a

© Bers meet eee

iS

Soviet TV
It’s a lot different from ours
in Canada and the USA—
but does it perhaps go too far

the other way? asks William Devine,
our staff writer in Moscow

NEwton Minnow — would

fi ‘é
ant no “vast wasteland”
N television here.

B
ed 8 a and others like-mind-
© West, might find an-

er
“theryeneme, for better or

R :
eh will recall the famed
: td Characterization Min-
tica Pplied to much of Ame-

n
the when he was head of

Federal Communica-
: Mission in 1961.

the Pay Was directed against
and wo titude of mediocrities—
lions Re S€ — beamed into mil-
Toms horth American living-
Teach | (Far too many of these

tions C om

Com Canada and Minnow’s

ents are thus apropos of

“ana
CR dian Ty fare, albeit the

of ie €s a better job than any
Ba: S. networks.)

Vision i Moscow, does televi-

This ;6° t00 far the other way?

sa] 3
ing shove’ question I’m wonder-

ik,

Ric 1a time I tune in the ma-
fronteg here I seem to be con-
affairs With the news, a public

- netogram or a document-
to herwise, concerts seem

Sway — classical or

4 So j
a Stimes ] get a production
ih ‘Tom the Bolshoi. Once

H Sho, “bile there is a variety

ang 2 Of the Ed Sullivan type

Ceca gj ~
0 lon,
(Org Dlay, ally there is a film

I

tigg sea up some rough statis-
Of + we On a random survey
the t Weeks’ programming on
Chia Moscow channels.
fue . a third, but it’s strictly
ing, qual for students pursu-

€finite course of study.)

Mente Public affairs, docu-
d fo, «vs and concerts account-
'n tim, ut 60 percent of view-
Childre.. (20 percent concerts),

r ’
Wey ®n’s programs and films

: e :
Y Cent TEXt with 18 and 12 per-
Some ieesbectively

: (although
Sted as TV films might
While °@St semi-documentary),

quiz Plays and miscellaneous

the rerograms, sports) took up
Maining 10 percent.

XClya:
Congtding the kiddies, and

; ing, ering only adult view-

€ percentage for the

bout Ty eories ‘jumped to

(Ac
Meal ually, sports gets a better
Nce coverage broadens

Ballet scenes like this, beamed “live” directly
from the stage of the Bolshoi Theatre, are standard
fare on Soviet TV but the programs last as long as’
three hours, with long intermissions.

when championship matches or
special events take place.)

In short, the stress is on
education or high-powered cul-
ture. Which I’m not knocking
per se. But there seems too lit-
tle chance for the average mid-
dle-brow to just sit back and
relax after a day’s work and be
entertained (plus enriched) with-
out being overtly uplifted.

The chance to have the Bol-
shoi in your living-room seems,
at first thought, tremendous. But
the bounty from the Bolshoi
(and other theatres) seems also
a mixed blessing.

The productions, for a TV
audience, are tiresomely long,
lasting up to three hours dur-
ing ‘‘prime”
time, with long intermissions.
Not so bad — maybe good —

once in a while. But: when such’

evenings are followed by others
with more concerts, and the
ever-present public affairs and
documentaries, enough would
seem to be enough.

There are other, more popular
variety concerts. But these are
few and far between. As to what
films and plays there are, these
seem overwhelmingly to deal
with the past. -

No one could disagree with
depicting the past. But such a
preoccupation with it seems re-
grettable in view of the multi-
plicity of contemporary themes
that exist in the Soviet Union
and that could be given good
dramatic treatment to every-
one’s benefit.

My opinions are not only my
own. Russian acquaintances

with whom I’ve discussed the:

question agree substantially.
Comments about TV ranged

. Yelenson (Moscow)
“Sol Under - sixteens can’t
watch TV tonight, eh?”

evening viewing.

from “not very interesting” to
much more extreme ones.

Again, during a recent. six-
week stretch in the hospital
here, I had occasion to observe
the reactions of a fairly large
group of Soviet citizens to the
TV set in the lounge.

When a variety concert,
drama or film was shown, the
place was packed. Many stayed
for the news, but the public af-
fairs and documentaries saw a
large exodus and the lengthy
concerts witnessed attendance
drop off as the show ran on and
on,

So I felt justified in seeking a
point of view from an official of
the central TV studio in Mos-
cow: All the ‘more so since the
TV audience here has grown
substantially in the last five

. years.

There are now some 15 mil-
lion sets in the Soviet Union,
compared to 820,000 in 1955.
Moscow TV programs are Car-

‘ried in 100 big cities.

