The underwhelming ratings of this mini series came as a shock to many observers, especially considering the popularity of previous Packer tales, Howzat! and Paper Giants. Viewer fatigue with the Packers was blamed, but was it the only thing? I think three other factors were crucial - the lack of female interest, the fact it deals with events most people don't remember/recall, and perhaps most importantly it's not about an underdog triumphing for a good cause.
In Howzat the underdogs were the cricketers who finally got a fair day's pay via one day cricket, which people really like and was ultimately a good thing; in Paper Giants Ita Buttrose overcome obstacles to be editor and helped more honest conversation about racy topics, which people really like and was ultimately a good thing. (The Paper Giants sequel didn't do as well, IMHO, because while it was about a woman who triumphed, she did it by increasing the amount of schlocky invasive gossip out there, which ultimately wasn't a good thing. Also Kerry Packer was a passenger as opposed to a key character.)
Here the only real underdog is Rupert Murdoch - and no one except the Murdochs and Andrew Bolt would think him triumphing was ultimately a good thing. The events all took place a long time ago now - the sixties - and lack much nostalgic appeal, so they require more than the skim-through-history-as-montage method which features here.
Even with these drawbacks it still could have worked - the Packer and Murdoch families are the stuff of Shakespeare: megalomaniacal, sexually voracious, bullies, crawlers, pirates, brave, funny. And occasionally a glimpse of what this could have been sneaks through, particularly in the dynamics between Sir Frank and Clyde. But most of the time this is strictly broad strokes - the piece has been fatally compromised by the fact it was made by Channel Nine, the fact Rupert Murdoch is alive and that Southern Star got away with skimpy character development in their other history montage biopics. If this had aired on the ABC I think it would have rated better because audiences would have sensed a gutsier depiction of the tycoons (and it's more an ABC show)
There are some good performances, particularly from Lachy Hulme as Sir Frank Packer (although Pat Brammel, while normally a fine actor, lacks the ruthlessness and sense of being a prick that would have made his Rupert Murdoch more compelling) but the actors could have done with better parts. All the female roles are forgettable - there's "brave cancer sufferer" (Heather Mitchell), a whining "why are you never home type", and a pretty girl with long eye lashes (Maeve Dermondy, who's really got to watch playing this sort of role in period mini-series otherwise she's never going to do anything else). It's watchable, but it's a pity.
No comments:
Post a Comment