Dispelling misconceptions or confirming prejudices

Press, 9 January 1987, Page 11

Dispelling misconceptions or confirming prejudices

ken strongman television

There is something of a cross between the eavesdropper and the voyeur in a television camera poking around in the real world.

Nobody talks about it but everyone likes it People who have their feelings, thoughts, opinions or beliefs explored on camera tend to have slightly smug centre-of-attention expressions. Viewers sit comfortably overlooking and overhearing them, having their own feelings, thoughts, opinions and beliefs confirmed. And there is always the possibility of some juicy bits. Anyway, it is no doubt a very good thing that TVNZ is screening its “Explorations of Sexuality” series. It must be something of a breakthrough for a television system which tends to be either coy or crude on matters sexual. Really though it is little more than an aggrandised form of talking heads. One cannot help thinking that what all those talking heads are saying is likely to confirm prejudices rather than dispel misconceptions.

In a sense, the series is yet another legitimised way of asking people how they feel and filming the answer. The way things are going between news

reports and documentaries, in the end this is all there will be — a constant sequence of people telling us how they feel about this, that and the other. Of course, “Explorations of Sexuality” is mainly about the other.

A thorough exploration of what it is like to be male and/or female at various ages in New Zealand is an important exercise to undertake. However, it would be better done by looking more at what people do rather than at what they say they do and how they say they feel about it. It is also more than a little depress-

ing to hear “What will being 21 mean to you?” Answer: “I succeeded in not getting pregnant until I was 21?’

“Stick around, anything can happen,” then “Miami Vice”-type music and we are off into a different sort of eavesdropping, a truly horrifying sort in which exclusive inside information is the alm. Ripley it or not, “Entertainment This Week” is one of the most up-to-date programmes on our screens, particularly at this time of year. Amazing. What does it cost?

Anyway, the two presenters are unremittingly enthusiastic about the inconsequential trivia their researchers dig up about the world of entertainment Leeza Gibbons dominates the screen with her knees, which not only seem to take up most of her legs, but also appear to have the solidity of moa bones. Between segments, her skirt hem is up and down like a yoyo. What happens off camera? Is there a television crewman who whips forward and rearranges it for the next showing, as it were? Each programme deals with people who are so full of themselves that there is little room for anything else. They are so

used to being the centre of attention that they fall effortlessly into the role, being able to take about themselves tor weeks on end if given the chance. To interview them must be one of the most boring jobs in the world. The word most commonly used throughout the programme is “I.” , The things they say are either pop psychologising or nonsensically selfcentred. “Passiveaggressive” is commonplace, as are phrases such as “The ultimate 10-tech movie of all time.” They are full of great insights such as Billy Joel’s “Rock and roll eventually becomes limiting, there’s no two ways about It” The most extreme nonsense of all time last week though was “This shows me as not me.”

In the end, apart from overlooking and overhearing the so-called stars, “Entertainment This Week” is about asking burning questions. The viewer .is left puzzling over matters such as "Can he break the Dynasty image?" or “Will the audience accept you as an ordinary guy?” A much more burning question is who cares? One must admit though to a flicker of interest when Leeza asked her counterpart “Do you think he can pull it off?”