TV With C.C. A Bit Much Square

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30783, 22 June 1965, Page 13

TV With C.C. A Bit Much Square

T have been disappointed with “Montage,” the latest offering from Channel 3. It reminds me of the offerings of an adequate hut unimaginative chef who serves up a special pie each week.

The pie is quite attractive on the outside, it is well served, but when it is opened there is very little inside, and what there is consists mainly of the same old ingredients.

“Montage” suffers greatly from lack of variety. This may not be entirely the fault of the producers. I think they are prisoners of their own idea, which is to serve up Canterbury week after week even if they don’t have enough material. And I have a sneaking suspicion that someone at Channel 3 decided that as radio was giving its listeners a “Canterbury Roundabout" television should do the same for its viewers. CLOSE TO CENTRE

One of my chief complaints about “Montage” is that it has been sticking too close to the centre of the city. Last week 1 had to return again to “Our Square.” The programme went over the same ground as it had done before, and I felt that “Montage” had reached the stage where its producers were scratching desperately for a new subject of conversation.

The talk about Cathedral square made me feel howvery parochial we were, and it revealed once again that the N.Z.B.C. still needs good

interviewers for a programme of this nature.

Ann Hargreaves is not a good interviewer—she seems to be learning as she goes along—and I don’t think she or any other interviewer can produce good results when they have to use the off-the-cuff street interview technique. So many New Zealanders are inarticulate or suffer mental lockjaw when a microphone is pushed at them that I was not surprised to hear such impressions of the plan for the Square as the Australian comment “pretty good for New Zealand” and the pallid comment “looks quite good to me.” In the second half of “Montage” last week “Just What Makes a Model” contained nothing new. “Modern Art” did not live up to its title. It showed School of Art students hanging their paintings in the Durham Street Art Gallery. This had some good photography but was far too long, and was spoiled by bad lighting and too many people with their backs to the camera.

MISSED ANGLE Dave Clark, of the Dave Clark Five, was interviewed by Murray Forgie, and Peter Sharp looked at an organ built by Bernard Bicknell. The Dave Clark kind of interview is done just as well or better in “N.Z.B.C. Reports” or “Postscript,” and I don’t know why it deserved a place in the programme. Peter Sharp’s contribution would have been improved if we could have seen and heard Mr Bicknell

talking about the trials and tribuations of an amateur organ builder. His story has been told in print, and I felt that “Montage” missed an opportunity to make a fresh approach to the subject. “Montage” may improve but I have no high hopes for it. At the moment it is just reportage without much imagination or inspiration. The time and effort spent on its compilation might be devoted to more detailed treatment of single subjects. As a TV viewer I am allergic to short snippets of what look like offcuts from the news. And I do want to be transported outside Cathedral square and its surrounding streets occasionally. QUICK LOOKS I was delighted to read that Violet Carson was awarded the 0.8. E. in the Queen’s Birthday Honours. How would Ena Sharpies have reacted to the honour? Probably with just a sniff, and perhaps another bottle of milk stout for her cronies. What I will never know is what she thinks of the Beatles. M.B.E. I won’t have to watch “Challenge Golf” much longer. But the television golf devotees will probably be pleased to know that I can’t win. The N.Z.B.C. is reported to be considering more programmes of this type, including some with Bob Charles. Channel 3 does deserve some bouquets for the second series of “Youth Wants to Know.” It has had some good subjects for interviewing, particularly the English actor, Peter Jones, who delighted me last week. But why does the panel include someone who is an awful example of how badly English is spoken in our schools? Surely the producer knows that the letter “I” is not spelt or pronounced “oi.”

Mr Magoo is not everybody’s favourite, but he is one of mine. I am glad to learn that I can look forward to another series about this loveable bumbler.