Now, don't get me wrong. I always enjoy ogling Julian Rhind-Tutt, and even when he's saddled with oversized Fifties glasses and a script full of cheap put-downs he's still very cute. I'm starting to wonder, though, if even Julian is reason enough to go on watching "The Hour".
I feel a little bad about panning "The Hour", as obviously a lot of effort has gone into it. The production values are lavish and it has a dream cast - Anton Lesser in one of his clever-and-vaguely-sinister roles, Burn Gorman who was such a brilliant Guppy in "Bleak House" excuding menace as a spy-cum-hit man (be warned, though, he's killed off in episode three), Anna Chancellor having little to do but bang on about Suez but doing it with bags of style as always, and Romola Garai in one of the leads. But after having seen episode two and three (I missed the first one, though I don't feel as sorry about that as when I first discovered it) I'm unimpressed and a bit mystified by the polite but lukewarm reviews, where the reviewers don't seem to know why they haven't warmed to the series as much as they had expected. Well, here's a thought: could it be because the characterisation is clichéd, the dialogue clunks, and the dramatic set-ups don't ring true?
In episode three Bel (Romola), the glamorous producer and Freddie, the intrepid journalist, are invited to a house party by Marnie, the vapid society wife of Hector, the decent but dim news anchorman. (See what I mean about the clichés?) Which of the following things do you think happen?
1. Intrepid journalist and glamorous producer make fun of the hostess and the rooms' décor.
2. Overbearing politician (that's Julian) turns out to be a bad shot.
3. Intrepid journalist turns out to be able to handle a gun, which prompts the comment from the overbearing politician that his father must have been a poacher. (Oh, did I mention that Freddie is of humble origin and chippy about it?)
4. Intrepid journalist poses some "provoking" questions about Suez to the overbearing politician over dinner, to which the overbearing politician has no answer whatsoever, although they're on school magazine level. Whereupon the host and hostess try to change the subject while the glamorous producer backs up the journalist, urging the politician to convey the journalist's words of wisdom to Eden before he loses the country's support.
5. Glamorous producer feels grateful that the hostess has thoughtfully arranged for her guests to play Sardines, as it's a great way of breaking the ice and a darned sight more fun than to stand around making small talk.
The answer is: all of the things above happen. Except the last one, obviously. The producer practically rolls her eyes over having to play Sardines, and the smitten anchorman - the host, remember, husband of vapid hostess - backs her up in her complaints. Oh, how shallow and pointless these upper-class house parties are, to be sure. Nothing for serious people with blinding insights about what canal-pinchers might find insulting or about how public morale may be affected by seeing a "frail" PM on the telly.
As a bon bourgeois - or bonne bourgeoise, to be precise - I can well imagine posh house parties as being awful, especially for the uninitiated. But I expect a drama for grown-ups to offer more subtle satire than the juvenile stuff that was served up here. Digs at toffs who play Sardines - I mean, really?
I don't think the Suez crisis context is doing the series any favours either. We're supposed to side with Bel's truth-loving journalist crew, headed by Freddie, against the Big Bad Government who wants them to toe the line. Except criticising the government over Suez doesn't seem that heart-stoppingly courageous to me, more like kicking a man when he's down. I'm no Eden expert, but I wouldn't have thought he'd be Scary Tyrant material somehow. Let's hope I'm wrong, and that he bursts on the scene - preferably cackling decrepitely like the Emperor in Star Wars and flanked by Angus McCain (aka overbearing politician aka Julian) in a Darth Vader cloak - and closes the "The Hour" down.