ON' THE AIR
How has the B.B.C. emerged from the ordeal of the past three weeks? Not entirely with credit in my opinion. The alacrity with which the Third Programme was dropped has excited plenty of comment, but I cannot agree with those who suggest that it was abandoned on account of anti-cultural prejudice, mere Philistinism, or, as Mr. Walter Elliott put it in the House of Commons: "In accordance with the ancient and traditional customs of the British people, the first thing that went was any pretence of culture of any description." After all, the Third is normally receivable by only fifty per cent. of listeners, and if one programme had to be given up in the interests of fuel-economy the Third was the obvious choice for the sacrifice. It was a sad loss, and its return on February 26th was very welcome.
* * * *
In another respect the B.B.C. seems to me to have failed to meet its responsibilities during the past three weeks. Apart from Focus on the Freeze-up (good as far as it went), not a single feature pro- gramme was devoted to the crisis until February 28th, when Crisis Report, the first of four weekly programmes, was broadcast, followed the next day by Coals from Newcastle, the dramatised log of a collier on its voyage from Newcastle to London. These were excel- lent in their way, but they came a fortnight late, when the crisis had passed its peak. The news bulletins and news talks of course dealt with the country's plight in a bald and colourless way, but surely something more imaginative should have been forthcoming. There was an abundance of material for background and " docu- mentary " programmes which might have helped people to under- stand the crisis and to appreciate what it means to the country. Such lack of imagination and enterprise is, I suppose, only to be expected from a bureaucracy. It is matched by the entire failure of the Government to realise what a valuable ally broadcasting might have been to them during the past three weeks.
* * * * I can think of only one item to be put down on the credit side of the account. That is the hospitality which was extended to the editors of five suppressed weeklies (including The Spectator). In my opinion the B.B.C. were the gainers by this arrangement, for they thus enlivened their programmes with two excellent discussions in which topical questions were dealt with in a lively controversial spirit that gave them genuine interest and vitality. One or two of the editors revealed an imperfect appreciation of the gulf which separates the written from the spoken word, but on the whole they adapted themselves admirably to the unusual conditions.
* * * * Only three or four points of value emerged from the House of Commons debate on broadcasting on February t9th, which occupies fifty-seven columns in Hansard. There was a remarkable and gratifying unanimity of approval for the Third Programme, and widespread support for Lady Megan Lloyd George's plea for more lively political controversy—` not academic discussions such as we have so often." This is a point to which the planners of pro- grammes would do well to pay serious attention. They have been given every encouragement to go ahead by members of all parties ; the rest is up to them. Another point of some substance was raised by Mr. Gallagher—she desirability of widening the scope of religious- broadeasts. Mr. Gallagher was unnecessarily provocative in the manner in which he brought up the question, but many listeners have an uneasy feeling that it is not quite in accordance with the traditions of British toleration and freedom of speech and opinion that only one religious viewpoint should be heard from the B.B.C.
* * * *
Perceptive listeners have long realised that the chronicle play is peculiarly suited to broadcasting, and Marlowe's Edward the Second turned out to be one of the best things the B.B.C. Drama Depart- ment has done for some time. Edward the Second is no mere museum-piece. It Is splendidly alive and moving. There is little of the "mighty line " about it ; but neither is there anything of the bombast which seems to be inevitably associated with the richer rhetoric of Tamburlane or Doctor Faustus. Its only weakness, I thought, was the rather scrambled ending, which seemed flat and perfunctory after the magnificent death scene. The production (by Peter Watts) and performance were alike admirable. The King dominates the play, and Valentine Dyall gave a memorable study of this pant. Other players who seemed to me outstanding were Esme Percy as Gammon and Dennis Arundell as the younger
Previous page
