Untitled

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

Sir-Your correspondent R.E.S. may well know something about films (I am tempted to say in spite of having seen 1,400), but I suggest an analogy to him. Presumably he has at some time seen a number of cars passing along a road -does that act of seeing necessarily imply a working knowledge of those cars? We’ have had many letters in praise of, and derogatory to, G.M. as a film critic, but not till now has anyone asserted that he is completely wrong. A bold statement-so bold that omission of a reason for such a statement was a very wise choice. I suggest to your correspondent, first that he find out the actors in a coming film from his local paper and leave G.M. to his own devices; and second, that he take as his motto "Each to his own

craft."

J.B.

(Waverley)_

Sir,-Why all this heat about G.M.’s reviews? For my part I had almost given up the movies until G.M.’s advent. It used to be one good one in seven. Trusting G.M. now I never see a poor one. Yet the film people don’t seem grateful for the extra money and even G.M.’s

readers cavil at him. He is the modern whipping-boy, condemned to look at much rubbish for our sake. The Suspect, This Happy Breed, San Demetrio London, Going My Way, Song of Bernadette, all deserved top honours. If Colonel Blimp didn’t get them at any rate it got and deserved the sit-down clap. As for the English and American argument; at one time a great many people had become disgusted with the unfair Quota system, with the leering and vulgar Tom Wall’s bedroom scenes, with the amateurish English production and photography, and had come to regard the humour of English producers as no laughing matter. It was G.M. who told us those days were past and English producers at long last were equalling and surpassing their American opposite numbers.

MALTESE

FALCON

(Wellington).