"CLOCHEMERLE"

New Zealand Listener, Volume 29, Issue 731, 17 July 1953, Page 5

"CLOCHEMERLE"

Sir,-Your film critic’s barometer appears to require expert attention, as it does not seem to be in good working order. I refer to its. reading "overcast" against the title Clochemerle in your issue dated July 3. Possibly it is operating in a conditioned atmosphere and in that case deserves pity. My advice to "Jno." is... open the windows and let the fresh air get at it. His extraordinary commentary upon the French film recently shown im Wellington convinces me that he did not view it in his capacity of critic, but instead spent the session struggling with his archaic set of repressions and inhibitions. For "Jno.’s" information, modern psychology has long since exploded most of the ideas with which his mind is still cluttered. As an example I would point out that nothing in Clochemerle, or any other artistic portrayal of natural and commonplace human needs, reactions and inter-relationships is intrinsically "srubby." If any grubbiness exists it is distressingly obvious where it is to be found. "Jno." takes far too much for granted in referring to his own tastes as out tastes. Whence comes the surprising information that British artistic tradition is Puritan? Presumably "Jno." means to imply that, since we can hardly flatter ourselves that New Zealand has yet acquired its own distinctive tradition regarding matters of artistic representation. To anyone familiar with the works of Fielding, Smollett, Sterne, Shakespeare and a host of other eminent fighters against what "Jno." terms "innate Anglo-Saxon hypocrisy" it is absurd to suggest that British literature reflects that misguided, unsavoury prudishness which permits the private and guilty snigger at obscenity for obscenity’s sake, whilst deploring it publicly. Poor "Jno.," and poor Justine Putet, — who are unable to face the facts of life without blushing, would .do well to visit a psycho-analyst before passing judg-

ment upon something which a normal healthy-minded person can only regard as a wholesome, robust and thoroughly enjoyable humorous satire. In conclusion, let us hope that on future occasions "Jno." will view films objectively, as becomes a competent critic, and give us intelligent comments -which might have included in this case the fact that the film was badly mutilated, presumably by zealous pathological Puritans-and not be _ prepossessed with his feelings of shame at his Maker’s handiwork.

HENRY

WOOLF

(Lower Hutt).

(Our film critic replies: "I can imagine Mr. Woolf in all sorts of fundamentally comic situations which would cause him, I am sure, acute embarrassment if they occurred in public, but I would not say that his distress was the product of unsavoury prtidishness or an archaic set of inhibitions. I am in favour of a sensible and healthy attitude to sex, but films come too late in the educational processand are too potent in their impact on immature minds-to be an effective means to that end. In reviewing, of course, I assume that teaders by now are familiar with the moral considerations that may affect my judgment, — — their own adjustments accordingly."