Canadian Film Weekly (Apr 9, 1947)

Page 4 Canadian FILM WEEKLY a April 9, 1947 The Critics Criticized (Continued from Page 1) bad one, then sees the film and finds it satisfactory to his taste. While discovering this he sees hundreds or thousands of others enjoying the same film. After a few such experiences the reader realizes that, for him at least, the critic is a poor guide. Thereafter he may read him but he doesn't take his advice. He will incline toward that critic whose tastes are closer to his own.” — That opinion, mind you, is by no means unanimous. Latest example of the almost traditional differences in taste is in the recent Canadian Film Weekly polls to determine the choices of both critics and public of the ten best films. “The Bells of St. Mary’s” was first in the boxoffice poll and last choice of the critics. The critics picked “The Lost Weekend” as the best film to be shown in Canada during 1946, a film which was tied for sixth place in the boxoffice poll. ; Another interesting opinion about movie criticism came. from a veteran publicity and promotion man. “The only objection I have is that in some cases critical standards are too high for the readers of the papers for which certain critics write. Their papers and readers are not highbrow but the critics’ opinions are. I see nothing wrong with highly critical reviews appearing in periodicals for highly critical readers. Such periodicals have a limited circulation and their writers often find themselves at odds with popular tastes, as do their readers. That type of review doesn’t belong in a newspaper of broad circulation.” In the end I suppose it gets down to the old question about what the function of a critic is. Legate says that there can’t be a general standard for motion picture criticism and it must “resolve itself into something of an indjvidual standard.” A “movie critic's sole job,” he writes, “is to serve the reading public—and no one else.” Well, the previously-mentioned veteran publicity man will agree on who is to be served but seems to have a point about what constitutes service to the reader who seeks guidance in keeping with popular taste. The 1946 Christmas number of the Australasian trade paper, The Film Weekly, rounded up the critics’ opinions of the critic’s function under “Reviewer's Viewpoint.” The heads over the various opinions indicate their nature: “Condemn Without Fear,” “Free Approach,” “Not Publicity Man,” “Stifled Criticism Valueless,” etc. Ian Aird of the Melbourne Herald wrote that a critic should be capable of considerable objectivity but that “His standards of entertainment should be the highest in the community and he should be outspokenly intolerant of trash and bad craftsmanship. “Your film critic . . . must be interpretative rather than representative,” stated Peter Kingston of the Perth Daily News. “The critic’s double job,” wrote Josephine O’Neil of the Sydney Telegraph, “makes him or her a form guide and a sign post.” Particularly interesting was the opinion of S. C. Rosier, West Australian Newspapers, offered under the head, “Unbiased Commentary.” With a nod of thanks to Mr. Rosier and The Film Weekly, it is reproduced here: As we do not use criticisms nor even reviews, I am able to give an unbiased view of the situation based on 24 years’ experience of both the Press and Entertainment worlds. I do not think a critic’s job is either (a) to describe film or (b) to reflect the reaction of an audience—both these are purely matters of reporting and can be done by any journalist. A critic, in the true sense, must set a standard of merit and assess a film accordingly, being unaffected by the size or reaction of the audience, and say it is good, bad or indifferent. But then who is to say what is a good picture? In any family circles it is not uncommon to find as many views on any film as there are persons in the household. And every one of them is right according to his or her own view! There are few “perfect” films, i.e. films that are good boxoffice attractions and also good pictures, e.g. “Pygmalion;” others are good films but terrible at the boxoffice, e.g., ‘Winterset;’’ others are good at the boxoffice but are terrible, e.g. “On Our Selection.” It is over this last group that the trade and critics clash and I expect that these differences of opinion will continue for the next 40 years as they have done in the past 40 years. I have only one solution for this! New films are presented on a Friday and, if criticisms are not published till the Monday, everyone should be happy. The trade knows that the public by then has sized up all the offerings and nothing—not even glowing critical approval—will overcome poor “word of mouth” comment. The Press, except in Sydney where the position of the rival Sunday papers must be considered, would find this plan satisfactory as the.critics would have time to do their job without haste between Friday’s viewings and Monday’s publication. ' Film criticism should appear under the critic’s name or penname and, after watching a month’s reviews, the intelligent reader will be able to link his, or her tastes, with the standard Columbia Correction On New Pressbook Columbia is. currently sending out a correction. on its pressbook for ‘The Guilt of Janet Ames,” Rosalind Russell-Melvyn Douglas starrer. Correction credits the special material used by Sid Caesar in the film to Caesar and Allan Roberts rather than to Roberts. and Doris Fisher. TO BETTER SERVE YOU | PRESENTS | ] THE THEATRES GINEATEST MONEY -MAKEN CREATING, AND SUSTAINING BOX . OFFICE RECORDS Head Offics NOW LOCATED IN NEW » ENLARGED PREMISES ‘Suite 702 21 Dundas Sq. EL. 7796 Quebec & Maritimes STERLING FILMS LTD. 5969 Monkland Ave., Montreal, set by a critic. I concede this to the trade—a critic might, withWestern Canada out affecting the quality of his work, indicate audience reaction FOTO-NITE where this is in marked contrast to the view he expresses. So it goes. Critics and the trade—the twain does meet but apparently not often enough, DISTRIBUTORS, Inc. 1246 Burrard St., Vancouver. ——EE ss ee 618 Oakwood Ave. TORONTO 10. ONT.