Untitled

New Zealand Listener, Volume 14, Issue 350, 8 March 1946, Page 5

Sir,-M.C., in his. reply to my letter, asks why it is that if Colonel Blimp was of the. standard I ascribed to it he was unable to appreciate more than two-thirds of it. Several possible answers suggest themselves; but in the interests of goud feeling it may be as well to abstain from giving them. M.C., who describes himself as "a most tolerant picture-goer," complains of "the attempt to whitewash" the Colonel, and declares that the word "Blimp," like the word "Vandal," admits only of a hostile interpretation. But surely, Low’s character is not that of the more generalised fool and dug-out, the same in all ages, but is intended as a social criticism of a certain historical phenomenon, to wit, the British "Officer and Gentleman" of (say) the Boer War era as he now lives among us. The film set out to give the case for the historical phenomenon by comparing him with his — Prussian equivalent, whose consequences have been far more deplorable, If M.C. is "a most tolerant picture-goer," he

_should be acquainted with the thesis that "there are two sides to every question and that the defence has an equal right to be heard with the prosecution; further, that a film should be judged by more than other criteria than its agreement with the critic’s social views. The Vandals failed to realise this in matters of art criticism and social reform; and it became necessary for their civilised neighbours to go to enormous trouble and expense to wipe them off the face of the earth.

ZOILUS

(Christchurch),

(It is time Colonel Blimp was buried: we cannot admit further correspondence on this subject.-Ed)