TV: Late Sitting Of Court

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31247, 20 December 1966, Page 15

TV: Late Sitting Of Court

Only the hardiest viewers seem willing to watch the screen until midnight every Saturday. The rest of us have been satisfied the late news, and perfectly happy to leave Mr Hitchcock alone with his hour of horror or mystery. But now the return of an old favourite, “The Defenders,” might well induce a change in viewing habits among those who have preferred sleep to suspense. The “Alfred Hitchcock Hour” had a large late night audience in the beginning. Like many of my friends, I

was held captive by the ingenuity of the Old Master’s plots, his technical skill, and the first-class acting in every hour.

When the series went on and on, and repetition began to rear its head, I decided that Mr Hitchcock had outstayed his welcome. I became irritated by the ponderous humour of his prologues and epilogues, and by his insistence that crime did not pay.

The final straw was his disastrous attempt to refurbish a W. W. Jacobs classic, “The Monkey’s Paw.”

IN WRONG PLACE I have seen two episodes of “The Defenders,” and I feel resentful that the N.Z.B.C. programme organisers have seen fit to place a programme of such quality in the late night spot. It does not seem unsuitable for younger viewers—the reason for showing the violence of “The Untouchables” between 11 o’clock and midnight—and it is worthy of a wider audience. Viewers who are not prepared to stay the course to watch “The Defenders” could be ‘satisfied if "Gunsmoke” was put in its place. “Gunsmoke” usually has its quota of violence, and it is a programme for Western fans. They have been specially catered for, and should be prepared to stay

awake for their special fare. Also the N.Z.B.C. is giving us another Western on Saturdays, and it is better to keep two of a kind well apart. “The Defenders” is not likely to outstay its welcome on my screen. The series is four or five years old, and we last saw E. G. Marshall and Robert Reed nearly two years ago. The new series still looks as good as ever. In the first series I am unable to recall an episode that was anything but first-class, and the new episodes are the same. They are distinguished by the quality of the writing, the excellence of the acting, and an uncompromising honesty in presentation.

LAW AND JUSTICE Honesty seems to be the keynote of “The Defenders.” It is concerned with the law and justice. But these are not butchered to make a Hollywood courtroom holiday. The defenders, Lawrence Preston and his son, Kenneth, have no need of histrionics or legal tricks. They are concerned only with the due processes of law, and a fair trial for every client. Each defence—and prosecution—is presented with dignity and restraint. The courtroom is not a theatre, and the result is to convince viewers that they are seeing the American legal system as it really is,

and not as it is usually presented by TV and film producers.

Much of the strength of “The Defenders” is derived from the fine acting of E. G. Marshall as Lawrence Preston, and Robert Reed as his son. TV producers have an unholy passion for father figures, and the opportunity to make the most of the relationship between lawyer father and lawyer son would seem too good to miss. But it has been passed by. A court of law is not Blair General Hospital, and one of the best things about “The Defenders” is the, understanding between senior and junior counsel, and their obviously genuine belief in the rights of the individual. The return of “The Defenders” to our screens is welcome. They would be even more welcome if they arrived in the courtroom an hour or two earlier.

—ARGUS

ART SURVEY A reader of the entry on art in the “Encylopaedia of New Zealand” has noted that the first section, surveying art in the country from 1642 to 1939 is a condensed version of the introduction to the catalogue of the “Centennial Exhibition of New Zealand Art,” written in 1940.