‘THE FAMILY’ FARCE

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34128, 14 April 1976, Page 4

‘THE FAMIL Y’ FARCE

(By

A. K. Grant)

During its short existence television has managed to provide for our viewing pleasure some pretty daft programmes, but surely nothing as screwv as the 8.8.C.’s “The Family” has ever been served up before?

The basic premise of this piece of idiocy is that the Wilkins family of Reading will continue to lead completely normal lives, of great interest to us all, even though they are aware (as how can they not be) that those lives are being recorded by a film crew for transmission on national television.

Just how absurd this premise is was shown on Monday night during the discussion between the daughter and her boyfriend as to when they should get married. The daughter wanted a date to be named as soon as possible so she could be married on television. Her potential but reluctant groom was quite properly unwilling to have his nuptials occur wtihin the context of the solemn farce of this programme. The discussion would not

have taken place in the way that it did were it not for the fact that it was being recorded for television, and was therefore as total a non-event as could be imagined. Presumably the Wilkinses were paid for this pointless intrusion into their lives, and the benefits derived from those payments form the only justification for the programme. For the right money I am prepared to allow a television crew to live at our place and record such intimate and revealing moments as our new kitten doing something nasty on the carpet, our 13 - month - old daughter emptying a pottle of yoghurt into the tray of her highchair. and my wife and myself having an intimate and revealing discussion over who is to have the front half of the paper in bed on Saturday morning. Such intimate revelations. or perhaps they would be better described as searing insights, will surely establish once and for ail, the true nature of the late twentieth-century society. ;*< The second programme in

the “Winners and Losers” series. “Big Brother, Little Sister,” was outstandingly good. It formed a direct contrast with "The Family,” in that although it was a piece of dramatised fiction, reality burst forth from every frame, whereas “The Family,” about real people, could not have been more artificial.

Roger Simpson, who adapted, Roger Donaldson, who filmed, and ian Mune, who directed “Big Brother. Little Sister” deserve the highest praise. It was hard to believe that the same team had been responsible for the previous week's “Shining with the Shiner,” a tedious piece of pawky gimerack humour.

Much of the success of “Big Brother. Little Sister’ was due to the appealing performance of Julie Wehipeihana as Janey, but the main strength of the programme lay in the fact that it made us feel it was true. It was a perfect example of truth conveyed through the medium of art. J-i Apologies seem to be all the go at the moment. On “Tonight,” Keith Ovenden apologised to “The Dominion,” and on Saturday night Television One apologised to Sir John

Marshall. Having re-read this review I think I should apologise to the makers of “The Family” and to the Wilkins family for any distress I may have caused them. 1 meant what I said, but they might have me over a barrel if we ever got into court. 1 apologise for putting that forward as the reason for my apology. 1 further apologise to the makers of "Big Brother. Little Sister,” in case my praise has not been fulsome enough, and I would also like to apologise to the Editor and proprietors of “The Press" for submitting this review for publication. Lastly, 1 would like to apologise to my wife for the support and encouragement she gave me during the composition of this review, and for anything that might crop up during the day.