The New York State Exhibitor (1933)

YOUR THEATRE Jul 10'33 Page 13 E A CRITIC MUST KNOW HIS READER--AND VICE VERSA BY CHESTER B. BAHN The dramatic editor of the "Syracuse (N.Y.) Herald" indicates that the motion picture specialist need only write accurately and interestingly, using his acquired knowledge for such interpretation as may be required. He figures, also, that some of the boys and girls take themselves too seriously. AS CERTAIN EVIDENCE of Summer’s advent as boiling mercury in the ther¬ mometers is the perennial and seasonal dis¬ cussion of cinema critics and cinema criti¬ cism by leaders of the Fourth Industry and editorial spokesmen of the trade press, and the retorts courteous by my brethren of the critical typewriters. Unfortunately, it seems to me that much of what is said by both sides reads as though the respec¬ tive commentators were suffering acutely from a touch of the heat. SWEEPING ASIDE the verbal smoke screens, it must be apparent that the critic's first allegiance is to his readers, a fraction of whose pennies fill his pay envelope. They are entitled to know whether a given pic¬ ture (or play) contains that which is worth the asked box office price. There are, to be sure, pictures and pictures, plays and plays, and audiences and audiences. To the intelligent critic falls the task of mak¬ ing them meet, if the meeting is possible. In this connection, it should be stressed that it is as necessary for the reader to know his critic as it is for the critic to know both his theatre and his reader. JUSTIFIABLE CENSURE of cinema critics and criticism, in the vast majority of instances, is traceable to a lack of har¬ mony somewhere along the line; in the language of the Rialto, there is miscasting, either of critic or reader or, in specific cases, of both. Essentially, of course, the rules for the critic are simple enough. A graduate reporter who has achieved the distinction of specialist in his chosen field, he need only write accurately and inter¬ estingly, using his acquired knowledge for such interpretation as may be required. THERE IS, I am convinced, a binding relationship between one’s success as a critic and adherence to that creed; the closer the observance, the greater the suc¬ cess. By success I do not mean the indus¬ try’s approbation, expressed in terms of quotations, back-slapping and favors, but rather the confidence of the movie-going, newspaper-reading public. IN RECENT DISCUSSIONS in the trade press, there has been a tendency on the part of the critics’ critics to emphasize that mass reaction is non-existent. It is . . . and it isn’t. Which is to say that not all mass reac¬ tions are identical. For example, there is a decided differ¬ ence between that of the New York Times’ reading public and that of tabloidia. And the mass reaction of the clientele of the New Yorker, Life, Judge, the Spectator and Vanity Fair certainly would little re¬ semble that of the average movie audience. For that matter, mass reactions of movie audiences are themselves likely to vary. FACTORS IN THIS ARE, first, the house; secondly, the character of its at¬ tractions. Even in cities of 200,000 population, such as Syracuse, theatres attract and hold a particular audience; physical comfort plays a part in that — there are houses so ornate as to make one class of moviegoers un¬ comfortable. As for the influence of the type of films presented, it must be obvious that an audience accustomed to action pic¬ tures, so called, and an audience finding satisfaction in such film fare as “When Ladies Meet,” scarcely would have the identical mass reaction. IT SEEMS TO ME that quite a bit of the existing dissatisfaction with cinema criticism is attributable to the critic’s failure to properly differentiate. Of course, as an envoy of fandom, the first question he should ask himself is, “Does the picture entertain?” Or, better still, “Does the picture entertain the particular audience for which it was designed?” IF IT DOES, the critic is in duty bound to say so and, further, report why. Naturally, this presupposes that the critic is a competent judge, not of one class of pictures, but of all. UNFORTUNATELY, it is only too ap¬ parent that not all of my compatriots are; the reasons are many. In some in¬ stances, personal likes and dislikes sway decisions. In others, I am afraid the boys and girls take themselves a wee bit too seriously. In more, one detects an ambition to be clever in phrase-slinging at any cost. In still more, undoubtedly miscasting is blamable. And, finally, there are those who have no audience contacts, with the result that their viewpoint is as narrow as that of Hollywood itself. It is not for me to say which is the most regrettable. Mv greatest sympathy, how¬ ever, goes to those honest souls who, in their capacities as cinema critics, write for the wrong audience — those whose decisions are made (shall 'we say) for the movie¬ going, newspaper-reading public when they should be placed before the clientele of the New Yorker, et al. A newspaper publisher, or a managing editor, I should make it my business to see that there was noi critical miscasting in my office. I SHOULD DEMAND a critic capable of measuring a given medium — theatre, cinema, music, art, literature, etc., etc. — for my own subscription list. If a majority of those whose names graced it compre¬ hended montage and the cinema’s other fine points, I should deem it proper that the critic discuss them lucidly, but, mark you, only after he had replied to the question, “Does the picture entertain the particular audience for which it was designed?” If, however, they did not, I should gently suggest to the critic that a little more em¬ phasis upon things as they are and a little less upon things as they ought to be from his standpoint, would increase his own readers. DO NOT MISINTERPRET, PLEASE. It still would be well within the critic’s province to praise and censure and, after a fashion, to strive to educate his follow¬ ing. But for every reader who desires to be taught, there are, I am confident, one hundred who want to be entertained. Meaning that they want to know, not if the picture has been directed after the fashion of Eisenstein and Clair, but if it is cut to their amusement pattern, whatever it may be. The properly cast critic will tell them, whether they are patrons of the dime house devoted to action thrillers, devotees of Wheeler and Woolsey slapstick or, again, s+aunch supporters of Ann Harding, etc., etc., etc. LASTLY, THIS: In my guise of pub¬ lisher or editor, I should insist that critics writing for my paper keep a finger upon the public’s pulse. There are innumerable ways of doing that; my own solution has been the Cinema Critics Club, now in its seventh year. Its membership is as close to being 100 per cent, representative of the various strata of cinema fandom as its executives can make it; educator and shop girl make it a common forum and the re¬ sults, speaking critically, are at once both enlightening and beneficial.