The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Wild men and Angry Boys > Comments

Wild men and Angry Boys : Comments

By Peter West, published 18/5/2011

Is Chris Lilley's latest series satire, or more real than real?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
I am very surprised that a person as knowledgeable on the subject of Men and Boys as is Peter, could see anything that would warrant anything more than 30 words of comment on such a trifling piece of TV.
The fact that the ABC sees any merit in producing or showing such programs in a clear indication of the parlous state of locally made TV programs.

It is a most unprofessional production from top to bottom, without merit.

One had the ability to view the premier ABC programs in the last ten years, that is Sea Change, now just the subject of continuous commercial advertising on the ABC, ad nauseum along with many other magazines, CD's, DVD's, programs etc, putting paid, once and for all that the ABC as a non-commercial network.
ABC's "Rake" was an acceptable effort but the programs that died on the vine were East of Everything and Bed of Roses, scriptwriting being the let-down factor.

So all Angry Boys has done to those who do expect some level of acceptable drama from the publicly funded ABC, now with four TV channels and the greatest reputation for repeats, repeats and even more repeats,is to show that there must be an element of people in the ABC who will fund anything without merit. They have become experts while at the same time being producers of programs like Four Corners, Catalyst, Foreign Correspondent, better than anywhere else in the world.

Is it fair to say that with four channels now, the ABC does not have the budget to provide acceptable programming for all four and the repeat level is perhaps an indication of this. Fast becoming known as the 'Indigestion Network' by the insulting crass commercial channels, the 'repeat' level should be an embarrassment to the management.

What a dismal failure was Angry Boys. To try and gain some value from it as Peter has, is beyond my comprehension.
Posted by rexw, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 9:59:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"More channels, more choice" spruiks the 'free to air' advertisements, yet the reality is that since we 'embraced' the new "digital revolution" programming on practically all channels has become repeat after repeat, so good old 'Auntie" isn't alone in that respect. The Kennedy drama coming soon to ABC looks good, but it's unfortunate we have to rehash American history to keep us entertained.

If you're not into cooking shows, weight loss nonsense or dancing with so called "stars" then prime-time viewing is dismal at best and unwatchable most of the time. The worst of it is I can't even get radio reception out where I live, so the Internet, as slow as it is in the bush, is rapidly becoming my only entertainment source and that's a bit sad too.

I have watched a little of Chris Lilley's work, but never thought it was anything special. I find a certain cringe factor about it, but that could simply be me getting older. It's a great shame that all the good old Aussie actors and talented writers have either moved to greener pastures, or died off. The only decent Aussie themed production I've seen in the past 3 years was Underbelly mark 1 and I hate violence!
Posted by Aime, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 12:03:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This characterisation of the personality traits of males does not relate to the personality characters of those males who commit Revenge Killings. `Larrikinism’ or wild antics does not relate to murder and suicide. Freeman and Farquharson do not fit this type of male characterisation.
The males who commit Revenge Killings are psychopathic personalities, which is a neurological disorder. The signs of this disorder are a lack of emotions, remorse, and sympathy for their victims. They are narcissistic and are obsessed with power and control over others, especially their wives and children. They are present in all walks of life, are of varying intelligence levels, and are in all social groups and occupations. The more intelligent psychopath is able to assert their power and control by cunning, deceit, grooming, and manipulation and so may never have resort to violence to assert their control. It is only if they are thwarted in their attempts to control others, that the violence emerges, but it is usually in the form of a passive aggression.
It is the less intelligent psychopath who uses violence to control others, and is extremely dangerous if they see their powers and controls have been lost and it is then that they seek revenge when they lose such controls and are rejected by their female partners and children, and commit the ultimate acts of violence, murder and suicide.
Psychopaths are usually able to present a false personality to others, often appearing charming and sociable, but their Mr Hyde character emerges in their control of their victims.
They are highly skilled in the grooming and manipulation of professionals, especially in Family Court proceedings.
Where there is a history of violence towards a female partner and the inherent abuse of children alleged in Family Court proceedings, the first step should be to have such individuals comprehensively assessed by a psychiatrist with an assessment of the risk of the dangerousness they present.
Posted by ChazP, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 12:59:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You pose the question, “The Family Court is sympathetic to women and to kids. Is it sympathetic to men and their needs?”.
Family Courts have ordered children into the custody or contact with fathers who are convicted paedophiles, child sex abusers, at least one father who was a drug addict with HIV/AIDS, violent offenders, drug and alcohol addicts, and mentally unstable fathers. How is that being “sympathetic to women and kids”?. The more pertinent question is, how bad does a father have to be before he is denied custody or contact with his children when Family Courts currently place paramount importance on the father's rights to contact regardless of his dangerousness to his children, as the Shared Parenting laws require and which is so articulately argued by Father's Rights groups.?. Such Father's Rights groups always seek to blame everyone else, or make excuses for the actions of such fathers as Freeman and Farquharson and the convicted paedophiles, violent attackers, rapists, and child sex abusers.e.g. "the mother must have provoked him to do it", or "The Family Court denied him his rights to see his kids", or as in rape cases, "Well she asked for it, didn't she!.".
Posted by ChazP, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 1:11:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy