A question of endings

Press, 28 June 1983, Page 19

A question of endings

It is inevitable that the final episode of “M.A.S.H.” will be shown dozens of times over the next few years, and at first it seemed best not to mention it. It appeared to have been written with the possibility of a cult following in mind. It was extraordinarily good, its subtlety and sensitivity cleverly acting as a distillation of the entire 11 years worth. It has been a brilliant mixture of the harshness and pathos of war and

of the way in which black humour need not be black in spirit. Enough of “M.A.S.H.” though. We will probably come to know its final episode by heart. Theses will be written about it and the Charles Winchester look will replace punk. It is the whole question of endings which has prompted this review. For the most part, television endings are straightforward. The usual choices are simple enough. An ending should resolve dilemmas and conflicts, or if the aim is more dramatic, should leave them unresolved and the viewer irritated. Either the hero rides off into the sunset or at the last moment it starts to rain and the horse is shot from under him. Occasionally though, an ending shows a hint of brilliance. The ending of “M.A.S.H.” was very, very good, but it was not brilliant. However, the ending of “Blood Money” was almost great. It forced a re-evalua-tion of the entire series. “Blood Money” plugged away on Wednesday evenings in a very low key way. It was not particularly compulsive viewing, but there it was in the middle of the evening and lasting for only 30 minutes. Suddenly, one had seen all six episodes and very little had happened. A young honourable was kidnapped and held to ransom by a gang of four terrorists; a German female mistressmind, an upperclass psychopath, an Irish extremist and a vicious mercenary. Slowly, the police and some army specialists pieced together odds and ends of information and pursued their quarry. Scenes alternated between police procedures and the by now hackneyed portrayal of the tensions experienced by terrorists cooped up for days on end. You’d think that by now terrorists would know that eventually they will get on each other’s nerves. Then, in the last few minutes of the final episode, everything changed. The police and army, co-operat-ing nicely, had the house under observation from all possible angles and were ready to move in when the terrorists moved out. Suddenly, an army man quietly screamed, “Go, go go” and, while the police watched, the marksmen sought their marks, and within seconds the terrorists were dead and the child safe. Finally, they fired two rounds into each body, io make sure. ~ The police could do nothing. All along, the army captain had thought the due process of law to be pointless for terrorists. His last comment was that they had guns and were bound to kill the boy. From mild midevening entertainment, “Blood Money” was finally transmuted into a serious, thought-provoking series. If society has legitimised Right-wing extremists in its institutions, then it is possible for them to step outside the law and yet remain inviolate. The point is not that it is likely or even probable, but that it is possible. And there is no safeguard against it. All of which is heady, significant stuff. It is impressive that such points have been made by a relatively quiet dramatic television programme. And it was all accomplished by an ending which had more than a touch of class. The writer is to be congratulated, but it will be “M.A.S.H.” that is remembered. And, of course, it could never happen here. Or ...? — Ken Strongman