realistic v. politically correct - Grantchester (2015) Discussion

[–] suenocontigo 10 years ago

Agreed. Even weirder for a white woman and black man to be dating so openly at that time. Interracial marriage wasn't even legal in the US until 1967. (Kind of blows my mind that that was only 40 years ago).

reply

[–] McDonna7 10 years ago

Interracial marriage wasn't even legal in the US until 1967.

It wasn't legal NATIONWIDE until 1967 as a result of a Supreme Court ruling. Before then, legality was determined on a state-by-state basis, as gay marriage is determined now.

Frederick Douglass married a white woman in the 1800's and Barack Obama, born in 1961, was born of an interracial marriage.

reply

[–] suenocontigo 10 years ago

I know interracial marriages existed before that, I just used that as an example to show that while it existed it certainly wasn't commonplace.

reply

[–] McDonna7 10 years ago

Please accept my apology for taking your words at face value.

reply

[–] Aulic Exclusiva 10 years ago

Interracial marriage wasn't even legal in the US until 1967.

That depended on each individual state. It certainly was legal in places like New York or Massachusetts long before then.

At any rate this takes place in Great Britain, NOT the US. There were never any disgusting Jim Crow laws in the UK.

Scostatevi profani! Melpomene son io...

reply

[–] biggiebaby 8 years ago

Didn't need them, class system in England has been in place for centuries.

reply

[–] Morgana0 9 years ago

I think interracial relationships were a lot more common in England, than they were in America. My English great aunt married a Black American soldier right after the war. My mother's English mother, married a man from China. Our family is extremely diverse racially, since WWII ended.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Morgana0x

reply

[–] DebauchedSloth 9 years ago

Your comment might make sense if this show was set in certain parts of the USA. Interracial marriage has never been illegal in the UK, even when it was rare and largely disapproved of.

My white mother dated a West Indian student at university in the 1950s. She also hung out in the University Jazz clubs.

My grandmother, a tory-voting upper-class war widow, was concerned - mostly for their welfare as a couple in a racist society - but was very far from disapproving. Many, many years later I realised that her half-sister, my Great Aunt, born in 1923, was mixed-race.

The relationship was brought to and end by his parents, who thought my mother was unsuitable as a future Barrister's and politician's wife.

reply

[–] passinby 10 years ago

Remember Grantchester is just a mile from Cambridge, home to one of the great universities of the world. It's a progressive environment of academics and students, it doesn't surprise me. A bi-racial couple and a "homosexual" cleric wouldn't seem out of place in this environment.

reply

[–] Camargue 10 years ago

Remember Grantchester is just a mile from Cambridge, home to one of the great universities of the world. It's a progressive environment of academics and students, it doesn't surprise me. A bi-racial couple and a "homosexual" cleric wouldn't seem out of place in this environment.

Wait a minute! I doubt that anyone who visits Imdb needs to be "reminded" of the location of Cambridge, or that many universities are (currently) somewhat "progressive."

This is not "today" but took place in the 1950s. Homosexuality was AGAINST THE LAW! And the notion that there would be a "casual attitude" toward a bi-racial couple is nonsense!

In fact, I doubt you have spent much time at Cambridge, because I did not find it NEARLY as "progressive" as you claim! Cambridge was EXTREMELY conservative.

This was immediately following the war; the people were still hungry and "doing without." Everything was rationed. NO quarter was cut for anyone who was "progressive" in those days. They would have been thought of as COMMUNISTS and were NOT welcome! In fact, MOST of the "liberal" professors were in the USA by that time. The professors they could afford to keep would have been 100% "old school." They would have IN NO WAY influenced the "folks round about" to become "progressive" at that time period!

None of the "changes" were even considered until the late 1970s, and "change" was slight. Oxford reminds me of Harvard; Cambridge is more like Yale. But, MORE conservative. You are "assuming" a great deal that is simply not true.

reply

[–] karnevilelp 10 years ago

This is not "today" but took place in the 1950s. Homosexuality was AGAINST THE LAW! And the notion that there would be a "casual attitude" toward a bi-racial couple is nonsense!

Absolutely, totally agree with that comment. This show is set in 1953, the same year that Alan Turing died, only two years after that scumbag Guy Burgess (a known homosexual) defected to Russia. That incident set off a *massive* crackdown on homosexual activity, as we saw a hint of in episode 4, when DC Atkins can't wait to arrest on a morals charge the guy who has the misfortune to come out of the loo when he, Sidney and Geordie are in the lavatory investigating the murder du jour.

