ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENTS Kiwis On The Telly

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30481, 1 July 1964, Page 7

ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENTS Kiwis On The Telly

[By

C.C.]

There is something in the New Zealand character which makes us regard lightness of touch with suspicion. We are so afraid of betraying a lack of intellect that we confuse stodginess with intelligence. That, I think, is the trouble with two TV programmes today—“ Platform” and “After Dinner.” The N.Z.B.C. tries hard, and has come up with quite a good idea in both these programmes. With the right treatment they could be stimulating and amusing. But, please, dear panel members, try to have a sense of humour. You can be informative and entertaining at the same time. “Platform” has certainly improved since most of the politicians have been removed. Whether right, left or centre, there is a sameness about the political mind, a cautious approach, a “don't quote me” attitude, and a refusal to betray an original though. Nothing can be more boring to the TV viewer than to hear a question put by the chairman, and to know exactly what the answer will be, according to the political convictions of the person reply-

ing. Unfortunately our political panelists don’t seem to have realised this. Dry Old Bones There are times when I feel sure Mr Macaskill is as impatient as I am with his “Platform” members. So often the question has been treated as a large, tough bone which has to be steadily ground to powder. It has not been even a juicy bone to produce a good healthy squabble, but too often an old, dry one that has been gnawed as a duty. Most of the questions have been dull. I’m still waiting hopefully for something more provocative, something that will shock me out of my lethargy. I don’t suggest “Platform” should be faced with such challenges as “Do You Believe in Beatles” or “What Do You Think of Topless Dresses.” Such flippancy would be treated with the scorn it deserves. But surely there are more interesting and controversial issues to discuss than the usual one of trade, defence etc. Women’s Angle Things do look a little brighter now there has been a woman on “Platform” for the last two weeks. Unfortunately I feel—as always when one lone woman is in the company of New Zealand males—she is treated with tolerance, not as an equal.

I am no suffragette, but I i think there should be women on “Platform” piore often. Women watch TV as much as men, and a feminine viewpoint would often add a little ' bit of yeast to lighten the 1 panel’s dough. Women have [ decided views on a subject, 1 they are usually more arti--1 culate, and I believe they can 1 see a problem from many 1 different angles. ! “After Dinner” is an interesting new programme. But 'it suffers from the same malaise as “Platform”—lack ■ of sparkle. The ernest after- ' diners lost a golden opportu- ! nity last week when a quota- '■ tion from Sir Osbert Sitwell—- ' “educated during holidays • from Eton”—was treated as if 1 it were a piece of damp blot--1 ting paper. Everyone was so ' serious I wondered if they • were being deliberately obtuse. It took them so long 1 to decide that it was the usual ’ Sitwell tongue-in-cheek rel mark (an extract from his i entry in “Who’s Who” by the . way). Professor Guy Manton is a charming and urbane host, ( perhaps because he is an i Englishman, not a Kiwi. He, at ■ least does not seem to be in • danger of taking light-hearted i quotations too seriously. If ! he could infect his quests with I a little of his easy manner i the series could be most entertaining.

[ I am puzzled why “After i Dinner” is not more spon- . taneous. After all, these men > are supposed to be chatting ■ informally over coffee after ■ dinner. Perhaps they would : be happier if they were able ) to drink their coffee while it , was hot I have seen them ■ peering suspiciously into their i cups. And why not'a liqueur to ' go with the coffee? But, of course, this might be a dread- . ful breach of our licensing ■ laws. i Most of all I would like to : see one guest with some ■ definite ideas. I wouldn’t mind • if he was hopelessly opinion- • ated and completely wrong—- ■ at least he would be alive and ; kicking. r What we really need in all ’ these panel discussions is a ’ rebel. Someone like Malcolm , Muggeridge would be an asset. , You may dislike him but you • cannot ignore him. A touch of his kind of waspishness may ! be irritating, but it does make ’ people sit up and take notice. “Platform” and “After t Dinner” have different producers, and the format is J different. But there is a dant ger of both being blighted by i the same disease—conformity. I There seems to be no place j for the noncomformist, no t place for the personality. • Is the fault, dear Mr ■ Stringer, In ourselves or in the N.Z.8.C.?