Well done ANC for running a programme on “Church and state” (the subject of the opening show of the “Explainer” last night) in its early evening slot. Such reflective programmes are usually relegated to the graveyard shift, when most of the old farts like me who might be interested in them are soundly slumbering.
Manolo Quezon was an effective and articulate presenter. Few writers are as successful orally as on paper, but MLQ is an experienced media presence and never seems to grope for a word. He segued from one task to another effortlessly; lecturing to camera, tutoring the “explainee”, chairing a discussion, responding to texts, rounding up at the end.
The best part was the historical survey of the role of Catholicism in the Philippines at the beginning, including an apt extract from a dramatization of Noli me Tangere. A TV programme can never replace a detailed exposition in a book, but if the presenter is knowledgeable and personable he or she can highlight major issues in a way that books, with their more ponderous approach, cannot. Despite the superficial attractions of electronic bells and whistles, if the content is strong a simple face to camera is still one of the best ways of conveying information (AJP Taylor’s TV lectures on the BBC were a good example). I hope the Explainer carries its academic rigor through in its promised website, with full citation of sources. If so, it will be an important addition to Philippine netlife.
Structurally the show works like this: MLQ to camera with “explainee” (name of Tricia); discussion with two guest experts (Dean Bocobo and Jojo Robles); MLQ summarizing major points with “explainee” and responding to text queries; and MLQ wrapping up.
The main problem was the role of the “explainee”. Tricia gave a game performance, but her function was never clear (was she just there to read the quotations or an equal participant?). MLQ’s personal approach was not patronizing, but was hard not to find something a bit condescending about including an individual “student” in the show.
As for the discussion, I liked the idea of including two people with views slightly off the middle ground (rather than representatives of two irreconcilable points of view, a fundamentalist priest and an atheist, for example). Dean Bocobo had one main point—the Church is nothing more or less than an NGO—which he supplied whatever MLQ asked, even when Jojo Robles pointed out that the church claimed a moral and spiritual high ground, which made it fundamentally different from NGOs like trade unions.
Jojo Robles’s own contributions revolved around an argument that the Catholic Church should get its own house in order before sorting out the rest of us. No argument with that, but this avoids the central question. Even if the Church were as pure as driven snow, in a democratic society should such an unelected body have any influence beyond its own spiritual authority with its flock? If the experts had been asked for their views on a specific issue (e.g., the Catholic Church’s role on raising the issue of poverty) the lines might have been clearer.
Overall, I hope this admirable show is allowed to continue focusing on the deeper undercurrents in Philippine society. I also hope it is not seduced into focusing on current affairs, which are adequately covered elsewhere. For example, I would like to see something on the Philippines’ relationship with the rest of the world (and not just with America, which has been done to death) and the roots of the feudal structure of much contemporary society. Michael Tan would be an excellent guest, as would Sheila Coronel. Anyway, if your Tuesday evenings are free, give this programme a whirl (last night’s may also be repeated later this week) and if you have your own views on future content drop MLQ a line at his blog.
where would one get a copy of ajp taylor's lectures? my ambition is to match the mark steele lectures (which i've only heard on audio), but i'm a long way from that.
Posted by: mlq3 | July 12, 2006 at 08:55 AM
Something weird has happened at Typepad. mlq's comment below should really come first. My comment is a response to his.
I had a look at the BFI site, but, although there were mentions of his lectures there was no indication that they can be bought anywhere (http://www.screenonline.org.uk/tv/id/898488/index.html). According BFI, what you do is called an "authored documentary", which seems a reasonable term. It mentions a few other practitioners of the art, in particular two who made a great impact on me in my youth: Jacob Bronowski (The Ascent of Man) and Kenneth Clark (Civilisation). There are supposed to be video clips of both available at the BFI site but unfortunately they are (temporarily?) unavailable. Apart from the usual requirements of any public speaking (don't stutter, establish eye contact, etc) I think what makes a good presenter of such a programme is simply interest in the subject. If you find it fascinating there is a good chance we will too -- I think you pass that test easily.
Posted by: torn | July 12, 2006 at 08:08 PM
where would one get a copy of ajp taylor's lectures? my ambition is to match the mark steele lectures (which i've only heard on audio), but i'm a long way from that.
Posted by: mlq | July 13, 2006 at 12:49 AM