GOOD WORKS ON THE SCREEN

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33741, 14 January 1975, Page 4

GOOD WORKS ON THE SCREEN

In what proved to be a generally congenial Sunday night’s viewing, two programmes made a particular impact. One was only five minutes long; the other was a repeat. I refer to “Plain Speaking” and “479”. . The Rev. Ivor Bailey is the first clergy-man I have; seen on “Plain Speaking”, (and I think I have seen | most of them) who has mas-1 tered the art of the five-min-ute television sermon. Most of his colleagues fall into the trap of beginning their addresses with a little anecdote (‘When 1 Was in! Hong Kong . . .’ or ‘A man, once said to me . . .’) which gives them a peg to hang their sermon on but which contributes little to religious ' illumination and, more im-I portantly, wastes precious minutes of the pitiful few ’ they are allotted. They also try far too hard; to talk naturally into the camera and inevitably end up looking like men trying far too hard to talk natural-; ly into the camera. But their main problem is the nig-

igardliness of their time allo'cation. I If we are going to have I sermons on television at all, .then those delivering them lought to be allowed a proper amount of time to catch land hold their audience and |to develop their theme. There would, I think, be 'general agreement that the I most successful religious (television broadcasts of rejcent times have been those tof Dr Barclay. To the best of my recollection they lasted at least 20 minutes and — a fact of equal if not more relevance [— the good doctor was not addressing himself direct to the cameras but to a live audience. Having purchased I the Barclay programmes the 1N.Z.8.C. should have adopted them as a model. In the meantime we have (Mr. Bailey, who manages within his five-minute straitjacket to speak frankly and in a down-to-earth man- > ner of spiritual matters i without being either patron(jising or tedious.

# * s;s “479”, which I had not seen when it was first screened, was potentially a very fine programme which contained two flaws — one major, one merely irritating. The major flaw was the ludicrous and embarrassing comparison of drunken drivers with child molesters. This is not the time or the place to undertake a rigor(ous analysis of the com[parative moral iniquities of j drunken driving and child (molesting. The pc’-v is that there was no need for su:h an excrescence on a programme which had already chillingly driven its message home. High standards of acting and production combined to make a powerful impact on the viewer, and the inept comparison of the two offences merely weakened the effect. The minor, irritating flaw was the use of masks in ,the bar scene. What they were

I intended to signify, heaven only knows. Masks appear to be enjoying a vogue on New Zealand television. This is the third local production I have seen in one year which employed them. I nervously await the day when Phillip Sherry or Bill McCarthy comes on screen with one.

* S # The rest of the evening’s viewing was, as I have said, congenial. Cilla wrinkled her nose a lot in order to show us how natural and unaffected she is. “A Place in the Country”, dealing with the Welsh mansion of Plas-Yn-Rhiw, showed us >t very much” of Plas-Yn-Rhiw and rather a lot of the Misses Keating.

Fortunately their unaffected dignity ' generosity of spirit made the programme, worth watching. In “Father, Dear Father”, i Patrick Cargill demonstrated (for the umpteenth time that he is the master of the percetly - timed, understated double-entendre. “Big Brother” was even more imaginative than usual, although it is hard to imagine that any prison governor, even to protect his pe-sion, wov’' allow one of his inmates to be tortured in that particular way. K: &

Given the fact that our television is now networked I accept that we have to sit through the fire warning which relates mainly the Wellington area. It is, however, extremely boring. Furthermore, the N.Z.B.C. appears to have overlooked the fact that very few forest fires actually watch television. — A.K.G.