AN OFF NIGHT FOR ‘T.S.T.’ JOKERS

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33773, 20 February 1975, Page 4

AN OFF NIGHT FOR ‘T.S.T.’ JOKERS

“The South Tonight” was not particularly good last night. There are plenty of people in Christchurch who do not believe it is possible to make such a statement.

But Bryan’s interview with the American photographer lady was neither news nor interesting for any other reason, and his and Rodney’s attempt at a send-up of “Kung-Fu” was a failure, for the perfectly honourable i reason that “Kung Fu” is I beyond parody. i No take-off could hope to match the inspired hilarity and brilliant comic timing [of the programme itself. It is surely time for some [measure of realism and detachment to creep into the discussions concerning “The (South Tonight.” It is a very (fine local news magazine programme, which deserves its large, loyal and devoted following. Its success is due not only to Rodney and Bryan, but (also to the other gifted journalists who contribute to it. (One thinks particularly of Judy Bailey, an excellent reporter, whose slightly tragic, pre-Raphaelite good looks [make one want to run to her, comfort her, and tell her something amazingly interesting about the Lyttelton Harbour Board.)

But the programme is not the highest cultural achievejment of Western civilisation. It is not even the finest flowering of Canterbury culture, to be preserved for all time along with the Cathedral 'and the whale skeleton in the

Museum. Surely we do noti wish or expect to be watching it in 50 years time, with a completely bald Bryan and ;a Ben-Gurion-haired Rodney, calling each other “the very old feller” and lashing out at each other from their wheelchairs with walking-sticks. The programme is often excellent and deserves to be defended. But let us defend it for what it is and not spoil our case by pretending that any attempt to alter it will cause a steep increase in the death rate as a result of lowered resistance to infection. :-s ❖ 5 '.«

The trouble with last night’s “Two Ronnies” was that there were only about two funnies.

The programme fizzed for a start, then abruptly went (flat, like a Coca-Cola bottle jthat has been shaken too (vigorously. It revived, as [always, when Ronnie Corbett [sat in his large comfortable .chair and told his delightfully inconsequential story;

But that serial about the [detective has got to go. If [that is humour then Colin [Meads is Noel Coward. * Ss #

“Upstairs Downstairs” was as engrossing as always, although for once it was a little unbelievable. Hudson’s eTorts to pass himself off as an Edwardian swell seemed so out of character with the Hudson we know and admire that our credulity was [stretched further than this programme had extended it before.

; It was like being told that ‘Mrs Bridges runs a ham-

burger bar on the side, or that Lady Marjorie is a qualified panelbeater. Ralph Bellamy’s brother was a dreadful pill who thoroughly deserved the ticking-off he got at the [end.

One aspect of the programme lacks verisimilitude. [lf that is Bellamy’s, why do [we never catch sight of Bill Rowling, Rob Muldoon and (the boys? They must all drink [in some other part of the [house. s-c »’« 5-:

Here's a quick one: From which brilliant series which ended on Tuesday night is the following proverb taken?: “The gong of the mind can be struck only on one side at a time, but the seed of the poppy will never grow into the mighty oak.”

The first correct answer to reach this page on a stamped, self-addressed postcard will be thrown aside unread.

Finally, a comment on the Sutch case which we hope does not infringe the rules against sub judice comment on cases in progress. On the Late Night News, Dougal ■ Stevenson announced that evidence had been given that day by Messrs T. V. and W. Immediately one pricked up one’s ears. What had happened to Mr U? Did he give his life for his [country while taking infrared photographs of certain bottles of milk? Or is he so secret that he does not even have a letter, and no-one can tell whether he is in fact in Court giving evidence, or 'whether it is merely the curtains stirring faintly in the (breeze?