As has been correctly guessed, from the May 12, 1962 issue of TV Guide, this was Gilbert Seldes' review of "Password."
(I'm claiming fair use for research/discussion purposes in posting the entire review below, but, mods, please delete if you believe it's necessary.)
Begin quoted material:
The first TV set I had was built like the fancy phonographs of that time (around 1938-40). On the inside of the lid was a mirror. You lifted the lid -- the picture came off the tube upside down, got reflected in the mirror, and you saw it right side up.
The first program I saw regularly -- I was working for CBS, but NBC was on the air before we were -- was a version of the old parlor game of charades. The most recent program I've seen -- about five hours ago -- was Password. The 1939 charades was 10 times as fresh, pleasant, inventive and well-produced as Password of 1962.
The structure of the program follows the pattern used by the producers (Goodson-Todman) in many others (the most successful is probably What's My Line?). It's a guessing game. In this one you have two teams of two each. One member of each team is given a word, the other doesn't know what it is. (You know, though: in a voice so hushed you would think a death was being announced, an unseen man tells you.) The one who knows gives the other a clue -- it must be a single word.
It's a riot. The hidden word is "shape." Clue: "figure." No good, because, to "figure," the response is "form." Next clue: "Monroe." Bingo! What's more, the man who guessed "shape" from the "Monroe" clue was a minister. An unseen studio audience expired with glee.
Or the hidden word is "vaudeville" and the third -- and successful -- clue given in "variety"; you fall back in admiration of the human intelligence.
Once in a while the clue-giver forgets himself and gives the hidden word. Then it's fun.
The producers of Password can't be blamed for all this. They have been working toward this perfect example of their product for years. They know that some people try to get as much into a given time as possible -- Ben Casey, for instance. Their idea is to get in as little as possible. In Password they are as near to perfection as any human beings can hope to get -- it is 99.9 percent nothing.
The program occurs daily and once a week at night, and the only difference I could find was that at night I saw a talented movie star of about 15 years ago -- she said she was doing nothing, she'd like to do a play. Daytime I caught a not-so-talented TV star -- he hadn't been doing much of anything. An enthusiast of G-E College Bowl told me that Allen Ludden, who moderates both of these programs, seems happier with the collegians.
An announcement informs you that the contestants on Password have been talked to in advance. That's to head off any suspicions you may have about the absolute honesty of the proceedings. It is hardly worth the effort. We know beyond any doubt that the contestants didn't know the words -- the whole thing is so dull it almost makes you long for the good old days of scandal. But this doesn't mean that the program hasn't been carefully planned. You've got to plan long ahead to create anything as dull as this. Even with practice, it must have been a hard show to create.