Yes, there was a "wink wink, we know so-and-so is that way" kind of hypocrisy around, and on a personal level people might not have cared, but society as a whole and the law sure as hell did. To use just one example, Brian Epstein, the manager of The Beatles, was caught multiple times with his pants down, as it were, and it was only through bribes and peddling of favors that he avoided a scandal and arrest. He was also beaten up a few times by the guys he picked up for sex. It was a horrible time to be gay in the UK, the 50's and even though homosexuality was de-criminalized in the UK in 1967, the police oppression of it continued.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] merryapril 10 years ago

Contemporary fiction, even if it's set in bygone eras, speaks to contemporary times. Interracial relationships are a current trend, along with homosexuality, and although both are relatively rare, they seem to get a disproportionate amount of attention when it comes to entertainment these days, sometimes gratuitously so. But in the latest episode of Grantchester I think Johnny Johnson's race is key -- and not gratuitous -- because simply since he's black, he's the prime murder and burglary suspect! Of course none of the upper-middle class characters would've drawn suspicion as long as a black guy was around to pin the blame on!

Still, it seemed implausible that the vicar's sister could've brought along a black man to a posh party back then without eliciting any negative reactions or even a few whispers and sideways glances from the other guests.

reply

[–] McDonna7 10 years ago

Of course none of the upper-middle class characters would've drawn suspicion as long as a black guy was around to pin the blame on!

True, but he was also the only stranger in the group so suspicion would have fallen his way regardless of race.

reply

[–] tally1-934-484232 10 years ago

There did seem to be a few glances in his direction and the way he was quickly presumed to be guilty of the missing ring does suggest racism at hand. But you are right, realistically there would have been more obvious casual racism than what was shown to us. Perhaps those racist discussions were held off screen and wasn't pivotal to the story line.

Johnny himself actually looked mixed race to me. We don't know the full story of his background.

Otherwise I do agree with your observation that it's very PC these days to try to include as many interracial relationships, minority characters or gay characters into period dramas and have too many people around them be accepting of the differences.

reply

[–] passinby 10 years ago

Johnny is a child of a bi-racial marriage, good call.

reply

[–] lakealice 10 years ago

I agree with you about inserting PC issues into period dramas. I even think having the vicar be so accepting without thinking twice is unrealistic for the times. He lives in a small village and represents a very traditional religion-The Church of England. It would be better if he were a little conflicted about those issues.

reply

[–] MisterNick 10 years ago

Interracial relationships are a current trend, along with homosexuality, and although both are relatively rare, they seem to get a disproportionate amount of attention when it comes to entertainment these days, sometimes gratuitously so

IMHO In all of contemporary fiction these "trends" are still rather small compared to male/female non interracial relationships. I think you may just be magnifying things that you don't care for.

reply

[–] passinby 10 years ago

It depends on where someone lived, big cities and university towns were more progressive areas and gay couples or bi-racial couples wouldn't seem out of place.

reply

[–] holchie 10 years ago

Your remark about interracial relationships and homosexuality getting a disproportionate amount of attention in contemporary fiction is very true. I don't see Grantchester as contemporary fiction, but the production of it is contemporary. I have watched only three episodes, and homosexuality and racial themes have been prominent in all three of them. So until I see some more episodes, I can only assume whoever adapted the books for television had as one of their goals to promote the agendas, if you will, of both subjects. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, and I enjoy the program, but to have this much "political correctness," or such "contemporary trends" in a period setting seems forced. As I said, I have only seen three episodes, but I must conclude that this series is meant to be about black life and gayness in post-war England, using a who-done-it premise for the vehicle.

reply

[–] digitaldiva 10 years ago

Hi holchie,

The first Grantchester novel was published in 2012, they are not period pieces. The author, James Robert Runcie, is involved with the production and the stories are faithful to the spirit of the novels.

reply

[–] holchie 10 years ago

But are not these stories placed in the 50s, post-war era England? That makes them period pieces. A period piece is a work set in a particular era, doesn't matter what year they were written or published. Not arguing, just discussing and seeking clarification.

reply

[–] digitaldiva 10 years ago

Hi holchie,

Yes, Runcie writes works of historical fiction, but like a lot of writers who deal with history, he has imbued his protagonist with a 21st century point of view. Many historical fiction authors take on social issues of the past, gay rights, race, sexual mores, and write them from a contemporary viewpoint. One character has to be out of step with the rest of society or there wouldn't be conflict. Drama is conflict.

reply

[–] DebauchedSloth 9 years ago

If Dorothy L Sayers could write crime novels about mixed marriages, antisemitism, West Indian immigrants and homosexuality in crime novels published in the 1920s and 1930s, then I think we can allow Runcie, and the Grantchester scriptwriters the same leeway.

reply

[–] sleepingtiger (712) 8 years ago

holchie:

The thing is, homosexuality and racial issues aren't "politically correct" issues, they have always been around,period. Gay people existed back in the '50s, and even before that, and so did black people. Just because society didn't acknowledge them openly back then, that sure as hell dosen't mean they didn't exist in those times. So there is nothing "politically correct" about the depiction of them in these series. I'm also tired of some people whining about the depiction of anyone who isn't white,male or straight as "politically correct"----no, that's depicting life as it is. White people aren't the only people on earth with stories that deserve to be told--so get over the yourselves with that nonsense.

reply

[–] Latoija 10 years ago

The Vicar who married my parents and did my christening was gay. I wasn't in the time period of the show but he worked very closely with my Nan and Aunty Sheila (her friend) where where both products of the time period depicted and could not be more conservative as far as that kind of thing goes. I don't think I have ever heard my Nan say a person was gay, just that they where "a bit funny that way". It was very well know that he was gay in the area and no one cared.

