ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT Performers Who Make Themselves Ridiculous

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30588, 3 November 1964, Page 7

ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT Performers Who Make Themselves Ridiculous

I have been suffering from a slight dose of Critic’s Guilt in the last day or two. Some time ago I said a few kind words about ‘‘Have a Shot” Now, having been kind, I have to be cruel to a programme that I have praised in the past. That’s why I feel a trifle guilty. There is really no reason for me to feel the slightest twinge of guilt. This is the third successive year that the N.Z.B.C. has given us “Have a Shot,” and after watching contestants week after week I believe kindness is wasted on a programme which is basically unkind to so many sincere people who just aren’t talented enough to appear on TV. Admittedly the presentation of “Have a Shot” has improved vastly since the first fumbling efforts but it is still very much an amateur show which does not merit the time and effort spent on it by the organisers. Just For Laughs I have nothing but admiration for the performers on “Have a Shot.” It takes a lot of courage to go through the nerve-racking business of making a television appearance even with the assistance of capable and understanding comperes. But I find it embarrassing to watch and listen to well-intentioned but wrongly-advised contestants making themselves ridiculous to an unseen audience. When my friends tell me they watch “Have a Shot” just for laughs I feel there is something radically wrong with the programme. The N.Z.B.C. seems to have persisted with “Have a Shot” in the belief that the programme is encouraging local talent. But how many talented performers has this TV version of the competitions discovered in all the weeks it has been running? And how much use has the N.Z.B.C. made of the finalists? At the moment 1 can recall only one contestant—the Otago singer of Western songs, John Hore—who has emerged from the ruck, and he sings more on the stage than on the screen.

As I have said before television is a searching and cruel medium. What, it has done in “Have a Shot” is chop

the contestants down to size. It is painful to see them shown in their true colours as ambitious performers whose abilities just do not match their ambitions. We have singers who choose the wrong songs, guitar players who can barely strum a tune, whistlers, and even contortionists. They try hard but the truth is that they are just not good enough. I feel it is

the heading of “Postscript.” These have been getting better in recent months, but there is still room for improvement Monday's “Postscript” is supposed to be a review of the previous week’s international and national news by an authoritative speaker on current affairs, but I am still waiting for the authoritative speaker. The latest speaker to fill the Monday night slot has been Mr A. G. Feslier, who is described as a public relations manager. Mr Feslier has experience in the fields of tourism, travel, and a(r transport; I doubt whether this qualifies him to comment with authority on what has been happening here and overseas. I dislike being lectured by a man sitting behind a desk, and there is just a little too much purple prose in his commentaries. Mr Feslier is a fluent speaker, but he needs more time and a better script. If he needs a model he could well examine the admirable “Portrait of the Week” in the “Spectator.” This is comprehensive, informative, and occasionally witty.