Howard and the Missing Pearl

maltrab

maltrab

Administrator
Staff member
In several episodes, Howard seems unaware of where Pearl is, the one that seems odd to me is "The First Human Being to Ride a Hill", on two occasions Pearl was out, in one part of the episode he even checked she was not there, yet they still got a ladder out for him to climb into the bedroom, if he knew she was out, why did he not dash upstairs and attempt to grab his cycle, he would of quickly discover it was chained to the bed, there are other episodes which you may recall where a similar situation arises
 
I was always puzzled about attempts to rescue Howard , can't recall the episode but they use scaffolding to build a platform and Billy goes up to help free Howard only for Entwhistle's truck to tilt with the weight. What puzzles me is has Pearl had locks put of the Bedroom door and why , solely to keep him in ? If Howard is as cunning as he appears and pretty sure there are no locks on the doors he could easily go to the bathroom or other bedroom make an almighty racket by dropping something heavy , Pearl rushes upstairs to check and Howard sneaks down and out.
 
maltrab said:
In several episodes, Howard seems unaware of where Pearl is, the one that seems odd to me is "The First Human Being to Ride a Hill", on two occasions Pearl was out, in one part of the episode he even checked she was not there, yet they still got a ladder out for him to climb into the bedroom, if he knew she was out, why did he not dash upstairs and attempt to grab his cycle, he would of quickly discover it was chained to the bed, there are other episodes which you may recall where a similar situation arises
Click to expand...
At the start of the episode Howard tells Clegg that Pearl had locked his bicycle in the spare bedroom so I assume he had already tried the door.
 
It's one of those "this is funnier then what makes sense" situations, usually. The show is full of them. The one that always bothers me is from the period when Smiler was a lodger with Nora. There is an episode where he is complaining that she locks him out all day and doesn't let him just hand out in his room. The trio puts a ladder up so he can climb in a window, but he can't do it because its wobbly. So, their solution is for Compo to sneak in through the (unlocked!) front door to so he can hold the ladder from above?

We get the funny bit of Nora catching Compo and throwing him out, though.

In his book Alan Bell admits that sometimes they changed the script either because what Roy Clarke had written wasn't doable or was too costly or they felt they had better ideas. Makes me wonder if some of these situations reflect those kind of script changes.
 
I agree with all the points Sarkus makes here, you have to suspend belief when you watch many of the episodes. I liken it to cartoon humour, if you bear in mind the age of the characters they would have succumbed to serious injuries the amount of times they fell out of trees, into the river etc...

But that's the beauty of this amazing world Roy Clarke creates, you believe the parallel reality that is Summerwineland.
 
Well, I think they had to use the ladder to get in the window at Howard and Pearl's, even though Pearl was out, because the bedroom door was locked so that was the only access. In fact, it was preferable that she was out.
With Smiler, they wanted to get him in the window because there was no way he could walk through the house without getting caught (Or being disrespectful of his landlady). Supposedly Compo, with his decades of poaching experience, was supposed to sneak past her. Of course, he couldn't resist making his presence known to her in some likely predictable way.

I can see where Eli is coming from, if Howard were a real person, he'd be pretty reprehensible, and there are aspects of the whole Howard, Pearl, Marina conundrum that I personally don't find funny, but I liked Howard. I think that Robert Fyfe was handed a role that was more eccentricity and exaggeration than anything else and he managed to make a believable (within the environment of the program) character out of it. I think that is very good work.
 
Whilst I don't condone Howards extra marital escapades, I do feel he's got strong mitigation. Pearl clearly made his life very miserable, and also I'm fairly certain he never got any further than the occasional embrace or cycle ride! For this reason I don't see him as sleazy.

Along the same lines you could say Sam in Getting Sam Home was much worse, but he was portrayed as a more likeable character than his wife?
 
There was a lot of serendipity that occurred in the making of this show and we're getting all wound up over Howard exiting the bedroom? Howard did a lot of exiting; going to change his library book, going to do some bird watching, etc. But let's remember how Robert Fyfe, Juliette Kaplan, and Jean Fergusson came on the scene. It was LOTSW in summer stock and the three-some came in, did their thing and they actually clicked. But they all thought that it was one and done; little did they know. So let's not get our knickers in a twist over little details.
 
