Some double standards

Press, 21 October 1983, Page 19

Some double standards

PReview!

Ken Strongman

Rarely, in these hypercritical columns can a good word be found for television the American way. “M.A.5.H.,” “Hill St Blues,” “Benson,” “Barney Miller” — it is fingers of one hand stuff. Similarly, situation comedies, American or not, come in for a drubbing. It is all part of a lingering disorder known as criticus snobbitis (C.S.).

It has the effect of making one view new American sitcoms through mud-tinted spectacles. But peering through the gloom at “Cheers” one was suddenly seeing sparkling lights. Not to put too fine a point on it, “Cheers” is very funny indeed, almost as amusing as “Brass.” How’s that for suspension of prejudice? Or perhaps it heralds a recovery from C.S. , “Cheers” is set entirely in a Boston bar and has some characters almost Runyonesque in manner. Baseball is important, men and women are distinguishable, and the stranger is treated with good-humoured toler-

ance. Above all, the witticisms come fast and furious and the timing of the actors is superb. In spite of being set not to like “Cheers,” particularly since it was oft-men-tioned in the razzmatazz of the Emmy awards, it kept jogging one in the funny bone. Wednesday night at 10.30 is not the ideal time. In fact, had it not been for the nightly dose of 11 o’clock squash from the world championships, one reviewer might still be warped by his biases. My prediction is that within a few months “Cheers” will be screened earlier due to overwhelming demand from those whose hold on consciousness is tenuous after 10 p.m.

By the way, TVNZ is to be congratulated on its coverage of the squash. It may be late, but at least it is there. For those of us who play the sport it' makes excellent television. However, one suspects that anyone who has never played would have difficulty following the ball. Meanwhile, an unfortunate and predictable comparison with “Cheers” is forced by Saturday night’s “Rabbiter’s Rest” — a New Zealand sitcom set in a bar. The writer, Jon Gadsby, seems to be following the New Zealand myth in which men behave like little boys as they try to find ways of keeping their escapades hidden from police eyes. It is nothing like as good as “Cheers,” but apart from this, is just boring. It moves from one tall story to the next and when one thinks about it most tall stories are not very funny. The actors — most of the usuals plus Billy T., are fine, but in the first of the four pro-

grammes they had to labour hard to make something of the material.

So, two new sitcoms have begun and both centre on drinking. In “Cheers” the drinking is incidental and unobtrusive but in “Rabbiter’s Rest” it is central. On Saturday last, it was all about how to drive when drunk, how to avoid M.O.T. officers, and so on. And yet liquor advertising is banned on television.

Of course, the programme is an attempt at entertainment and good fun, but the good fun is based on boozing. Thus, the double standard. Liquor cannot be advertised by brand and so manufacturers cannot make money in this way, but in a more general form television writers and actors can. This is all very odd at a time when the tube is carrying harsh advertisements against drinking and driving and nonsenses about not making love to the bottle. The television makers should really get their values sorted out.