‘Landmarks’ marked by ambiguity

Press, 30 October 1981, Page 11

‘Landmarks’ marked by ambiguity

[ Review. I

Donglas Mckenxie

“Landmarks." which showed on One on Sundays for 10 weeks, has completed its season and may be considered reflectively. It was a series which, in the New Zealand television world, was not less than historic. It was important, durable, and quite ambiguous. Kenneth Cumberland, backed by the Department of Education and Fletcher Challenge, Ltd (not to mention Television New Zealand) set out in his own way — and, indeed. New Zealand’s way — to do what has been done, in other contexts, by Kenneth Clark, Bronowski, Alistair Cooke, David Attenborough,

Bellamv. Bamber Gascoigne, Huw Wheldon — even. Alan Whicker. The object was the master study; the means, the broad canvas. Professor Cumberland had a spiritual, if not a practical, backing by more agencies than the Education Department and Fletcher Challenge, and this is the first of the ambiguities. It seemed from the start that “Landmarks” would be an instrument for Tourist and Publicity Department and External Affairs Department at their overseas stations for years to come; and nothing as the series has

developed has caused that notion to be modified. There is nothing wrong with a permanent and favourable suitcase of New Zealand video material for official purposes, but the suggestion so far is that the series has been made for the delectation of the average New Zealand viewer relaxing in his home on an early Sunday evening without all those advertisements. This was undoubtedly one of the purposes of the production, but it is unlikely that it was the main one. Even before “Landmarks” bad reached the fourth programme in the series on

Sunday nights it was being repeated from the start on Friday mornings for schools as a teaching resource. Adults could feel, if they wished, that their role was as a pilot audience — and perhaps one in need of education. too.

Again, there is nothing wrong with schools’ use of the material; on the contrary, it was an obvious employment for it: but it might have been kinder for the average earnest adult to have had a plain indication where he fitted into the whole affair.

Adults will have a long way to go with "Landmarks" yet. It is bound to be repeated at a later evening time, and then again in the afternoons, making three showings in all for the public. For the schools, tourist bureaux, and embassies it will endure for a generation.

The series cost a lot to make: it is scarcely going to fail as a commercial venture.

There have been complaints that the Fletcher logo was given too prominent a place. Well, there it is: the mechanics of production, the pictures for the sponsor. There •is a lot of it these days, especially in sport. We should not worry, provided we are not meant to express gratitude as well. “Landmarks” must principally be considered from the artistic standpoint.

The film which was screened fell naturally into three categories: old and historic film: recent film, especially that made since the setting' up of the television news branch; and film made specifically for the programme.

The first category — the old film — was fascinating. It always is. But its screening both obscured the purpose of “Landmarks” and made the filling of hours far too easy. The news film of recent memory kept on giving viewers the impression that they were seeing nothing they didn’t already know.

Film made for the show itself was alway more progressive, although the overseas snippets seemed at times to have been terribly costly for what they were worth. In sum, the total amount of film screened, in relation to the total message, could strike the viewer as being excessive.

A tightening of 20 per cent

in the production would have worked wonders with the irrelevancies. The length which as adhered to made the episodes quite uneven in interest.

The production as a whole was the sort of viewing which could not be missed, yet too frequently the viewer was hoping for the thing to get a move on. As a broadcaster Kenneth Cumberland might have been the most ambiguous element of all. While he was vigorous and learned and conscientious, he may not have had the personality for what he was attempting to do. In sheer broadcasting appeal he could not remind one of any of the eight names mentioned earlier. It was inexcusable in a series of this length and standing that he could not develop a delivery which consistently concealed his reading of the prompter. Coupled with a grittiness of voice and some “foreign” word accentuations. Cumberland’s general presentation was not happy. His script, prepared by himself, was informative but not stylish. What the viewer was really wanting was insight; what he was getting was scholarship.

Professor Cumberland declared that the show was “a personal view." He was allowed to go too far. We could have done without a photograph of a prophetic article about soil erosion which he wrote years earlier, or an account of his success as an Auckland city councillor in the 1950 s over a drainage matter.

In some ways the last episode was the best; then it had to be reduced to absurdity by a pure James Fitzpatrick ending with Dr Cumberland walking hopefully , towards the sunset, hand in hand with his grandson.

This crashing anticlimax was perhaps characteristic of the series — a show of immense richness often blurred in focus and too indulgent towards its compiler.