Not child’s play

Press, 29 August 1980, Page 11

Not child’s play

[afternoonl TV

Liz Harvey

' a continuing delight "among what is offering for ■ ■ VO ung children on tele- - vision is the American programme, “Sesame Street.” Its aim, obviously, ■ q S . to educate, and the ■ "'manner in which this is done is always lively and . very funny. One of the most impressive things about it is f the quality of the presenters. They clearly know - how to relate to children; -they are fun but never •patronising or trying to be “one of the kids.” •? It would be nice to feel -able to express the same ..jmqualified admiration for ” local presenters. Television New Zealand seems to t-pave children’s programmes low down on the >list of priorities, and that ■j-Ps far as presenters are Concerned near enough is <jood enough. ,? < “Play School” is the s,'most professional of what ijs offered locally, its pre?■;senters enthusiastic, without being silly. They are determinedly non-sexist ®-about the roles they adopt and their singing makes up aim verve what it lacks in

■‘accuracy. One hesitation 'about the programme is that it is so neat and tidy. Children moving from one activity to the next leave a trail of debris that tends

f.to bring out the viewing mother’s less admirable - maternal traits. But that is tmore a problem of programme style than pre:■'sentation. From here things go ■ trapidly downhill. The “Fun segment .of the viewing is

hosted by Michael Wilson, who seems to think that he has to act in a frenzied manner in order to convince his young viewers that WE ARE ALL HAVING A LOT OF FUN, AREN’T WE! Leaping about and shouting a lot reminds be of the old joke about the person who shouts down the telephone because the person he’s talking to is a long way away. One of the skills of presenting any show on television is .the ability to break down the barrier created by the camera between performer and audience. Mr Wilson remains firmly on the other side of the camera. What about young Tracy, who how has her own show, “Tracy ’80”? Now, as in the days when she was hosting the afternoon programmes for children, she mostly remains firmly seated, which is just as well for she has an unfortunate nervous jiggle'.of the shoulders.. She’s pleasant enough, but there are times when I wish she would fail to break down the communication barrier because

I end up feeling nervous. I’m never convinced that she knows what she’s going to do or say next, and last Wednesday she got herself perched onto a motorbike which threatened to fall over because of the nervous jiggling. Nor was I reasured by the presence of Ning and Nong (how apt!), two pseudo- “ Sesame Street” creatures who are just plain silly.

The harshest criticism must be fore Chic Littlewood and company in “Chic Chat.” This is Television New Zealand at its most amateurish, in that it employs mediocre talent (if that is the word) and at its most offensive, in that it is so blatantly sexist.

Chic Littlewood as a ventriloquist is rivetingly bad. He holds “conversations” with a dog character, but has to resort to the expedient of hiding behind the dummy whenever it is called upon to “speak.” Unfortunately, he sometimes forgets to remain hidden, and the illusion, if ever there was one, is shattered. Then there are the mice, Willie and Maggie. Their “voices” are enough to drive one to getting out the rat poison, but it is their stereotyped roles that are their worst feature . . . Willie is lively and mischievous and Maggie is alternately cloying and snivelling. The sooner this programme. is jettisoned, the better. .

Ah, Stu, where are you now when we need you?