I talked with Anatoly Bogo-
molov, new deputy program di-
rector, who until recently was
with Radio. Moscow. : Here’s
what he told: me:

‘Programming was done rather
spontaneously -at first, but to-
day is approached more scienti-
fically, with audience reaction
taken into account. Special de-
partments exist in each edito-
tial board which regularly poll
viewers. :

In addition, they get letters:
the number for the first two
months of this year is three
times greater than last year.

Why the.increase? The station
is now busy trying to figure it
out, Bogomolov replied. On the
pasis of this investigation —
and other direct interviews at
places of work — the station
hopes to come up with .a bet-
ter idea of what viewers want.

Under’ discussion are such
questions as: when to show
children’s programs (these have
an international reputation for
excellence, incidentally), how to
cater to shift workers, and
what time to finish broadcast-
ing.

On this last, Bogomolov said
the station was against virtual
“around-the-clock” broadcast-

ing as in the West. Humans, he -

stated,. have interests other
than TV and also need their

sleep at night to go-to work
' Jetters had come in from mid-

next morning.

(Programming on the first
channel starts about 4.30 in the
afternoon, and. on the second,
about six, although times vary.
The second channel usually goes
off the air about 10 p.m. while
the first may run to 11 p.m. or
midnight — this latter usual-
ly on weekends. Every other

day the first channel has an ~

hour of news and children’s pro-
grams at noon.)

So far, Bogomolov said, view-
er reaction has been varied, de-

pending on age, occupation, etc.

The main difficulty has been in
trying to please everyone, some-
thing that has proved impos-
sible with only the two chan-
nels (excepting the educational
one). :

Within three years, however,
it is hoped to have a new and
bigger tower in operation, able
to handle six channels. This will

facilitate greater specialization

and more variety.

Public affairs programs pre-
sent the inevitable difficulty of
dealing with a serious subject

in an entertaining and popular

way. Attention is now being
paid to improving them visually
instead of simply focussing on
often uncomfortable-looking in-
dividuals grouped around a
table.

Is there too much public af-

fairs? Research will tell. But
Bogomolov cited at least three
such programs which he said
have a loyal, devoted following:
commentaries by journalist Ser-
gei Smirnov on hitherto un-

known heroes of the Second.

World War, a science program
describing latest achievements
and an hour-long health pro-

gram. (We can vouch for the

popularity of Smirnov.)

As to concerts. possibly being
overlong, it was felt the view-
ers should get the whole thing
direct. On the long intermis-
sions (okay in the lavish sur-
roundings of the Bolshoi but a
bit draggy at home), viewers
could brew a pot of tea, turn
the set off temporarily or switch
to the other channel.

Films are popular and can
be shown on TV three months
after their first public showing.

June 4, 1965—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 7

On the lack of contemporary
drama, Bogomolov said he per-
sonally thought there should be
more of this. But lately many

dle-aged and elderly people who
thought Soviet youth should be
more acquainted: with the clas-
sics of Russian literature. This
is probably a main reason for
the lack of contemporary drama.

Whether there would be more
films and drama, contemporary
or otherwise, appeared to de-
pend on the outcome of the pre-
sent research.

I left Bogomolov feeling I'd
perhaps been a little too: hard
in my conclusions. And apart
from everything, Soviet TV: has
some magnificent firsts to its
credit. Anyone who watched
Alexei Leonov take his walk in
space can have no doubt of that.
Those 20 minutes have got to be
the “sleeper” of the season.

But a couple of nights after
our talk, I switched on my set.
The first channel had a com-

“mentary which I didn’t feel in

the mood for. So I took Bogo-
molov’s advice and switched to
the other channel. :

There I found a documentary
about how ‘the decision of the
recent plenum of the central
committee of the Communist
Party were being implemented
in agriculture. An interesting
question, but it’s been in all the

papers.
So I switched back to the

first channel, stuck with the
commentary, and .in .a little

’ while saw a film about Lenin.

This lasted about an hour and
was reasonably interesting, but
it was followed by more public

affairs. By this time the second

channel had gone off the air.
So it was public affairs or no-
thing. I chdse the latter. .

Despite everything, I still
think Soviet TV could be more
interesting with more contem-
porary drama and straight en-
tertainment (which need not be
trite), even if this means fewer
documentaries and public affairs
programs and less emphasis on
quotation-mark culture. I hope
the research underway will
come to a similar conclusion.

Meantime, work or no work,
I miss the late show.