• Українська
  • Русский
  • English
Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty
Henry M. Robert

Lack of Money or Professionalism?

10 March, 1999 - 00:00

Our reader from Chernivtsi, Ksenia Pokrovska, has sent us a bitter letter called “Television for the Dull.” Ms. Pokrovska’s letter might have been signed by many thousands of viewers for whom the idiot box long ago became a constant source of disappointment and irritation. There are plenty of reasons for this, not only lack of high-class programs. For the masters of the screen seem to show all the signs that they are satisfied with their output and sincerely unaware of what they are doing — not all who appear on television are cynics. But what they seem to lack more than money is professionalism and, I would say, culture. Fortunately, there is evidence that even under very difficult circumstances one can work otherwise, as does, for example, radio Program Three (“Radio of Muses”), with programs keeping a decent level of artistic quality in spite of economic and administrative dire straits.

Today this is a difficult point to any televised genre much for the satisfaction of viewers. This equally applies to popular talk shows, perhaps for the reason that what glues us to the screen is neither plot, nor the studios’ party or commercial orientation, nor, the more so, computer graphics, or the ear-jarring electronic music. A brilliant personality and confrontation of views or ideas remains the main thing for us. And for want of these, the producers, editors, designers, and costumers might as well save their breath, for the king will remain naked, gray, and utterly without interest.

The role of personality is especially revealing in an interview. For the screen X-rays very well not only the guest but also the host. If the latter always places his/her own ego above everything else, the latter will never drop to the background of the screen. It makes no difference who a journalist is speaking to; it could even be the Ecumenical Patriarch. It may be, for instance, like this (NART Studio): we hear an off-camera voice — this is the TV guest, a well-known politician or expert who honestly answers questions. The picture still shows the host. He reclines indolently in his armchair, as if he were at home, and listens condescendingly. The host feels so bored, looking forward to a slightest pause in order to cut in and begin to lay down his own ideas without haste. These ideas, incidentally, have long been all too familiar to the viewer. And how often we have seen a host who, instead of carefully listening to the interviewee, is stealthily reading his next phrase from a piece of paper, like a schoolboy from a cheat-sheet! Every time we see on-screen confirmation of Oleksandr Dovzhenko’s words of wisdom: “You can fake wisdom, justice, generosity, strength, or even kindness, but you can never fake intelligence and good manners.”

A good program was launched a few months ago by the Inter channel. We had the honor to see on the screen sculptor Neizvestny, author Ray Bradbury, top-model Claudia Schiffer, and many other currently famous personalities. However, it was not as interesting as we (or, at least, I) had expected. Perhaps for the reason was that an interview is a dialogue in which the host is obliged, one way or another, to rise to the level of his interlocutor, and not only ask questions (this can be done by an off-screen voice). Let alone the fact that a dialogue with an elderly respected writer requires one conversational style, while that with a young lady takes an altogether different one. In the latter case, it is only impolite not to make a compliment, not to express (even without words) one’s admiration. Otherwise, the show lacks entertainment, brilliance, and the live theater of human relationships.

Too much has already been said about that counterfeit heroine (cross-dresser, actually — Ed.) of independent Ukrainian TV, Vierka Serdiuchka (sorry). This show always shocks with nothing but phenomenal vulgarity and absolute lack of taste. Moreover, it also produces an inferiority complex in many of us and constantly makes us ask, “Is this all we can do in the domain of laughter? We, a joyful people, with such a sense of humor and love of jokes?”

Today’s Ukrainian television is an eternal battlefield witnessing fierce clashes between the government and Verkhovna Rada, between the private and public sectors, between lawmakers, deputies, candidates, parties, studios, and various companies. Regularly, as the moon changes its phases, someone from the powers-that-be (be it in the shadow or the sunlight) starts to yet again carve up and redistribute informational, advertising, regional, and personal television time and space. TV sees more often than anybody else heads roll as also do hosts, programs, studios, or furniture. The only thing remaining intact and stable after all upheavals is the quality of broadcasts. It is not television policy to remember very often this far-from-profitable factor. Perhaps because video broadcasting has long since become a subsidiary of advertising agencies, leaving the viewers out of place.

Rubric: