Two approaches with women

Press, 7 June 1980, Page 13

Two approaches with women

rßeview

Doug McKenzie

One of the differences between American and British television programmes may be that where the British rely strongly on the dramatic skills of their women to interest viewers the Americans tend towards the appeal of decoration.

This view may be only superficially arrived at since it presented itself quite suddenly after Thursday night’s' screenings; because almost everything after what used to be called the cocktail hour and before the properly judged bedtime - which should follow a cocktail hour, was . American. “Coronation Street” doesn’t count in this exercise in the same way that it is now excluded from any other •television consideration except the celebrating of its millenaries.

Leaving aside altogether the palatable opportunity for detailed research and a further report, a start for testing the .facts on the night could be made with “Wonder Woman.” What at once stood eut a mile. was that the programme was at a dangerously early hour for the very young. Miss Carter is not only a professional beauty, as proved by the winning of some important contest, she is actually beautiful. More; disturbing.

She not only looks good in spite of the funny getiip which is cut out of old

American flags, she is also a complete knockout in street clothes — and that’s the way to judge them. It must be very hard on the kids.

On to “Happy Days,” where Richie’s greatlooking mother was completely knocked out on what she had been fortifying a chicken sauce with. Marion does some surprisingly young things for a woman who must be fully 35; and in this case gripping a flower athwart laughing teeth during a certain kind of dance was a dead give-away.

“The Young Maverick” on TV2 (the others had been on TVI) had two more lookers. One was the snub-nosed, freckle-faced, wide-eyed kid next door, and was not too difficult; the other was unreasonably beautiful but fortunately overdoing the flaunting about. Over all three programmes the evidence seemed to be there: the standard of beauty was in inverse proportion to the strength of the productions. The channels are still

extremely puzzling about what they used to insist, quite outrageously, were the reconcilable aims of competition and complementarity. Now the channels are all one; presumably, therefore, they are entirely complementary and no longer have to be competitive. Yet they still, inexplicably, waste lots of screen time selling their programmes. “This is a major film which I really hope you will be able to join us for.” Why? Why bother saying any of that? Especially, why the “really” — which is grovelling for an audience.

And then, at the end, a voice, unidentified, is likely to say: “I hope you liked the movie. I know I did.” I KNOW I DID, indeed. Who on earth is this fellow who has the cheek to thrust his anonymous opinion? We’re not interested in this unsolicited expression of personal knowledge. Even if it’s only publicrelations self - applause, what good can it possibly do the channel if, up and down the country, there are lots of people who thought the movie was awful and now pull themselves together sufficiently to snarl a particularly direct comment in response to the remark.

If must be the way that they do it overseas. That’s where all the bright ideas come from.