Francis and Ros as Paul and Steve

The problem with most MSM reviews, in my eyes, is that they will simply not take risks in delivering less than a eulogy and so it is here with the Paul Temple TV series:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/francis-matthews-5c5xc27zbhl

Francis Matthews once complained: “Generally nobody wants me to do anything but stand there in a suit and tie, with a cigarette, being sophisticated. Funnily enough that’s the hardest part. You haven’t got anything to help. But give me a funny hat and a silly voice and I’m halfway there.” 

The trouble was that Matthews, whether he liked it or not, had the handsome, laidback presence that attracted adjectives such as urbane, debonair and suave. It was happening before his most famous television role, as the detective Paul Temple, and it continued to dog him long afterwards.

Or from the left bank:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/francis-matthews-actor-who-specialised-debonair-characters-and-was-best-known-suave-sleuth-and-crime-novelist-paul-temple-9544387.html  

According to Matthews, he was Durbridge's own preferred actor for the lead role. 

"I had done two of his TV serials, My Friend Charles and The World of Tim Frazer," he said. "Francis Durbridge rang when Paul Temple was being cast [and] simply offered me the job."

This was not a lot better:

http://www.saturday-night-theatre.co.uk/Radio_Detectives/gregorym101_templetv.html   

The series was notable for featuring a large amount of location filming, much of it overseas. This tended to create quite a contrast in the look of the episodes, especially with those that had limited, or no location filming. 

At opposite ends for example, Motel is 100% studio based (even the exterior scenes), while Games People Play was 100% location, filmed on Malta. 

Again, one has to go to a film or TV buff's blog to get an uneven, yet honest review:

https://blogs.reading.ac.uk/spaces-of-television/2013/05/20/temple-of-doom-paul-temple-bbc-1969-71/

Sometimes these comparisons can be a bit unfair, but more usually they are uncomfortably accurate. So I can’t think of a better way to easily explain the intentions behind the strange case of Paul Temple than to describe it as “the BBC Saint”.

Before reaching British television screens in 1969, Francis Durbridge’s creation had already been heard on the radio and read about in novels since the thirties, been made into films in the forties, and then been adapted into an immensely popular radio series in Germany.

And now we get to it:

The sense of disconnection between film and studio that viewers too young to have grown up with the convention often feel when watching old television is felt even by TV swots such as myself when Paul Temple switches back and forth between attempted James Bond-style glamour in Istanbul bazaars and a Wood Green interiors.

And more specifically:

Perhaps a series with a stronger sense of character and reason for existing might have been able to overcome this handicap of an oddly juxtaposed style, but Paul Temple’s major flaw lay in its insipid generic hero. Paul Temple turned out to be a man who it was very hard to care about or find interesting. He’s a successful thriller writer – as demonstrated by his complaining about his publisher and deadlines at the beginning of each episode – whose emotional involvement with the alarming situations that he faces varies between mild amusement and mild exasperation. 

Francis Matthews’ performance as Temple tried to convey this as a suave and admirable sang-froid, but the thinness of the material that he had to work with meant that he really came over as a detective who’s bored with his adventures. Ros Drinkwater, as his wife and partner in crime-solving, Steve, fared only slightly better, as at least the plots often required her to flirt with villains and dash about the place in a different natty designer trouser suit in each episode.

Read the rest at the site.  Having watched one clip, the Malta setting part two [part one is here]:

... my reaction is, "Hmmmm."  Insipid, eh?  So ... what can I add to the reviews above?

First thought is that some books do not transfer well to the screen, e.g. Hitchhiker's Guide.  Some radio scripts, equally wordy, also do not transfer well.  A suave Peter Coke in his wordy radio part is not quite the same as an actor employed on the basis of his cocktail holding ability and a new Steve turned into a  60s dolly bird, complete with hotpants and thighs.  The 60s dolly bird would also put it about with anyone, as would The Saint and Bond.  Different times.

I find myself disliking the 60's disease-ridden promiscuity and lack of hygiene, also the appalling fashions, but also disliking the cleaner but more misogynist 50s for that sort of reason.  Whither gallantry?  The 40s/50s fashions were far more elegant and feminine.  About the only blemish with the men was the Speedo look in swimwear - uggh, put it away, boys behind the surfer board shorts which, mercifully, took over in the 60s.

Paul Temple a la Francis and Ros?  Hmmmmm, just about a miss, methinks.