Sir, - As a TV reviewer, Nuala O'Faolain can be relied upon to deal with the specifics of a programme rather than using it simply as a vehicle for wisecracks. However her review of our programme Faith In The City on RTE 1 last Sunday was harsh, unreasonable and at times bizarre.
The programme concerned the Franciscan friars (not monks as stated) of Merchant's Quay in Dublin and their work among the homeless and the drug addicted. Nuala's expressed view was that the programme was old fashioned and conservative. Given that it was about drug addicts and "damaged and chaotic and desperate people", she says, shouldn't it have been "gritty, fast moving"
and "a swirl of fast camerawork"? And shouldn't it reflect the interpersonal conflicts which drugs work "must involve"?
Firstly, the programme was in fact about the Franciscans themselves, the continuity of their tradition and of their presence at the heart of Dublin. That tradition of faith is manifest in the modern context of drug addiction and rehabilitation. But the programme was about the Friars, not about the drugs nor the associated petty crime (which the reviewer says should have been investigated). As such it warranted the steady, reflective visual and editorial treatment employed. And if the Franciscans' operation is characterised by a calmness at the heart of urban desperation, why shouldn't the programme dwell on that calmness?
Even had it been a report on drugs per se, it's arguable whether the rapidly dating and overused camera techniques which Nuala regards as "cutting edge" would have best represented that world. Or whether a film crew circling bewildered addicts with a handheld camera in their faces would best have served those people or their efforts to cope.
In fact, Nuala believes we should have seen more graphic scenes of "cold turkey" (the closeups of acupuncture needles going into ears were too "gentle"). But this was an early evening documentary. It was never intended to be Trainspotting.
As for being "stuck in that mode of bland reverence that gets bottom of the range viewing figures:", I don't believe the world and work depicted, or Fr Sean Cassin's considered remarks on the relative effects of heroin and alcohol and on the legislation of addictive drugs, were in any respect bland. That's a matter of opinion, but our viewing figures aren't. This programme is watched by a quarter of a million Irish people per edition. With respect, that would be a lot of newspapers . . .
It's right and proper of Nuala to exact tough standards and to demand that television be made with imagination. Has she seen our edition on Chernobyl campaigner Adi Roche (Live Adi, October 27th), where speech, music and live action were edited to convey the pace and motion of Adi Roche's life? Did she tune in to the edition on abortion ethics (Fruit of the Womb, September 22nd) where a tough and complex topic was given great clarity and force in 25 minutes flat - no easy assignment?
It isn't simply that Nuala's rejection of one edition disappoints. Worse is her breezy set of assertions that programmes such as ours are dutiful, poorly resourced little watched, and made by relatively untalented and uncommitted people. Untrue and unfair. We have a large viewing public which seems to feel otherwise. Try joining it for a while. - Yours, etc.,
Series producer, Would You Believe,
RTE TV, Dublin 4.