OU on the BBC: Silverville - Silverville: What do you think?

I write as a former family carer, a lone pensioner and an OU student all rolled into one.
The series is over, but the comments continue. For programmes which purported to be about the new phenomenon of retirement villages in the UK, they were low on facts and high on controversy. Nothing was said about the history of the retirement village movement, either overseas or in the UK. Nothing was said about the different types of villages springing up here - their accommodation,facilities and care services vary widely. Nothing was said about the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's pioneering "ageing in place" concept at Hartfields in York. Only a few seconds were used to show Lovat Fields' wide range of facilities and activities. Very little was shown or explained about the village's care services, though in the final programme, someone had obviously worked hard with Eileen, the dementia sufferer, in labelling items throughout her home.
"Silverville" has, in my view, set the whole retirement village concept right back. The reality is that specialist housing with activities and care is desperately needed throughout the UK. Yes, there are problems when large numbers of people live on one site, but the availability of company, activities and care services, compared to living in isolation and fear, means a new life, rather than existence, for those who can choose to move to a retirement village. I wonder what help Jan and Ken were offered at home before the decision was made for Ken to move alone to Lovat Fields. Surely care and support could have been offered to them both, wherever they chose to live?
Bart Cope's "Society Blog on Silverville" demonstrated graphically the gulf between the old and the young in our society, and how he enjoyed bridging that gulf by learning from, and sharing experiences with, the Lovat Fields residents. I hope he can use all that experience to improve perceptions of ageing in future programmes.
Netier the BBC nor the OU emerges from "Silverville" with much credit. Perhaps future programmers will note and act on the large amount of comment on the series.
Older people are not just interesting or amusing sociology research material - they are what you will be in just a few years' time. A bit more respect and undertanding for older people would not come amiss.

The series finished last night with a focus on Eileen, aged 70 and with Alzheimer's. Unlike some of the earlier episodes this one did not shift between different residents. The only other voices were of people who were concerned about or caring for Eileen. Eileen has been involved with guiding throughout her life and one of her former guides, Linda, has continued as a a life long friend who visited and supported Eileen at Lovat Fields.

It was clear that Eileen's dementia marked her out from other residents. from some of the others we heard about Eileen knocking on people's doors and being inappropriately dressed. it was clear from both their comments that some of the other residents felt Eileen should not be living at Lovat Fields. At the same time, Eileen was involved in a 'periodic mental health review' so see what plans should be made for her. It seemed as though extra care was to be provided so that she could stay at Silverville but at the end of the programme we were told that she has moved to a home specialising in caring with people with dementia.

I was struck in watching Eileen's story by how little choice she was able to exercise over her life. David's post of the 24th August rightly suggests that it is too easy to see older age as a problem and points out how many older people do have choices and opportunities. But Eileen's story showed how these can be closed down by Alzheimer's.

By coincidence, I listened to Laurie Taylor's programme, 'Thinking Allowed' on Radio 4. He was interviewing Professor Paul Higgs about old age. Prof Higgs was suggesting that for many older people age was less important than lifestyle. However for people in the 'fourth age', which is marked by frailty and infirmity, old age is linked to the powerlessness we saw so vividly with Eileen.

I think the series has a whole has given us an insight into what it can be like getting older. It's been clear from your comments that you feel that ageing brings out both the best and worst in people. Food for thought indeed.

After all, all that really matters is the present and all we really know is the present. The residents of Silverville give us a glimpse of what might be the future, and for that, we owe them, not because we are wiser to the future, but because of them, we are wiser to the present.

Silverville First 4 episodes. As a resident of Lovat Fields and engaged during some time talked to your local production crew during the time of filming, in 2007/8 I find your editorial production and entertainment and information released by the programme somewhat limiting. This is endorsed by reading 'Bart's' biograpgh. You have an an agenda of old age in the UK as a general problem. What you have not highlighted is the different choices people have the oportunity to take, and how they make their informed choices. We are lucky in Milton Keynes, maybe this is above the national average of choice. What does your research say? What are you trying to promote?

I agree with the last posting that watching Silverville does make us think about some of the really important issues in life. The previous posting also seems to be suggesting (rightly) that we should value what we have - as the song goes- 'you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone'.

The 'star' of tomorrow's episode is Bill McCloskey who has always lived an active life. One of his many claims to fame is that he helped to shape Milton Keynes as is is today. The big question is - what will he think about Silverville?

Last night's episode introduced us to some new characters including Brenda and Jim. Brenda keeps her self very fit with daily exercise and belly dancing. Jim, who used to work as a gas fitter likes his own company.

Brenda saw her exercise as a way of 'not letting go'. Jim seemed to prefer the company of cats to other residents at Lovat Fields and was quietly upset when his cat died. I thought his suggestion that he might put his left over cat food in a sandwich rather than waste it might indicate a rather wry sense of humour.

The other 'issue' that was touched on in this episode was that of preparing (or not) for retirement. There were one or two residents who quite openly said that they had not 'scrimped and saved' for their old age. It was clear that there was a certain level of resentment from others who had saved for their retirement.

Do you think that places like Lovat Field should be reserved for people who have saved - or should they be available to meet the needs that some residents clearly have?

