Winning some and losing some

Press, 21 July 1989, Page 7

Winning some and losing some

Ruth Zanker

on television

Sometimes the sum of an evening’s entertainment is greater than the component programmes listed in the schedule. Programmes, you would have thought, are scripted to give complete satisfaction within their allotted 30-minute span; just as, conversely, advertisements are designed to trigger maximum dissatisfaction with one’s lot within their allotted 30 seconds. On Tuesday evening larger forces were at work than mere programmes. By some coincidence the theme of sexual politics just wouldn’t go away. And it had its moments of bizarre incongruity and farce. “Holmes” featured Christine Keeler (and her past) on the same programme as Anne Collins.

On the surface you couldn’t choose two more

contrasting women to interview: Keeler, the sad fall-gal for powerful, English establishment figures, and Collins, the straighttalking representative of a rural New Zealand electorate. But Holmes just couldn’t see the difference, really. Both women had asked to be taken seriously in what they had to say. Both felt they had something to say about how men treat women. But for Holmes the real spoils of interviewing lay elsewhere. When the women became exasperated with him he suggested that they were, in the case of Keeler, a bad sport, and, in the case of Collins, plain humourless. I’d like to think that during one of the neatly excised sections of the interview from across the Tasman Keeler turned on

Holmes and verbally savaged him. So far so bad. The audience wins some and loses some in a daily interview show like this. Interviewees who enter such lists shouldn’t expect to debate the issues of sexual politics on a level field. There are wiser choices of showcase than “Holmes” for community education on sexual equality. On Tuesday evening’s “Holmes” the agenda seemed to stop at “sex.” But then came a moment of glorious juxtaposition, the more glorious for being the result of sheer chance.

There waiting in the commercial wings of “Holmes” was another of those Tegel chicken ads. This one starred naughty Dennis Waterman, too, and his cheeky sexual innuendo. This time the im-

mortal words of the traditional “nudge-nudge” joke went: You can get these “birds” into the kitchen and stuff them right away.

And of course the same rules apply. Anyone who complained about that little bit of advertising wit is a prudish, unsportsmanlike, moral campaigner who lacks a sense of humour. Right? “Surgical Spirit” managed to put it all in perspective, somehow. Its neat sit-com situation turns on role reversal. Take one National Health system hospital in Britain. Put a woman in charge and a very sharp-tongued woman in a surgical gown. Crack most of the jokes at the expense of the men and just a couple at the end at the expense of women to sweeten it all.

Good sit-com works best in the seams of ner-

vousness between the sexes and classes. This may explain why the British do it very well.

The best moments in this week’s episode came when the female superintendent balked at surgery in her own hospital. In the confusion when things came adrift a male doctor was made to comment: “It’s a known fact that no matter how much women scream about equality, when it comes to flying or operations, they want men to do it.”

There was a nervous moment’s sag in the tautness of script when the comment was almost made to ring true.

Then it was discovered that it was men staring at her naked body that she was scared of and equilibrium was immediately restored.

While on the matter of double standards. Please,

please, Postbank, take off the advertisement which features a young mother saying that a bank teller dared treat her like a mere housewife. Does Postbank really think that equal opportunity in employment has turned housewives into secondrate citizens?