Un uomo in casa

I absolutely love old British TV series, and especially in the sit-com department they beat all other countries. I remember this particular series quite well even though I haven't seen it in a long time, luckily it's now available on VHS/DVD so I'll be buying it soon. Nothing beats that atmospheric shot-on-videotape look most British TV shows had in the '70s, when filmed indoors. Richard Sullivan is great as the guy the two girls find in their bathroom, and the two actresses are also both excellent. Terrific stuff. The series had two spin-offs; "George & Mildred" (about the landlord and his wife) and "Robin's Nest" (Sullivan's character minus the girls). Those who think the American version "Three's Company" is better only need to look at the amount of episodes it had, and suddenly it's not so funny anymore. I think the fact that "Three's Company" was filled with more characters and ran for a whopping 172 episodes compared to the original's small cast and 39 episodes says it all. Overdoing it kills any show, and the Brits always knew quantity is not the same as quality.

The one thing the Brits know about television is knowing when to stop. This show did more with 39 episodes (& one movie) than Three's Company did with 172 episodes. While it does leave you wanting for more, I'd rather have a few excellent shows than dozens of mediocre or downright horrible ones. Hollywood should take a lesson here.

Richard was a likable bloke and the girls were cute and charming. The Ropers were much funnier than their American counterparts. I liked the fact that they dismissed the whole "Robin is gay" thing almost immediately.

If you've never seen this show, you owe to yourself to check it out.

This programme started to be hard to see in this particular TV market once the American imitation "Three's Company" (1977) started up. "Three's Company" was everything "Man About the House" was not. The British original was funny, sexy, maybe a bit salacious. And it had two cute girls, nice English ones. The grossly inferior "Three's Company" was unfunny, prurient rather than sexy, and basically brain-dead. And no cute English birds, obviously.

"Man About the House" had a proper star, Richard O'Sullivan, who'd just finished his stint as Bingham in "Doctor in the House", a *completely* different role, mind you. Rather than someone like O'Sullivan, "Three's Company" had John Ritter. Years later, it turned out that Ritter could act but that wasn't really apparent in the '70's when he gave the leading one-note performance.

Hack US magazine writers still trot out that tired old cliché about the British being prudish about sex when compared to sophisticated Americans. I've seen a couple of references of that kind in the past month. Well, that might very well have been true in the 1940's, but that was certainly not the case by the '60's, and it's not true today either. If one compares these two series from the 1970's, it's the British one that's mature, while the American copycat seems childish and leering.

I suspect anyone who had ever seen "Man About the House" was left grinding his teeth by "Three's Company" and its long and entirely undeserved run. Surely there's an all-Britcom channel somewhere where this coy ménage à trois can find a happy home again.

Having lived in both the UK and the US, and watched both the ORIGINAL, "Man About The House", and the US COPY, "Three's Company", I've enjoyed both of them, even now, in 2006.

I've just been watching M.A.T.H. on Paramount Comedy, and much as I liked Three's Company, I'm finding I laugh out loud more often, at the UK show. I loved the American re-make too, but I guess my British upbringing means I identify with the British humour more.

It's just one of many UK sitcoms from the 1970's, that US television bought the rights and scripts of, and remade with an American flavour. Most of them became very popular in the US, with few people realising they were copies of original British ideas/scripts. Others I can think of:

"The Ropers" = "George & Mildred" "Sandford & Son" = "Steptoe & Son" "All In The Family" = "Till Death Do Us Part" "Reggie" = "The Rise & Fall Of Reginal Perrin"

All were good re-makes.

Conversely, on the few occasions the British have re-made American comedies, it hasn't worked as well. I'm thinking of UK remakes of "Golden Girls" and "Married With Children" - both British re-makes sucked, big time. In the case of the Married With Children re-make, I think it failed because the whole premise of the show was that it mocked clichéd "US cute family" comedies (it was known as the Anti-Cosby Show by the writers), and such humour didn't translate to a British show about a British family.

And now it's the 21st Century, and what do we see on NBC? An American re-make of the Golden Globe-winning British comedy, The Office.

Nothing changes.

Now the series is 30 years old but it is still funny. I saw it when I was a child and I can still recall the laughters at home. It was the first British tv series thet topped the tv rankings in Spain. And even now, people remember it. Two different situations: upstairs the 3 flat mates, and downstairs the landlord and his wife. The scripts were terrific: both situations fixed perfectly. And what about the actors? all of them were absolutely brilliant, specially my dear Mrs Roper. Oh, yes. Americans made a "remake" that was OK when they copied word by word the original episodes. When they had to create new scripts it became awful and boring. By the way, I always recommend to see any show in its original version, but I must confess that Spanish dubbed version is as good as the original one.