Page Three: The Naked Truth
Channel 4, 9pm
****
FOR all that this documentary focussed on the women who appeared on Page Three, what struck you were the men.
They were everywhere. Taking the photos, in editorial meetings, commenting on models’ bodies, the chat show host who groped Sam Fox live on air. All of them earning a wage, a cheap laugh, from the exploitation of women.
Ah, here we go again, humourless feminist railing about a bit of innocent fun. That was the other constant in Toby Trackman’s bittersweet film – the use of the word “fun”. We had so much fun, says one former Page Three model. It was a fun ride, says another. But not for all of them, we saw.
It has been half a century since the British tabloid reading public first opened a paper to find a topless woman gazing out at them. As weird as that may sound to young women today, it was routine, as common as adverts for cars or shampoo.
The bringer of breasts to the British press was one Rupert Murdoch, esq. Within a year he had doubled the circulation of the Sun and other red tops wanted in on the action. There were bidding wars for certain models.
At this point in the story, the era of posh gels Jilly Johnson ("My parents were a bit speechless") and Nina Carter, the tone was light. Cue the arrival of Kelvin MacKenzie as editor of the Sun. As media commentator Roy Greenslade sniffed: "He was much more vulgar in his approach." After MacKenzie came the Sport. The women got younger, the poses more daring. When one paper published photos of a 15-year-old and promised to show her topless on her 16th birthday it was time for the law to finally intervene.
Samantha Fox, one of the most well known of the models, was just 16 when her mother sent a photo in for a competition to find the next Page Three “star”. A photographer told her she had “the face of a child but the body of a woman”.
If your flesh did not crawl at that, there was worse to come. Tales of photographers promising models that shots would stay private, of pictures being sold on to porn mags, of having to go to school the day after publication, of newspaper stings and scandals.
It was not all sleaze and exploitation. As the majority of those interviewed acknowledged, Page Three had its advantages, not least of which was money. Young women from predominantly working class backgrounds could earn more than they ever thought possible. The smart ones invested it (one bought property in London), or, like Fox, embarked on another successful career, in her case singing.
As Trackman’s film showed, almost as long as there was Page Three there was a campaign, initially led by MP Clare Short, to get rid of it. Pilloried in the press and by many fellow MPs, she was as clear today as then why it had to go. “What Page Three says is take me, use me, throw me away.”
There could have been more on the campaign, much in the way another recent documentary, Miss World 1970: Beauty Queens and Bedlam, picked apart the famous flour-bombing of Bob Hope live on television. What were the early tactics? Why did it take till 2015 for The Sun to quietly retire the feature? Nor was much said about what came after with the internet.
Yet it was right that most of the focus was on the women themselves. Fox was among the best of the bunch: funny (she thought a fan blowing cold air at her was to show her hair off at its best), and with a story about a well-known pop star that would have you rushing out to topple his statue had anyone been daft enough to erect one.
At the outset, the film had set itself the simple question: was Page Three good or bad for the women involved? Answer: for a few it was good, for some of the time. In Fox’s words: “None of us were forced into doing it. We did it because we loved it.”
As for the rest, anyone who came out of this hour thinking Page Three was all good, clean fun had really not been paying attention.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel