TV: The Convenient Pattern

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31109, 12 July 1966, Page 12

TV: The Convenient Pattern

One of the staple products of television is the series, and there are good reasons why it should be so. A series lays down a pattern which is convenient both to the viewer and the producer, writes a special correspondent of “The Times.” It affords the producer opportunities to ring changes on his chosen theme, which makes life less harassing for him than it is when he has to find a new pattern for every production. By providing him with a framework which he can retain for several weeks the series gives him breathing space to compose and ring several changes of his theme and plot. For viewers, too, the series has manifest attraction. It does not much matter if you miss a session of Perry Mason —there will be a similar one along the next week. The series may, indeed, encourage indolence among viewers, for most of them prefer on their screens the company of a familiar star, and a familiar situation to the more strenuous effort of getting used to new faces and new themes week after week. TOP RATINGS

Their preference suits the producer, too, for this addiction to series is what produces the top ratings. Rarely does a single production—a play or a documentary standing on its own feet—make such an impact or attract such a vast audience as a series does.

There is a third party to be considered in this assessment. We have numerous actors and actresses who can leave a memorable mark by a single appearance in a play which may never be repeated. But if they land a leading part in such series as “Dixon of Dock Green,” The Avengers,” or “Doctor Finlay’s Casebook” their prospects of success and popularity are very much enhanced. They have the opportunity, week after week, to give their roles more penetration, more polish, and many of them achieve the final accolade of being recognised as they stroll along Piccadilly. The series, then, is a popu-

lar all-rounder among everyone concerned. A massmedium turning out masses of material is forced to devise labour-saving patterns for much of its output, and the series is certainly a laboursaving device. It is to the credit of television that, in spite of its convenience, the series has by no means become a universal provider. But it is bound to be the staple product of television. ACHIEVING UNITY There are several species of series. One of them specialises on a different illustration, each week, of a particular theme, but it achieves unity by using the same principal characters in each instalment. What about “Dr. Finlay’s Casebook,” one of the best native products the 8.8. C. has presented? Here again a trio of brilliant actors has come to secure our allegiance,

so to speak, in their own right. But they do not impose any domination upon the action or values of any episode in the series. The problems and incidents of Tannochbrae are not obscured by the virtuosity of the actors—a consideration which I admire. A new series of Simenon Stories provides a sidelight on what I have been saying about series, and there is a significant difference between them and that long run of Maigret which we enjoyed some time ago. The earlier Simenon stories were welded together by certain characters who appeared in every instalment. Maigret himself was always there, superbly enacted by Rupert Davies, and signing on at the outset of every instalment by lighting his pipe with a match which he used to strike on the wall of the Surete. (Nobody has told him that matches in France are the

safety kind which strike only 1 on a box!)

He was usually accompanied by Sergeant Lucas and Madame Maigret. These characters provided a framework, a link of continuity and familiarity, which strengthened the impact of the episodes.

The new series “Thirteen Against Fate,” has no such framework, and we have to familiarise ourselves each week with a brand-new set of characters. My point then, simply, is that the new Simenon stories, however, effective, are one dimension short.