Peter potter does indeed conform to character progression as in any film, as a side character its important he has a role that helps pad out the fims runtime and also add interest to the main characters. His interactions whilst planned out are indeed intended to take him from henpecked to master, ready to throw off the hated camping holidays which his character attempts to resonate with the viewers who dislike the camping experience, it is not a inward journey of the such you express, tho if you wanted to place such subtext onto it, it fits but takes a bit of crowbarring and assumption to enable and tho u attempt to illustrate with such profound revelelations they clearly arent part of the character development past getting from a to b in movies runtime.
Peter potter isnt even one of the main characters so rothwell would NOT have put so much context into his role, if he wanted this in the film it would have been in the main character of sidney boggle.
I dont think talbot rothwell would admit to it being that deep at all, this is your very pribate interpritation. Talbot never put anything with any kind of social commentary beyond joke shop humour and quick cut british comedy..thats not to put them down but no, talbot would not agree with this and would say thats what you have interpreted. Talbot was a fantastic writer but subtext isnt one of his fortes(edit: within the carry on style of humour)
such a shame that it would be impossible to release these light-hearted and funny films in this politically "correct" days. No one was injured in any way in any of them.
I'm in the US. As a kid watching late nite tv, the CARRY ON stocking tops and Benny Hill convinced me Britain was the most depraved nation on Earth. And it was neat! I was waiting for the stethoscope to rise.
Interesting concept, though if it’s Rothwell who wrote it, guessing it is, it goes against his take on the films who - I believe - said he saw it as a continuation of music hall entertainment. To the best of my understanding he wrote around 3 a year, which is an incredible achievement, and would never have had the time to write something so complex and layered. Neither do the other films have a subtext so it’s inconsistent. However, giving the benefit of the doubt, he could have based the character on himself and found this as a means of expression. I don’t think we’ll ever know.
Be careful. Satire this may be, but there are a lot of vehement radicals these days who would probably take word for word this 'analysis'...but then again, I guess that's there problem.
Carry On movies were about an hour and a half of silliness. One liners and innuendos. It was humour of the 50’s and 60’s and never proclaimed tobe high art. Just escapism. Nowadays it would probably spin wokies mad.
