G.M. Replies

New Zealand Listener, Volume 8, Issue 184, 31 December 1942, Page 17

G.M. Replies

BOTH these letters, and particularly that from John Doe, reveal a surprisingly intimate knowledge of filmtrade organisation and phraseology for laymen. But there are, for a start, one or two contradictions. in John Doe’s

letter. For instance, how does he reconcile his statement that my reviews may influence "quite a number of people" with his subsequent statement that the reaction of members of the film industry is just derisive laughter. Having had some inside experience of the industry, I can say that its members, like other businessmen, are seldom likely to treat as a laughing matter anything which may adversely affect their takings. Not that I would agree that my reviews are in the long run likely to have such an effect: anything the movie industry may lose on the swings from candid criticism, it more than makes up on the roundabouts. People who may stay away from a film that is unfavourably reviewed, are quite likely to go out of their way to see one that is commended-pro-vided they know that the reviewer is honest in his opinions. A bad review of a big picture with popular stars doesn’t keep many of the mass of regular picture-goers away from it: on the other hand, praise of a good but insignificant show without much obvious "popular appeal". may often help it-at the boxoffice. Yet the box-office, I assert, is not the chief concern of the critic. There was a time, I’ll frankly admit, when I did believe that a reviewer could accurately estimate in advance the box-office reactions to any film, and should base his comments. accordingly, but I have long since come to the conclusion that this is impossible, and that the only thing that a critic can honestly do is to express his personal reactions in the light of his knowledge and experience, not entirely overlooking the film’s prospects at the box-office, but not being overawed and blinded by them, nor by the big names in the credit-titles. In time, the critic’s reactions constitute a recognisable guide, which readers follow or ignore, according to their own tastes. I have never, so far as I can remember, said that any film "out-smarts the smart guy who made it, and should have stopped in the can," and I have frequently indicated that a film is for one type of audience and not for another. Also, if all the men making films were of the calibre of Disney and Welles, I probably shouldn’t have much complaint — but I’ll bet the box-office mag- nates would! Still, it comes down to this-if the movies are purely and simply a matter of cold, hard business, then the boxoffice is all that matters: but the film industry itself is the first to claim. (with some reason) that they are also an art, just as much as the stage is an art. The industry can’t have it both ways: if there is any art in films there should also be criticism — if only because it’s good for business! If John Does wants a good inside story of how films are made in Hollywood he should read Budd Schulberg’s What Makes Sammy Run. He will find one character expressing the opinion that what the movies badly need is "real slugging criticism"-and plenty of it. As for Avon G. Todd, — if his. (or her) survey of *the last

I have reviewed would reveal such a preponderance .in favour of one company’s product as against another’s. But it {s true that I have adversely criticised a good many M-G-M films: for the simple reason that in my opinion (and it is only my opinion) this company, perhaps more than any other, is in the habit of relying too much on its big boxoffice stars to attract audiences and has, in general, concentrated too much on shallow, superficial themes (mostly about rich and idle people) which are unrelated to the needs and events of the world we are living in. Mrs. Miniver may well be an exception: at the time of writing I haven’t seen it.