Focus: A Film Review (1950-1951)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

123 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR If you have an opinion to express, a comment to make, an idea to offer, the Editor will be delighted to hear from you. Your Witness Sir, I notice that your reviewer writes : “Patricia Wayne, whose first film this is . . . etc.” This statement is not strictly correct. It is true that it is the first film in which Miss Wayne has performed under that name but, as Patricia Cutts (she is, I believe, a daughter of pioneer British film Director Graham Cutts), she has, to my knowledge, played in one other film — and there may be others. Moreover, she has a background of about 2yi years of repertory theatre experience. I recently saw the film I have just mentioned — a British “second Feature” entitled The Adventures of P.C. 49 (based on one of the episodes broadcast by the B.B.C.) — in which Miss Cutts was aptly cast as Archie’s fiancee, Joan Carr. I would wish it were possible for “V.” to see it, because I feel that he would then be prepared to state that not only is Miss Wayne “vivacious and pretty”, but can, when given the opportunity, act. Reverting to “V.’s” review of Your Witness, in particular the final paragraph, I venture to disagree with his opinion that Robert Montgomery “is much too much in the picture”. . How could he avoid being much in this picture when the central theme of the film’s story revolves around -Adam’s anxious endeavours on behalf of the man who had saved his life ? I, personally, find Bob Montgomery’s acting so polished and entertaining that I do not easily tire of his presence on the screen. Yours, L. Coudurier. 108 Bessborough Road, Harrow, Middlesex. Greatly Surprised Sir, I read your March Editorial (on The Miracle) with great interest, but your attitude to the film in question greatly surprised me. Many responsible critics have reviewed this film and saw in it none of the vicious implications which you have detected in it, and I seem to remember that in a recent edition of the B.B.C.’s feature, “The Critics,” C. A. Dejeune, who is surely in the forefront as far as taste and critical perception are concerned, declared that she found The Miracle a beautiful and moving experience. Religion is a powerful force in human beings, and is not a study of its chance effect on a simple-minded peasant quite justifiable, especially as in this case it is generally agreed that the treatment of the story is adult and artistic ? This film is not likely to excite as much derision amongst audiences as did some of the American films about “religious” subjects, films which were usually childish and sometimes downright silly. Any such films, however, do less harm than the spate of sickeningly cruel and unnecessarily coarse films to which we are now subjected and which you would do far better to criticise with the utmost severity. Yours, Haroed Gerry. “Cliff-View”, East Church Street, Buckie, Scotland. Constructive Criticism Sir, You have asked for constructive criticism. I hope you are snowed under with it, because it would prove the amount of interest taken in Focus and the C.F.I. The contents of Focus being of a high standard demand a magazine more professional in make-up than it is at present. Although more money would be expended in producing such a magazine, the increase would be compensated by the increase in its circulation and influence. A potential reader judges from his first impression, therefore the appearance should always receive great attention. The size of the magazine should be reduced by one inch to the more square shape of, for example,