Reflecting life, or moulding it

Press, 20 January 1982, Page 16

Reflecting life, or moulding it

f Revie J

Ken Strongman

You would think that the idea would be losing its force. But no. “Freebie and the Bean" consists of enormous American cars smashing up vast amounts of American plywood and keeping a small army of stuntmen in work. Not only this, but there is also the usual menage-a-deux in the Starsky and Hutch tradition. It is best not to question too closely the popularity of two males working in such loving camaraderie and sharing a joking relationship which will fascinate anthropologists for years to come. Perhaps it is taking the place of the family. In the usual way. “Freebie" depends entirely on these breath-taking subtleties of character and vehicular destruction. It's plots have the barren appeal of the dark side of the moon.

It prompts questions about whether television reflects life or helps to mould it. Surely, not even the worst excesses of the United States could be like this. So “Freebie" must be just a moving comic for the family 7 and so be of possible influence. Perish the thought.

Cars are expendable and those who travel in them are indestructible. Apart from this, the constant alternation between car-cracking and wise-cracking is so predictable as to be more boring than a death-watch beetle.

On Monday, though, this was a mere prelude to Rosemary McLeod. What would she be like, this

woman of weekly “Listener" satirical bite? Disappointingly dated, -unfortunately.

As an interviewer, Brian Edwards is not bad, but he is no Parkie. He does not have quite the right way with the gently probing question which sets his interviewee off in an orgy of self-disclo-sure.

A good two-thirds of this interview was spent exploring Ms McLeods romanticised memories of an essentially rather ordinary childhood and adolescence. It was a welter of home-made psychologising about background influences on the budding Rosemary, in which it is difficult to believe that even she would be much interested.

Why is that people in the public eye are so often keen to hint at what they fondly think of as a relatively disadvantaged or problematic childhood? Why were they all so outrageously naughty and non-academic at school? Why did they all have teachers so simple-minded as not to recognise their potential in their concern to create young gentlefolk from sows' ears? In a pig's eye.

Ms McLeod does undoubtedly carry the courage of her rather mundane convictions and she is articulate. But she is old-fashioned.

That squinty-eyed "seen it all. done it all" look finished 10 years ago in the rest of the English-speaking world. Particularly when it is punctuated by Edwardian grunts intended to convey "Yeah, so have I."

To repeatedly Anglo-Sax-onise faces in a TV interview with only the merest flutter of the eyes was once almost rivetting. particularly from a woman. Now. it is strangely unattractive — personally, not sexually of course. And a self-conscious lack of being self-conscious only makes it worse.

The last few minutes of the interview were much the best. To hear Ms McLeod speak about her "Listener" articles was far more entertaining than tedious and pointless interpretative reminiscences.

The blame must be laid at the feet of Brian Edwards, though. Rosemary McLeod proves each week that she is better than she appeared to be on Monday evening.