"The Postman Always Rings Twice"

New Zealand Listener, Volume 15, Issue 386, 15 November 1946, Page 33

"The Postman Always Rings Twice"

Sir,-I find that very often G.M. and I have vastly differing opinions, particularly from the angle from which G.M. makes his comments. ; For instance in a recent review of The Postman Always Rings Twice, threequarters of G.M.’s criticism discusses the impossibility of screening the story from the novel, as such. Does any movie script-writer attempt to do that? Isn’t it claimed by M-G-M that the movie story was based on the novel rather than that it was turned directly into dialogue, and screened page: by page? Usually it is only the general theme of the story from a book which is used to make a film. The movie company who made the film do not claim any more, particularly if the posters advertising the film are read more carefully than perhaps just looking at a cover of a book shown at one corner of the advertisement. The criticism then: suggests that the film is not immoral: enough by stating. that "the film lacks the crude honesty of the original."’ Then is the critic suggesting that movies should be immoral? Perhaps that is being hard on G.M., but whichever way one looks at that statement it does not do anything towards cons‘ructive criticism. In saying. that "fortunately it is a very short novel, a- virtue which the screen version did not possess" is G.M. suggesting that the film is overlong either in length in fact or that the movie is drawn out to’ appear long? If it is length in fact then The Postman is just an average length film. If the latter, then to me, the film did not appear overlong as it had plenty of action and the story moved right to the end. Actually I considered the film fast moving, possessing a_ well-told story which certainly did not leave me bored or slumped in, my theatre seat as it did G.M.’s little man. As I seem to have taken a view opposite to G.M. I will sion mveelf

M.

G.

(Welliagtor.

(G.M. replies:. "Only one of the correspondent’s points requires comment. I was not suggesting that the film was not immoral enough. I was. stating, not suggesting, that the story should not have been filmed at all, because it belongs to that class of literary material which, by its nature, cannot be put honestly on the screen. So instead there are unhealthy evasions: an attempt is made to maintain a balance between what is profitable (according to the box-office) and what is permissible (according to the standards of screen censorship). If there is any ‘immorality,’ this is where it is_to be found.’’)