The following is commentary on Episode No. 37 ("You Can Choose Your Friends") 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
Following the death of her husband, Helen Hughes comes back to Liverpool from Australia, and her arrival is ample reason for Sefton Briggs to request that the family gather for a "welcome home" celebration in her honour. By this point in the series, we know Sefton well enough to suspect that there is more to his invitation than social motives alone. Soon it becomes clear that he wishes to exploit the occasion for his own purposes, as an opportunity to convince others to support his sale of the printing works to Dennis Pringle.
The writers (John Foster here, and of course series creator John Finch) have instated a clever mathematical device that brings considerable suspense to this and subsequent episodes. What it all boils down to is that Sefton’s son will cast the deciding vote, his ten shares sure to tip the scales one way or another. And so, though Tony Briggs never actually appears in this episode, his presence is keenly felt.
The stage is set for David Ashton’s return home on forty-eight-hour leave, and his inability to handle money makes him vulnerable prey for his crafty uncle. Before long, Sefton has taken advantage of the lad's financial straits and acquired his five percent share in the business, leaving Edwin with a precarious future. David, who finds it difficult to see much beyond today, learns too late that his desperation to settle his own petty debts has derailed his father's prospects for the years ahead.
Some random comments about "You Can Choose Your Friends"...
This episode marks the initial appearance of the refreshingly outspoken character of Helen Hughes. It also proves to be the final appearance of Philip Ashton, who returns to the war and its tragic aftermath. I have read that it was Keith Drinkel's own choice to be written out of the story line during the final season. Is that true?
A developing sub-plot, adding a welcome touch of sweetness to the mix, is the relationship between Freda Ashton and Ian Mackenzie, who are becoming openly serious about one another.
There is a funny sequence in the Ashton home when John is seen ironing his trousers and discussing the pipe dream of starting his own business. It is only when he ascends the stairs that director Bob Hird widens the shot to reveal that Margaret's hubby is in his underwear from the waist down. This is so incongruous with the serious nature of what has been discussed that it brings a smile to the face.
How sad it is to see David's gloomy expression when Peter Bryant asks him for assurance about the cheque he has just written: "I suppose it won't bounce, will it?" This cheque, by the way, serves an important purpose, elevating the sense of urgency that David feels in satisfying his creditors. At this point, he will do nearly anything to save face among his compatriots—namely, Peter Bryant himself and "Gregson in the mess hall."
The two scenes with David and his uncle are starkly contrasted. At first, Sefton is on his best behaviour, warmly receptive to his nephew's needs and yet slick enough to make David think that it was his own idea to sell the shares. "You've twisted my arm, young man," are his unctuous words. But then, after Edwin's stormy confrontation with his son, David again approaches his uncle and tries to buy back the shares. Suddenly, Sefton is all business and coldly refuses to consider doing such a thing.
There is some very fine writing when David first greets his wife—a bit of revealing dialogue that might easily go unnoticed. This occurs when he tells her, "I haven’t even been home yet. I came straight here." Perhaps unconsciously, David has as much as admitted that the place where he and Sheila have lived does not represent "home" to him. Rather, that rarefied term is reserved for the house where he spent his childhood. In a sense, he has not yet fully grown up. Sheila lets the candid statement pass without comment, but it surely must have hurt.
Gert Bak Pedersen
Richard asks if it was Keith Drinkel's own choice to be written out of the series. I am not absolutely sure if he actually asked to be written out, but some time ago Keith told me that he was not happy about his role in "A Family at War." He certainly didn't criticize John Finch or any of the other writers, but somehow he didn't feel to good about the Philip-figure. Perhaps John can tell more about why Philip 'missed' the last episodes.
Another thing, John: If you have the time, could you perhaps tell us Ashtonmaniacs if you had any ideas for totally different themes and stories within the series. For instance were there ever any considerations about letting Robert 'survive'? Were you tempted to do more outdoor scenes (not that I think that there are too few...) etc.?
John Finch
You ask some very perceptive questions, Gert. I was aware that Keith was unhappy with his role, but he wasn't alone. In every series I've done, apart from "Sam," in which there was not a single complaint, there have been actors who were not happy with their parts. One wonders why they signed on in the first place, though occasionally they do have some justification. Usually it relates to the size of the part. Understandably, they like to have plenty to do. Sometimes you don't really need them in a particular episode, but you fit them in because their contract specifies they should be in a certain number of episodes. Keith was in more episodes than I needed him just for this reason. Also, with our very limited budget resources, and they were very limited, a character away from home, needing more sets,
filming, etc., just for the one character (they can't be on leave all the time, especially from overseas) cannot be justified in story terms or in terms of the reality of that character. When you went overseas it could be for the duration. Also, actors have to be written out for reasons of illness etc. I lost one of my main characters almost at the beginning of "Spoils of War." In "This Year Next Year," I lost the main character for the whole of the final episode. He had influenza!
So far as Robert was concerned, somebody had to die to illustrate the agony of the people back home, impotently waiting their return. You can't write about a war in which nobody dies. If Robert had survived, what would have happened to the ongoing situation of Jean/Edwin, which was so powerfully acted and illustrative of what ordinary women can endure in a war? In addition to writing as truthfully as he can about the times, and trying to cope with the realities I have described, a writer in television has to be aware of budget, set storage capacity, filming time, etc., etc. It's all part of the technique.
Hope this answers at least some of your queries. One could go on and on, faced with such perceptive questions. Thank you for asking them.
Gert Bak Pedersen
Thanks a lot, John, for your answers to my questions! I hope you don't see my questions about other themes/stories within "A Family at War" as a criticism of your script. You are totally right when you say that somebody had to die to make it realistic. The only reason for me to ask was, that I think it is interesting to follow the creative process behind "A Family at War"—to hear more about the thoughts and considerations when you go through such an enormous process as writing all these episodes. In the same way, my question about why Philip was missing in the last episodes certainly isn't an 'attack' on your (his) decision to write him out. Again, it was just curiosity as to what ideas and thoughts lie behind this great series.