Now I know some one from a village or two over from Grandchester. And from how she speaks she didn't know any black people until she was an adult, she just turned 60. Her family was funny about the Greek family from down the road. They would not be ok with a gay vicar and would be weary of a interracial couple at least not in the smaller villages around Cambridge. I lived in Newmarket for a time and there is a big difference between Cambridge and the smaller villages around it. I don't know the Grandchester area however.

You also have to keep in mind about England many of GI's from America when over and got English white women pregnant around during and after the war. All my mothers friends(and my mother) are mixed race because American men came over and had relationships with women in major cities.

_____________
Shut it down

reply

[–] Camargue 10 years ago

You also have to keep in mind about England many of GI's from America when over and got English white women pregnant around during and after the war. All my mothers friends(and my mother) are mixed race because American men came over and had relationships with women in major cities.

We cannot recast history by treating devastating accusations with casual statements such as, " . . . GI's from America when over and got English white women pregnant . . . " and " . . . American men came over and had relationships with women in major cities."

(1) "Major cities" had NOTHING to do with "sex." What mattered was the proximity to the military bases, and the availability of women.

(2) Rape was dealt with by court martial, expulsion, and even jail. Sans rape, these "mixed babies" were the result of the females as "willing partners." (Some wanted to get into the USA, some wanted the men to marry them, some were simply perverse for personal reasons.)

(3) American "black" soldiers were in their own separate units. They were NOT supposed to be "having sex" with local lasses, and were warned off! If the "local lasses" went out of their way to pursue black American soldiers, and "mixed race" babies resulted, that was the call of the local females. Some were prostitutes and others were lower classes, who did not have the family support to remind them that their futures would not be made better by these actions.

(4) American soldiers were paid more than 4 times what British soldiers were paid. If the local women pursued black American soldiers because they were after "things," that speaks to their character, not the character of the black soldiers. Even now, there is a notion that "Americans are rich" and some women want an "American husband" at any cost. Even if he is black and they will face problems.

(5) Another aspect that must be addressed is that there was a supply of "Caribbean" blacks who may have been passing themselves off as Americans (so girls would think they were better off).

reply

[–] Latoija 10 years ago

I am only talking from experience of people I know. Family member and family friends are products of relationships between American servicemen on leave I said major cities because I know people form more than one city in the UK. I said nothing about rape, so I am not sure where that came from?

The fact of the matter is that on both sides of the Atlantic soldiers had fleeting relationships in port cities near bases. Many women where told that the men would return to marry them. Many of the women I know fell in love with men, and the men in ended up have several children to different women.

I wasn't trying to cast a unkind light on African American soldiers(it would be silly seeing as my father and grandfather are black service men) but this is something that when on. The OP asked in interracial relationships would have been realistic at this time in history and I gave an answer based on personal knowledge.

I think that something was not supposed to happen is no great indicator of it not happening. Otherwise there would not have been need for soldiers in general to be warned of VD or issued condoms.

Also thanks for the shout out to the lower moral character of my grandmother.

_____________
Shut it down

reply

[–] Ilario1 10 years ago

He was a jazz musician. Plenty of musicians and singers were in interracial relationships during that period.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01163/arts-graphics-2005_1 163530a.jpg

"What happens to a dream deferred?"

reply

[–] JaneBingley 10 years ago

As far as we who lived in sixties and forward were concerned, Elton John, Rock Hudson, Liberace, Freddie Mercury and George Michael were straight.

I dont think young people really know how much shame and disgust there was in being gay back then. It was illegal to be gay in my country (Norway) until the early seventies. We have come a long way, thank heaven.

Glossing over the past and our history will do nothing good for anyone. We learn by our mistakes.

reply

[–] LCShackley 10 years ago

In the book, the jazz guy is white.

reply

[–] sewiltz 10 years ago

Whether orr not the inclusion of these characters and plot points is motivated by realism or political correctness, I enjoy watching period pieces in which the characters deal with seemingly contemporary issues. Human nature is timeless. We tend to think that people used to be naive or unknowing about timeless human conditions and moral dilemmas. That, in and of itself, is naive. See Downton Abbey, Sleepy Hollow, and Cadfael for more!

reply