I enjoyed all three of the pieces we saw in class. Each one was unique in its references to classes and the attitudes society has towards them. In ‘Hancock’, most of the sentiments were expressed through monologue and also through Hancock’s low opinion of essentially everyone around him. I could certainly see similarities between Hancock and Fletcher from ‘Porridge’. However, before we can can draw lines between these two characters, we need to establish that class is addressed in a completely different way in ‘Porridge’ than it is in Hancock.
In ‘Porridge’, the characters are stereotypical, in some cases extremely stereotypical, depictions of the types of people they represent. A good example would be how the governor was completely engaged in matters of his fish and even sent for the medical officer while completely disregarding situations like one of the inmates eating light bulbs. This is obviously exaggerated but is meant to act as satirical commentary on how people in certain positions of society tend to act. This is how the rest of the characters are portrayed in the show (like the very unintelligent Heslop). In ‘Hancock’ on the other hand, we mostly get a one sided account of what it means to belong, not necessarily to the upper class (Hancock is clearly lower middle class at best), but rather a seemingly conceited group of people. In the lengthy rants Hancock would go on, we start to pick up on these attitudes such as the pride he takes in his blood being fully English and “undiluted for twelve generations”.
I feel that both Fletcher and Hancock try to appear better and smarter than they really are or how they are perceived to be. Fletcher has served time and knows the ins and outs of prison, and is generally a crafty man. However, it wasn’t a very smart move to blurt out all his knowledge on loopholes and glitches he knows of in the system. He did so because he wanted to appear wiser and smarter than, Godber for instance, thought him to be. Hancock is more aggressive in trying to elevate his social standing. A good example was when he narrated his list of charitable deeds, then proceed to ask an upper class gentleman sitting next to him, with an implied condescending tone, if he donates blood often. After learning how the gentleman had been there 12 times, Hancock immediately assumes a defensive stance and accuses him of showing off, or being a “big head”. The point I’m getting at here is that both of these men, Hancock and Fletcher, are desperately trying to pull themselves up and above the class, or any collective social entity, that is considered better than them. Fletcher was trying to appear smarter than Godber, who is the ‘educated’ one and is expected to be smart, and Hancock (in our particular example) was trying to appear more charitable than the wealthy upper class man, who is expected to be charitable.