Zest and brilliance at week-ends

Press, 13 April 1984, Page 19

Zest and brilliance at week-ends

Week-end television is now so varied and good that it needs comments from many angles. “McPhail and Gadsby” has (or have) begun again with some zest and the usual topicality. Most of the newsworthy politicians were seen through their satirical monocle, from Keith Allen mania to Mike Moore’s shagburgers. Best of all though was the “fervently patriotic message from the alleged Minister of Education.”

Anyway, their material was good, the new faces on the programme were a good fit, and the enthusiastic pace was just right. The problem will be, as it is each year, to keep up this standard of sharp-paced everyday relevance. Let’s hope they manage it this time.

iKen

Screened at 8 p.m. on Saturday, after “Fame” and opposite the rather impenetrable “Beau Geste,” “McPhail and Gadsby” was probably watched by a large audience. Whereas, “Barchester Chronicles” in all its sumptuousness had finished and was watched by ever-decreasing audiences. The last episode was satisfaction itself. Mrs Proudie was viciously brilliant, Mr Harding was superb and lovely and Dr Grantly

steamed and fumed for one final time. Good things happened to whomsoever they should and Obadiah Slope was well and truly fixed. “Barchester” was magnificent television, with subtle and scintillating acting and yet its ratings have been consistently lower than the usual Sunday night Beeb cultural shot-in-the-arm. Why? Many, one of whom is on the end of this typewriter, would argue that “Barchester” was as good, perhaps even better, than “Brideshead.”

Perhaps it was watched by fewer people than one might expect because it was not dominated by the obvious English setting of the grand house. Or because it did not involve an obvious historical figure such as a

prime minister. Or because it did not have an obvious moral message as did “Brideshead.” Perhaps. More likely in my view it was because it was entirely fictitious entertainment and was full of intricate nuances. So, it actually needed a little work to be put in by the viewer. It was active rather than passive television. Other week-end programmes have even dramatically lower ratings than “Barchester,” in spite of being splendid. For example, “Jazz Seen” at 5 p.m. on Sundays is the sort of programme than can make one feel privileged to have a television. It would cost an enormous amount to have an uninterrupted hour of Dave Brubeck or Dizzy Gillespie and to have them

introduced and commented on by a knowledgeable enthusiast. “Jazz Seen” contains the best of its kind and yet it is watched by few people. Amazing? No, not really; again, although excellent, it is not easy, it takes a little work, as does jazz in general. It is not just passive lie - back - and - open - another - can - entertainment like “The A-Team.” However, the real rating depths are plumbed by Saturday night’s “South Bank Show.” Very little on television is watched by fewer people than this. It has the audience of a poorly made religious programme from Afghanistan screened at 3 a.m. Yet, as far as international art and culture is concerned, it is streets ahead of anything else on

television. It has genuine thoroughness and depth. “Kaleidoscope” may be good, but it pales by comparison with Bragg's hour. Yet, on Saturday last, those who were not out were, one would guess, mainly watching “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.” Again, the reason is clear. “The South Bank Show” is the most difficult of all. It makes no concessions. Bragg explores the people he interviews, he analyses what they do, he pushes and pulls, he digs and probes. He is an investigative journalist of the arts. And it hurts the brain muscle. That it continues to be screened despite its lack of popularity is a credit to TVNZ. There are times when we simply do not deserve what we get.