I think the previous post is really helpful. It helps to remind us that what ever we watch on the TV (or hear on the radio or read in the newspapers) is the end product of an editing process in which some aspects of the story of highlighted and others lost. I think the other aspect is that stories in the media grab our attention more if they simplified, perhaps by having someone who's the 'bad' person and someone who's the 'good person'.
But stories about ageing and caring are very rarely this sort of simple story and are more often about people trying to do they best that they can in the circumstances.

It's interesting that this forum has had the most response to the 'simplified' version of Ken and Jan's story but far less about some of the other stories that people are telling about themselves and Silverville.

This week's episode focuses on keeping active in later life. Keeping active is often seen as a way of 'fighting off' the effects of old age - on the 'use it or loose it' principle. Activity is often the basis of highlighting some older people as being untypical and newsworthy. I wonder if this is how 92 year old Brenda will be portrayed this week?
But at the same time if older people don't stay active they are seen as 'letting themselves go' - this somehow makes it easier to blame older people themselves, for example, if their health deteriorates.

Any see last night's programme?

It focused on Keith and Liz, Bert and Rosie and on Ken.

Liz and her family tried very hard to look after Keith as his Parkinson's worsened. Eventually additional care was brought in to give Liz a break and to get some sleep.

Rosie told Bert that the engagement was off before traveling to France to tell him it was back on again.

Ken seemed to be doing well. Walking instead of using his wheelchair, going to the gym and playing carpet bowls - but he did say that he still did not think of Lovat Fields as 'home'.

I thought all these stories were touching in their own. very different, ways. They also all highlighted the importance of close relationships in sustaining us as we age.

I guess that both Amy and Elephant are saying that in a similar situation they would have stood by Ken.

Is this partly because this is what wives are 'supposed' to do - put it another way - if it had been Jan who had had the stroke, would be as critical of Ken if he had put her in a home?

What if Jan had been older than 56 - would it make any difference if Jan was 86?

Last nights display of disgustingness from Jan really disturbed me.

'Elephant' is clearly as touched as I was by Ken's evident distress at having to move from his home.

Does anyone think that different interpretations might possible? In some ways can he be said to be 'better off' or 'happier' once he had moved to Lovat Fields? He did seem to be doing rather more for himself. Perhaps he was slightly more independent but rather less happy.

I'll admit to being a bit wary about the word 'should' (as applied to Jan in the last post). I think that it can be quite hard to be prescriptive and say what other people 'should' do when we don't actually know all the detail of some one else's situation. Again, I'm not denying Ken's evident heartache but he did seem to agree that he had taken Jan for granted.

Last night's episode got me thinking about two things.

The first was this issue of happiness. How far should we expect to be 'happy' as we get older. And (back to the question raised by Elephant) how far can we go to try and achieve our own personal happiness? A lot of the programme seemed to be about people trying to recover or cope with the loss of happiness they had experienced with their 'life partners'.

The second thing that struck me is chronological age does not by itself tell us very much about people. As Peter and Connie made clear -their feelings (at the ages of 72 and 70) were not very different from those they had at the ages of 18, 30 or 50. I think this surprsied them as much as anyone.

Please let us know your responses to last night's programme. And do you think it will be 'off' or 'on' between Bert and Rosie?

Janet should remember her vows. She didn't hide her excitement after off loading Ken. It was heart breaking to watch her tell him about finding herself another man in future. This after he'd said they were husband and wife despite their separate lives. Heartless. And she accused him of being selfish!

There's a fair amount of unanimity in these posts. I was talking to some one (a man in his 20s) who saw the the programme and summed it up (quite well, I thought) as 'sadness and sex'.

I have a lot of sympathy for the view that the programme might have the effect of putting off someone who was thinking about going into a retirement community - for the reasons that earlier posts have touched on. But I think mjg525 does make the interesting point that the sexual needs of older people are not often talked about so openly.

I understand that different presenters each took responsibility for two of the six films that make up the series, so it will be interesting to see how their approaches differ - and which ones you prefer.

I gather that this week's episode looks at the issue of the decisions and the difficulties faced by carers. I hope you'll watch it (even if, like the posts to this site) you were 'put off' by episode 1.

Do let us know what you think about the treatment this issue gets.

And if there's anything else that strikes you about tomorrow night's programme - let us know about that too

I do hope that future programmes include more about the village itself, preferably from the residents' viewpoints, to give viewers some idea of what it's really like to live in the village and use its many facilities. However, I expect that won't be seen as "entertaining" enough. Jonathan Hughes - I disliked the first programme's concentration on "dating" and relationships. Made the place seem like the site of the worst kind of singles holiday. Would have been better kept till later in the series, but at least it acknowledged that sex is not just for the young, something we oldies have kept quiet about till now!

Good to see the programme up and running. I also caught Bert and Rose from Lovatt Fields on the BBC Breakfast programme along with Sheila Peace from the Open University and thought that they all came over in a very natural and relaxed way.

I also thought that it was a pity that Edwina Currie who appeared to talk about Esther Rantzen standing as an MP chose to focus on her age and suggest (twice) that she should take up knitting.

Do you think this counts as ageism?

I thought that the first episode was interesting last night. It focused quite a lot on relationships and sex - do you think that this was a good way to get the series underway? Are the people who appeared to make some fairly frank comments typical of all the residents, or indeed of older people who have lost their 'life partner'?

Let me know what you think.

We're interested to hear your thoughts on these questions - and don't forget you can also order your free advice booklet:
http://www.open2.net/silverville/priceofoldage_booklet.html