O’Toole brings magic to ‘Masada’

Press, 29 January 1986, Page 15

O’Toole brings magic to ‘Masada’

Reviewl

Ian Hutchison

The most fascinating thing about "Masada” (apart from the Roman designer underwear) was Peter O’Toole, and the most fascinating thing about him was his legs, or rather lack of them.

Never before on the television screen has such a pair of pale, thin pins, been seen. Never before have legs looked so anorexically lean. Never before have they looked so bad beneath the hemline of a Roman toga; not even the embroidery could lift them.

Yet such mean supports did not stop O’Toole as Flavius Silva from leading his legions against Eleazar ben Yair’s Judean rebels. At the foot of Mount' Masada he strode around commanding his army like Basil Fawlty commanding his hotel staff, but with a touch more competence. O’Toole was the star of

the show. There was something about his gaunt, haunted, angst-rid-den looks that drew one in. He embodied the good and the bad, the moral and the immoral, civilisation and barbarism. Within him there resided the dichotomous, dialectical relationship between idealism and realism.

As Flavius Silva he gave a powerful portrayal of a man who was hard, but humane, of a man compassionate, but politically pragmatic. It was O’Toole’s more than competent performance of these contradictions that gave his character the depth and dimension it had.

His was not the only good piece of acting. There were several fine performances of Roman foot-soldiers. In fact, there were quite a few. As opposed to many miniseries, the supporting cast and “extras” of "Masada”

were given rounded characters. They were not used merely as mobile wallpaper or filler, but were given lives, histories and personalities of their own. They, like O’Toole, added depth, dimension and an air of verisimilitude to the series, even though this sense of reality and historical truth was partially negated by the pervasive American and British accents. However, sus-

pended disbelief worked wonders. Friday night saw “Hudson and Halls” at it again. What they were at, of course, was cooking and what they cooked looked delightfully, delectably,

delicious. On offer was “Rosemary and Parmesan Drumsticks,” “Crisp Fried Chicken Wings,” “Szechuan Pepper and Salt” and “Roast Chicken and Garlic Cloves.”

Needless to say, by the end of the programme one’s tastebuds were more than a little titillated. They were really jumping! Prepared and presented with the minimum of fuss, their dishes were a mouth-watering banquet

of an affair. The substance of life itself. What is particularly good about their show is that it is entertaining as well as informative. And what makes it entertaining is them — the boys. Not only are they

knowledgeable, but they are a couple of live wires too.

They jest and joke their way through each recipe, bantering and goodhumouredly ridiculing each other, while at the same time never missing an opportunity to perform or be risque. They are natural performers as well as natural cooks. The set is as delectable as their dishes. It is every cook’s dream; big, modern, gleaming and clean. The lighting, too, is good. It is a sort of subdued, welcoming pink-apricot-orange colour. It is attractive and pleasing and parcels up the show very nicely.

Generally speaking, the production values are very high. Occasionally, the camera is a bit slow in getting close-ups of a particular aspect of a recipe’s preparation and sometimes it does not get there at all. And what seems to be missing is an overall, establishing, set-ting-the-scene wide-shot of Peter and David on the set. One feels the occasional need for an orientating view. When all is said and done, though, “Hudson and Halls” is good television. In fact, it is very tasty!