‘Seekers’ — an unconvincing fairy tale

Press, 28 February 1986, Page 9

‘Seekers’ — an unconvincing fairy tale

[Review!

Ken Strongman

“Seekers” is described as A Series of Fables, but when almost the first sight in last Monday’s episode was Vince Martin, it is not the word “fabulous” that comes to mind. There he was in a three-piece suit, looking even more complacent than he does in the advertisements. His voice could still burn rubber, though. The continuing plot, for those who have so far seen nothing of it, hinges mi young people attempting to realise their personal ambitions under the ure of money held out by :heir mother. This week, t featured Selwyn Broadlead trying to make his way in the business world; st least, as it is represented by real estate. Stereotypes linked arms svith stereotypes. It was the old versus the young, experience versus inexperience, the big man versus the little man. At bottom, it was one type of rather bigoted self-seek-ing in confrontation with others. The entire thing seemed to be taking place

in a Victorian pub, or possibly a succession of Edwardian brothels run by microcomputers, with what sounded like an ageing jazz band playing in the background. In the way of one type of standard television drama, the action alternated between telephone calls and meetings. The few breaks in this sequence mainly took the form of a rather irascible old man saying, every few moments: “My grandfather built this place—it’s been handed down from father to son.” Sometimes, a piano played three or four walls away. In the end, everything passed like an.uncontrolled snail sliding down the screen, leaving little other than a smear

on the memory. Conversations took place in a form of 1980 s cryptic, creating a powerful impression that no-one quite knew what was going on. Certainly, it was difficult as the actors cast meaningful looks at one another without the viewer knowing what they meant. Although the main actors did their best with some lines that would have been better placed on a prune, the supporting actors spoke with concrete lips on wooden faces.

Later, when the pace quickened, Temuera Morrison, as Selwyn, rolled his eyes around in their sockets like marbles and began to treat his adoptive parents with increasingly unpleasant indifference. It was all a little unconvincing, leaving the feeling that Arthur Daley would have them all for breakfast with the simplicity of their deals. The idea for the series is not too bad in a whimsical, fairy tale sort of way, but it is all a bit boring. It

is certainly not as good as “Roche.”

Following "Seekers,” the new series of “Cheers” is brilliant, droll humour, even better than the previous series. The characters are like old friends and the subtleties of what they do and say to one another would not be out of place in “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” Diane: “He Insists on making mountains out of molehills” Carla: “He wants you to wear a padded bra?” Meanwhile Fat Norm and Postman Cliff carry on with their seen-it-all by-play and Coach proves that he knows what life is about.

“Cheers” is full of actors with exact timing, who verge on the great. Everything switches back and forth between gameplaying and the serious, without warning. Diane is the best of them all, with superb skills; she can put down anyone with an exquisite viciousness. “Don’t look coy, it. doesn’t go

with the sloping forehead.” Above all, “Cheers” is good because it can surprise. Last week’s ending was as unexpected and as funny as anything on television for some time.

Tailpiece: "Terror and the State” is chilling, not only because of some of the attitudes adopted by such influential men, but also because there are no women around the table.