Wonder if Jack ever met up?

[Aitch]

Whilst on Holiday last year at Docklow I was surprised to see a camera crew and a well known Garbolino backed angler fishing the match pool... I ambled over as I knew the angler in question, and said hello and after a polite enquiry found that an angling publication was doing a feature on "Fishing down the edge" the angler had caught several small F1's and wanted a few "lumps" so he went off "dobbing" this involves someone chasing after fish and dropping a bait in front of them (hardly fishing down the edge) the magazine later showed pictures of several large carp "Caught down the edge"...

I have also heard tales about John Wilson from a large commercial fishery owner in Sussex, whether they are true or not I don't know, I suspect they were... I have also seen a "Celebrity" carper at a local water (Holyfield in Essex) doing a magazine session whilst I was there.... the "7" carp he caught, were a mystery to me as everyone on the water blanked that day/night... the magazine article used library pics to show the fish "he'd caught"

It happens... I suppose the unpredictable nature of fishing, plus tight deadlines cause the odd stroke to be pulled....!!! more than the odd one it seems... one of the reasons I leave the magazines alone these days and rely on forums for information... there's no agenda or hard sell on these pages

[Olly]

It is not just BBC thing - it happens when a promotional video or in fact any video/article/'story' where 'bits' are stuck together. The camera man could be there a week & the angler not catch! 1 weeks filming can equal a 1 hour video.
The subtle change of clothing/weather/sun etc can give it away, even leaves on the trees by one well known writer!

Just thing how boring it would be to watch a video with a float not moving for an hour!
Oh yes - there is a YouTube offering of watching paint dry!

[Stathamender]

Your average fishing session is, say 6 to 8 hours, and for much of this time, even the best ones you remember for years after, nothing much actually happens. That's one of the great attractions: those hours away from it all, gazing at the float, trotting the stream, musing on the great imponderables of life, communing with nature, eating your sandwiches etc, etc, etc. Your mind, as Yeats wrote, moves upon silence. Unfortunately this does not make for great TV. So, until there's a fishing channel that follows the Warhol approach of simply pointing a fixed camera at someone and letting it roll indefinitely (we'd all watch it, I know) there will always have to be editing. Especially if the slot you've got is only half an hour. And film crews have to be booked months in advance and can't come back tomorrow when the water might have dropped or the temperature risen. And they're very expensive. So pre-baiting, Taylor-Walker style, is a necessary expedient. And a programme has to tell a story, even if the purpose is to demonstrate a technique, otherwise nobody watches. And if nobody watches then everyone involved loses their job or goes out of business. So, like Dave Burr said, what we get is TV not reality and, quite frankly, I'm glad because I watch TV generally to get away from reality. Human kind cannot bear very much reality, a proposition proved by that appalling phenomenon Reality TV.

Where I object is when this necessary process is used consciously and deliberately to lie and deceive (one good example might be that Scottish sleb-chef a few years back). But it will always be a very thin line between editing and unconscious deception or distortion. And, as Nigel Tuffnell so rightly observed all those years ago, it's a very thin line between clever and stupid.

Come back Fyffe Robertson, all is forgiven.

[Dave Burr]

You also have to add to the mix the disadvantage of being surrounded by a film crew. Early Matt Hayes programmes just had Len Gurd with him who, being an angler as well, knew when to keep out of the way. Likewise Hugh Miles has made some wonderful films but, if you look at them and remember that just one camera was being used you will soon spot the fill-in shots.

I recall seeing a picture of John Bailey, wading in the Wye with five or six cameramen, lighting and sound men as well as director and probably a tea lady all around him. It does add to the pressure. Stef Horak was fishing with Dean Masey for chub. Dean got sidetracked by some big barbel so Stef was left to produce a chub for the camera. He baited his swim only to be asked to immediately do it again so that it could be filmed from a different angle. "But I've just baited it correctly" was his plea but no, he had to do it again.... and again. the chances of good fish were immediately decreased but it didn't seem to matter to the camera crew.

I've got a CD with a conversation between Pete Stone, FJ Taylor and Pete Wheat recorded at a Barbel Society do. Fred talked candidly about his experiences with TV people. I'll try and copy a sound clip ..... if I can Its a great anecdote.

[GregF]

Interesting debate, and I agree completely with the last few comments.

Most fishing films would be very boring if they didn’t follow some kind of narrative. A narrative or story is a construct, it isn’t real. Even when you tell a fishing story down the pub to your mates it will follow a narrative pattern with a beginning, a middle and an end. You will pick out the salient points, edit irrelevancies and hopefully end with a dramatic, surprising or reflective conclusion. If you do not do this, your story won’t be a story it will be a dull, rambling collection of unconnected details. Does turning your day into a story make it dishonest, or does it just make it more entertaining?

The film-makers craft employs techniques to tell a story such as multiple cameras and/or viewpoints, cutting between shots, fill-in shots, dubbing dialogue, narration and perhaps music. It will often require re-shoots in better light or from better angles. This may involve having to re-enact certain things like getting a bite or striking or playing fish where the action wasn’t caught well enough the first time. It doesn’t mean it didn’t happen the first time round, just that the story might be improved by doing it again. Does it really matter if the casting sequences, for example, were shot the day after the fish were landed? I take Dave’s point regarding the Stef Horak incident – it must be an advantage to work with film-makers who are also anglers (or maybe who just have a bit of common sense) – had this been the case, they might have just said: ‘OK, we’ll re-shoot the groundbaiting after you’ve caught a fish.’

