"SALOME"

New Zealand Listener, Volume 14, Issue 344, 25 January 1946, Page 5

"SALOME"

Sir,-Permit me to add my comments on what has been noticed by many in G.M.’s film criticism page-namely, his only too obvious prejudice against American films because they are American. Many do not consider it worthwhile reading his page on this account. In fact, I know of more than one person who does not take The Listener on account of its bias and one-sidedness. However, being of Scottish descent, I aim to get my threepence worth, and wade through even the intolerance displayed by G.M., although it frequently

strikes me that the tone of the magazine would be higher with a little-more fair play in the film criticisms.

FAIR

PLAY

(Northcote),

Sir,-Your correspondents bring me to G.M.’s defence, First let the writers of that letter glance at the summary of stand-up claps for 1945: America 10, England 5. Sit-down claps: America 31, England 7. Surely that tells a story. Second, let them think over these extracts: "It (Citizen Kane) is still, I believe, several years ahead of its time." "Thus (in Wilson) at one leap almost, a major Hollywood studio has reached maturity, has shown itself capable of assuming adult responsibilities and, although it would be rashly optimistic to assume that it will remain on this peak for long, the American cinema has shown us AGAIN what it can dé when it tries (the capitals are my own), , It is\really unnecessary to compare films from both countries. Each produces shoddy films and each produces masterpieces which could not be made in any other country. Could America produce such things as Western Approzches, Love on the Dole, or Henry VIII? Or could England produce Heaven Can Wait, Citizen Kane, Fantasia, or Lifeboat? As for Salome Where She Danced, an English magazine gives just as painstaking an account of the apparently meandering story as G.M. does. The majority of Listener readers believe that G.M. gives praise and abuse where they are due and that he is quite internatione« ally minded about it.

R. K.

PARKES

(Hamilton).

Sir,-"Abuse No Criticism" (Wellington) complains that G.M. in his reviews of American films is an "unjust and bigoted critic." I owe a great deal to G.M. He has taught me to appreciate a film more for its technical than its popular side. If he doesn’t like a film, I have always found his reasons to be good, clear, and concise. His critic doesn’t seem to realise that a film review must necessarily express the views only of the reviewer. He writes of a picture as it seems to him. Why launch a tirade against G.M.’s work "in toto" simply because G.M. has apparently trodden on one reader’s corns in regard to Salome? For myself, I don’t always agree with G.M. For example, I consider English Without Tears one of the most delicht-

ful pictures I saw in 1945. G.M. however let the Little Man slump right down in the chair for this film, but I would think twice before attempting to criticise his review, because I think that, in 90 per cent of the cases, G.M. | does a difficult job very well, and has proved himself a just, intelligent and worthwhile critic, , Following G,.M.’s lead, and taking note of his comments and opinions on a film, I think I have raised my own standard of film preferences. I know. that I would rather go to a film directed by Renee Clair or Hitchcock, no matter who the players were, than see one featuring some of the brightest stars in the Hollywood firmament. I have also found by experience that one British film is worth to me ten from America.

NEON

(Gisborne).