Open Letter To Gordon Mirams

Radio Record, 22 April 1938, Page 29

Open Letter To Gordon Mirams

"A CANDID FILM CRITIC SHOULD BE CONSISTENT"

HERE are slaps and claps in an "open letter" which | received the other morning from a writer who signs herself "Nina Bevan." J am grateful to her for that letter, which | have reproduced in full, because it contains an excellent review of the United Artists’ picture, "Stand In." To the writer’s complaint about my personal failure, I have a very good answer, but I shall reserve it till the end of the letter. And now, as they say in the serials, read on (and it’s worth reading) :- Dear Mr. Mirams. When a man sets himself up as a candid film critic. it must be to him the crown of success when the public suffers him unquestioningly to lead it in the choice of screen entertainment. Now you, Mr. Mirams, as the one and ouvly sufficiently candid critie iu New Zealand, have won that crown, A Jarge block of readers to-day looks to the "Record" for reliable appreciations of coming films, and whole-heartedly thanks you for the service. Unfortunately, as their thanks grow. so, too, grows their expectation that the service he consistently given, And it is not. 1 am disappointed, Mr. Mirams. How comes it that we have so far seen in your columns no mention — of Leslie Howard's latest film, "Stand In," which has already been publicly released in Wellington? If I had not been in the first place un admirer of Mr. Howard's work, L might very easily haye missed that comedy in fayour, perhaps, of "Nothing Naered," which you recommended se highly. And if I had missed "Stand In." Mr. Mirams, I would never have forgiven you your lapses.. For it gave me the merriest two hours’ of sitting in the dark that I can remember since father fixed our electric toaster. Say what you like about Paul Muni and his Zola, and I am ready to applaud your judgment. But, to be logical, you must not, a few months later, coldly ignore Mr. Howard and _his stand-in. Kor -Mr, Howard's creation of Atterbury Dodds was just as carefully consistent-even though the role was much lighter and less exactingus Mr. Muni’s portrayal of the fighter for truth. The conception of a prim, mathematical banker with myopic sight who determined to put Hollywood finances on a sound basis was amusing enough ns a start for a film story. But Mr. Howard in spectacles, politely forcing smiles and ever zealous for statistics, was better even than the seript seemed to expect. His dancing and jiu-jitsu lessons. the hectie martyrdom with which he led a film star downward into "moral turpitude" (how breathlessly funny ‘that slipping was!), his dignity when he carried his black eye away from a party, his resolute proposal of marriage to Miss Plum, best of all, perhaps, his blind running and bumbling at the end of the picfure-these things are springs of laughter that have kept bubbling up and overflowing in my mind ever since last Friday night. Incidentally, my aunt has not yet forgiven me for giggling suddenly and hyster-

cally in the middle of her sombre tale of 2 dentist’s visit. That Mr. Howard made an admirable and lovable character out of what was intrinsically rather goody-g0od material was not the least part of his triumph. And the faltering attempt at philosophy in the scene with Humphrey Bogart at the window was & stroke of pure genius-for author, actor, and director alike. Indeed, Mr. Mirams, I’m surprised at you. Why didn’t you tell us of Mr. Howard’s excellences in the comedy role which most of us had forgotten he could play? Why didn’t you mention the incisive freshness of Tad Garnett’s direction-or that the script for "Stand In" was written by the author of. "Mr, Deeds Goes to Town," with a pen still as smooth and sharp as when it gave us the famous doodjer? Why didn’t you eyen let us know that marriage Or Max Factor has taken away those: dirty circles under Joan Blondell’s eyes, and that, behind a new face, she is at least as slick a comedienne as Jean Arthur? Why didn’t you warn us that, despite the picture’s appeal primarily to thése who follow film career and polities, "Stand In" may yet prove & strong candidate for the best comedy of 1928?

---Yours sincerely,

Nina

Bevan

The Answer y TTY didn’t I tell you about all this, Mrs. Bevan? Because, Mrs. Bevan, 1 couldn’t see "Stand-In" any sooner than you did, which was in Wellington at its first public screening about ten days ago. And that, Mrs. Bevan, wasn't my fault, because United Artists are a company with a policy (perhaps 2 curious policy) of only giving rare previews for what they consider their really important pictures. Apparently they didn’t consider "Stand-In" was important enough. You and T think it was-but there you are. If you hadn’t done the job so well, Mrs. Bevan, I would have reviewed "Stand-In" for this issue, and I think I should have been very nearly as enthusiastic as you are about the film’s merits. But already it is too late for your review to do the film ag much . good as it might, for already its seasons in Auckland and Wellington are over. Anyway, Mrs, Bevan, I am grateful to you for bringing this matter to light. It’s not the first time an important United Artists’ picture has missed its share of praise in the "Record." And United Artists isn’t the only film company that considers it not worth while -or perhaps is just a trifle afraid?to show me its pictures in time to be able to say just how good-or not so good-I think them. Of this be sure, Mrs. Bevan, that letter of yours is §0ing to find its way to the notice of the proper people. But please, Mrs. Bevav, even if the millenium comes and all theatrette doors are opened by those magie words "Candid Criticism," don’t be too hard on me if I occasionally miss reviewing a picture you specially enjoy. I do like i night off sometimes. : Perhaps. Mrs. Bevan, you'd like to be a film editor yourself?-Candidly

yours,

Gordon

Mirams