Not so great?
[ VIEWERS’ 1 I VIEWS I
Sir, Of all the T.V.N.Z. proSies, “The Great New d Debate” must, surely, have been “the pits.” Surprisingly, only one correspondent has shown reaction and that to lan Hutchinson’s pathetic commentary on the complete show, except for the strip act indulged in by both sides, to their vast amusement. Viewers must have been paralysed with shock. How come the script escaped the editor’s scissors?—Yours, etc., M. McKAY.
Sir, I was amazed to read that your TV reviewer, lan Hutchison, found the “The Great New Zealand Debate Comedy Show,” to use his words, “regularly, genuinely funny.” To my mind this travesty of debating was crude, tasteless, and far from funny. Relying almost totally on the lowest form of lavatory humour, the whole “debate” lacked genuine wit or subtlety. It is about time TV looked at
real debating and gave viewers a chance to see top New Zealand debates in action. These people do not need to concentrate on crude sexual references to entertain. I would suggest to your reviewer that he take the opportunity of listening some time to Christchurch’s own brilliant, witty debater, Rachel Haywood, and compare her to the crude clowns who participated in’ the TV “Comedy Debate.”— Yours, etc., EAMON O’CONNOR, Westport.
Sir, I was so glad to read the critical letter of P. J. Robertson’s published in Saturday’s “Press” on the subject of the “Great New Zealand Debate.” I reluctantly did watch it off and on while waiting for what was to follow and I thought it boring, humourless and even disgusting in places. I missed the reference to “masturbation” (I use the word, as your reviewer
quoted it as being used in the “debate”). Humour, to my mind, should be spontaneous and this debate was far from that, and was read, every word of it, as far as I could see. The speakers sat doubled up at their humour and were applauded by paid watchers in the film.
Thanks to P. J. Robertson for his letter, every word of which I entirely agree with.—Yours, etc.,
D. A. HENNESSY.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19860115.2.106.1
Bibliographic details
Press, 15 January 1986, Page 14
Word Count
350Not so great? Press, 15 January 1986, Page 14
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Copyright in all Footrot Flats cartoons is owned by Diogenes Designs Ltd. The National Library has been granted permission to digitise these cartoons and make them available online as part of this digitised version of the Press. You can search, browse, and print Footrot Flats cartoons for research and personal study only. Permission must be obtained from Diogenes Designs Ltd for any other use.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.