the second season being recorded in black and white, also affected transmissions of any previously recorded colour material when it began on the ominous date of Friday 13th November 1970. Technicians belonging to the ACTT union refused to work with any colour recording or transmitting equipment and the ITV network was in monochrome from that Friday until Monday 8th February 1971 when the ITV companies agreed to a union demand for a pay rise for working with the new colour technology and they returned to colour transmissions and recording. This meant that on its original transmission, this was the only episode of the second season to be seen in colour at the time by those few viewers who had the expensive sets (which was very few, less than 10%).