Barrychuckle said:
I'm fairly certain he never got any further than the occasional embrace or cycle ride!
Click to expand...
True. I'm not sure that was the indication when the characters were introduced, but at a certain point it was made clear nothing was actually going on. It leads to another possible question for posterity. Despite the show's depiction as a sleepy backwater (especially by detractors) we all know the 70's were a time of social unrest and angst. How much did that affect the development of the program? At which point did the powers that be step in and say you can't show people smoking, you can't say that, or you can't do that in front of the children, which in the 70's seemed to be staying up awfully late if they were watching some of the things they were censoring. I have read that Howard and Marina were actually the favorite characters of many children, I'm sure attracted by Howard's endless inventiveness trying to evade Pearl. I wonder if the BBC or whatever watchdog was in charge of such things said, we have a responsibility to these young viewers, make clear it's harmless, or was it a decision by the director, or how much leeway did an actor have in saying, I don't like this about my character, can we change it?
Not just in the matter of Howard and Marina. Several of the characters are first introduced with a host of eccentric traits that disappear or morph slightly, sometimes within a few episodes. Tom had the least smooth entry into a program I have ever seen. Were there problems with code - the BBC objecting to moral/social situations, was Clarke just feeling his way until things settled, or did the actors have misgivings and request a character tweak?
 
@Eithne
I've thought along the same sort of lines about the series, often long running series' become more controversial or salacious as they go on to try and keep the ratings when running out of ideas. However LOTSW is the opposite, it starts off very gritty and subversive and becomes more sanitised as the series goes on. My thoughts are that is simply how the series evolved as that's what drew the audiences. I do recall an interview with Roy Clarke when he mentions regrets about the Mrs Avery character and it's not what the audiences expected and he got it wrong. Also the series was originally broadcast at a later slot in midweek, this changed to tea time on Sundays. Again this may have had something to do with the writing as clearly there would be more families viewing at this time. I also think Alan Bell was very protective of the series and had an influence, he mentions in his book that he always wanted it to be a family favorite.
 
It was a late night show back then but when Thora Hird joined the cast they were put into an earlier timeslot is my understanding. It wasn't Hird's fault - she was fine with the more adult aspects of the show, it was the BBC that concluded that people would assume her presence meant it was family friendly. That's what Alan Bell says in his book, anyway. He supposedly had an agreement to move it back into a later timeslot near the end of the fun but things never got that far.
 
Sarkus said:
It was a late night show back then but when Thora Hird joined the cast they were put into an earlier timeslot is my understanding. It wasn't Hird's fault - she was fine with the more adult aspects of the show, it was the BBC that concluded that people would assume her presence meant it was family friendly. That's what Alan Bell says in his book, anyway. He supposedly had an agreement to move it back into a later timeslot near the end of the fun but things never got that far.
Click to expand...
You certainly know your stuff about the background of the series Sarkus! What you said certainly makes sense, I think the more family focused approach to LOTSW was the right call, during the Seymour years the viewing figures went through the roof!
 
I really wanted Seymours house. What an absolutely amazing Gaff.

I do understand some may not be familiar with the term Gaff, and to describe Seymours place as a Gaff is a tad wrong as it's far too grand to be a Gaff.
 
Barrychuckle said:
Whilst I don't condone Howards extra marital escapades, I do feel he's got strong mitigation. Pearl clearly made his life very miserable, and also I'm fairly certain he never got any further than the occasional embrace or cycle ride! For this reason I don't see him as sleazy.

Along the same lines you could say Sam in Getting Sam Home was much worse, but he was portrayed as a more likeable character than his wife?
Click to expand...
During the show it was made clear ( by his own admission) that Howard has fooled around with other women before Marina. This means that included in the history of their marriage are Pearl's efforts to try and keep her husband from straying. What exactly was she doing to make his life miserable except attempting to keep him from cheating and constantly humiliating her. Whatever Howard was, he had won her heart years before. She loved him. She tried to make his life comfortable. Despite his cheating she not only still stayed but, apparently, kept trying to do that. She gave him jobs to do around the house to try and keep him home. She even, during the course of the show, tried to remind him of things they'd done together that he seemed to enjoy. Howard never complained about Pearl herself. He only complained concerning her efforts to keep him away from Marina. And what was Pearl to do? Those were the days when most men worked and women stayed home; washing, cooking, cleaning ironing, etc.. Pearl had been in the service during the war (over 40 years before) but she'd never worked outside of the home. She was completely dependent on the lying weasel..Howard. She tried talks, yelling, threatening, physical violence (with her purse)..putting him out (and pretending she wouldn't allow him back), but again..what was she going to do without him. Once Howard realized his life wasn't actually in danger, not only did he continue to see Marina, but got worse. For years, Pearl was publicly humiliated..before her friends and community. Even at show's end, after successfully wangling his way back into the house and after a heart to heart with Pearl, he was still willing to embarrass her by trying to get back with Marina. The show is cute. I love it. You do have to suspend reality to enjoy it, the 'funny' and fun is worth it. But I will never understand how none of his friends understood the position Howard put his wife in, nor what he was actually constantly whining about. Pearl was loyal, sweet, supportive, loving, and even "mostly" polite to his trollop. (Who, by the way, had willingly been kissed and cuddled by every single one of his "pals" (except maybe Truly).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top