Television
Shrunken Heads
y PETER FORSTER
promoted an 'Appointment with Cyril Connolly,' in an interview with Malcolm Muggeridge, and true to its usual bilious billing TV Times, in- formed us that Mr. Connolly 'has been called the most devastating wit of our time. In fact. during half an hour of almost total tedium, supposedly masquerading as urbane conversation between two men of the world. Mr. C emerged as one of the most devastating bores of our time. But this, I hasten to insist, was on the strength of one appearance on a medium where he seemed de- cidedly ill at ease. Obviously he cannot be a com- plete bore—in fact, somebody assured me the other day that he is definitely not a complete bore.
From the point of view of the public, it is a splendid thing (as I have argued on many occa- sions, and as Mr. Connolly would doubtless agree) that the lions should be cut down to size, and shown as shrunken heads pinned to a screen, rather than roaring beasts behind a pen—but sadly, those who promote such programmes genuinely seem to believe in the phoney claims of their oWii publicists. Granada even 'sent me a copy of an article boosting Mr. Connolly—if they really believed what it said, they should have scrapped the ,interview, for the one made nonsense of the other.
The argument could be further illustrated by ATV's interview between Kenneth Harris and the new Archbishop of Canterbury. It was hard at times to tell which was more arch and which more episcopal—what with Mr. Harris's genu- flecting approach and Dr. Ramsey's semaphore eyebrows. If I had a great deal of space I would be glad to take to pieces . the deficiencies in argument and presentation ot a Dian w hose im- mense scholarship and integrity are doubtless beyond reproach—but really to goodness, how should we react to an Archbishop who, listing his conceptions of his duties, remarks that, thirdly, he must try to bring God home to the people! I was reminded of a description of J. A. Froude in argument, talking like a great, overweighted galleon, unable to depress his heavy cannon. And why, in this day and age, should Mr. Harris so coyly prelude his bromide queries 'with great respect' and suchlike for- malities? On television, a man stands or falls on the strength of his words and personality on the screen, whatever his record elsewhere. I doubt not that on Russian television, shop stewards and commissars are likewise questioned 'with great respect.'
So to Forum (ATV), in which on Sunday after- noons a kind of parody debating society is staged in a studio—with an intense, goggle-eyed and sports-coated student-studio audience, and tradi- tional observances about 'the honourable speaker' which sit oddly on a debating union with no apparent traditions. Last Sunday, on the issue of punishment of criminals, there was a hand-flailing pundit obviously hoping to catch a Sunday editor's eye, and a cautious Young Tory drawing a Crossbow at no particular ven- ture, and a horrid, rehearsed, specious and semi- literate sub-Aldermaston earnestness about the house which was deeply depressing. Mr. James Ferman's production, nicely caustic in its cutting from words to face, seemed to share my opinion. 1 repeat, so few of their words are worth . viewing.
Previous page
