FILM CRITICISM

New Zealand Listener, Volume 14, Issue 349, 1 March 1946, Page 18

FILM CRITICISM

Sir-yYour correspondent RR. E, Stevens, is plainly of the opinion that, because he has seen so many films, he is at liberty to dogmatise upon the subject of criticism, of which, still more plainly he has little knowledge. Film and theatrical criticism, both closely allied, conform to a set of principles which, although not as stringent as those ruling literary criticism, must nevertheless be adhered to. One of the most important things to remember, although strictly speaking it is not a principle, is that positive assertion cannot be tolerated. The critic is in the unenviable’ position of having to please, or appease, a public which, whatever else it might have, lacks a singleness of mind. I do not mean that he should be vacillating in his opinions, quite the reverse, but definitely not dogmatic. It is his task to judge a film and, with reservation, to pass that judgment on to the people. The majority of critics, and G.M. is one, honestly endeavour to judge a film on its merits, whether or not it fulfils the purpose for which it is produced. And, for example, where morals are concerned the critic has a responsibility and a duty to discharge to the public. One critic (writing on literary criticism) avers that a book should be weighed solely on its internal merits, taking no account of the external factors which influence its composition. The same is true of films. Mentioning the characters, in this light, is surely an irrelevant detail, and to condemn a critic because he does not append a list of principles is absurd. Finally I would like to remind R. E. Stevens that if he were to see ten thousand films, it would still not entitle him to state vehemently that a criticism is "completely wrong." G.M. offered an opinion only about the White Cliffs of Dover-one which many hundreds of theatregoers agreed was "completely right." I, for one, did.

D.

SOTHERAN

(Westport).