And making a film, as many have said, will always require editing. Again, editing does not have to be done in a manner that sets out to deceive – catches made over three days can easily be condensed into part of a half-hour show without pretending all the catches were made in one morning. I would add here that even this pretence wouldn’t bother me too much if the film was made purely for entertainment and not say, to promote an ‘irresistible’ bait or to sell fishery tickets.

Alternatively, you could set up a camera beside you on the bank, record the whole day in one shot, from one angle and broadcast it in real time but who would watch that?

All that said, and back to the original point: I do feel that getting other anglers to catch fish for you and claiming you’ve caught them yourself is pushing it a bit too far, even for entertainment’s sake. Having never met Mr. Hargreaves, I have no first-hand knowledge of him. All I know is what I’ve seen on the screen or read about, so he could’ve been a right scoundrel for all I know. I prefer not to make too many assumptions about anyone’s character without actually getting to know them myself, and certainly not from hearsay(I've heard so many conflicting things about J. Wilson, for example, I wouldn't know who to believe). Obviously it's too late to meet Jack, however, on balance, and as I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, it is my gut feeling that he would not have cheated in this way. I hope so. I also hope he caught up with his ‘detractor’ and put him right.

[Dave Burr]

I have traced and copied the sound file I wanted but for the life of me cannot work out how to make it into something that can be shared with you guys. If anybody is a whizz with these computer thingies I'll happily send the MP3 to them...

[Nobby]

Actually, I have heard that Jack had a special 'small' landing net made to make his catches look bigger. I have no idea if it's actually true....I've been watching him all week on DVDs and most of the time he's using a ratty old hand-made net ( full size ) that belonged to his late-uncle.

There's plenty of episodes of him fishing alone, but they're edited down to just a ten minute slot and two big roach in that short a time looks quite impressive, but watch the shadows and you can see he was there for a good long time.

I too have heard the tales about the TV anglers with teams of pre-baiters and the like, but you have to see it from their side...who would watch a fishing programme that featured no fish being caught? John Bailey did one once...the Wye was deep and coloured so he went to a Welsh mountain pool and blanked....it was the most boring bit of fishing TV I have ever watched.........I doubt it would get aired again.

As to day-ticket venues that allow 'celebrity' anglers to fish through the night and show a big bag to the cameras making out they've had a great day at a superior venue........Marsh farm anyone? Duncan Charman and Bill Rushmer are frequent visitors there.....

[Stathamender]

There's a good potted biography of JH on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Hargreaves. Not quite the unsophisticated countryman he sometimes tried to appear as and he had a private life of the kind often referred to as 'colourful' or 'complicated'. According to this there was a full length bio published in 2006 and there may be something there on the fakery allegations. I was fascinated to learn that he was at one time editor of Picture Post (but then a lot of people were after Hopkinson was sacked) and worked with my second great photographic hero Bert Hardy (HCB will always be Number 1).

[Stathamender]

PS Apparently the edition of Tight Lines next Friday will show Duncan Charman blanking after pre-baiting a pitch for three weeks. Wonder if he's been reading this thread?

[Nobby]

I really don't know what to make of that bio on Wikipedia....it is nothing like the story of his life that Jack gradually tells during the episodes of Out Of Town, where he makes it quite clear he grew up on a farm in Yorkshire, working amongst pigs and cattle and controlling heavy horses.

That said, how would such a farmer's boy ever end up on the Nugent Commission in a Britain still divided by class?


And I never believed for one moment that he couldn't afford a fishing rod in 1980 and had to make one from a discarded fly rod tip section......

I take great interest in the Commission, by the way, as its president, Lord Nugent, made one decision that has blighted all our lives around here ever since, namely not to return Dunsfold Airfield to farming after the War, as promised.


Perhaps he made the decision so as to appear fair-minded as he lived on the flight path himself, but the consequence was that it was eventually gifted to British Aerospace who gave it away too and the current incumbent wants to build 3500 houses next to our little village regardless of employment opportunities, drainage, surrounding roads or other factors. It seems the local planners might finally let him have his way even though 13,000 homes have just been built 10 miles away.

I suggest the next thing they build is a Job Centre because there isn't any work around here already..........thank God I am now retired......

Returning to Jack's bio on Wikipedia you'll see at the end he was step-father to a Simon Baddeley. It is he who has tirelessly researched Jacks film output and recently put it out on DVD, though reading his description of the work involved I was left with no clear idea who owns the rights to it...Simon was mortified to discover he did not as he had thought from Jack's will.

One last thought...am I the only one to think Jack quite the worst TV presenter ever? He forgets what he wants to say, though occasionally saying outrageous and untrue things, ...he rarely if ever looks at the camera, instead allowing his gaze to wander around the film crew and he nearly took Stan the cameraman's eye out with that home-made fishing rod