The screen writer (Apr-Oct 1948)

We Americans have always had a strong feeling against such things and perhaps many of you think I am vehemently crying of wolves that don't exist. But the world today, even more than in the thirties, seems to be dividing itself into camps on this subject; as Mr. Churchill pointed out so startlingly at Fulton, Missouri. I don't pretend to go along with Mr. Churchill's solution but at least he opened the great debate, and you can figure that many writers will argue the collective side. And again I say that I cannot understand a writer, of all people, participating in this suicidal worlddrive to make individuals exist to serve the collective state. To me it is a paradox that any creative artist should negate individualism. A writer is by nature a rebel. He is also a fighter of causes. During the depression he wrote against war and very often, for collectivism. During the war, he wrote for war (our side of course) and against fascism. Now, in this postwar period, or period between wars, however you look at it, he is writing against intolerance, mainly racial, and for some kind of world federation. Broadway, for instance, has become one continuous brightly lit soapbox. Perhaps the causes are worthy, but most of it is pretty bad theater. Always against a group, or for a group. No wonder the poor individual, the cast of characters, is lost in the ideological shuffle. Could a Falstaff beat the drum for racial tolerance and remain Falstaff, a unique creation of art? Could Mr. Micawber ever recover from the curse of being a symbol of the downtrodden poor? Could Foma Fomavitch stand out as that perfect Dostoevskan character if he were forced to double in brass as the horrible example of a bourgeois society? And that other great art of the writer, the art of rebelling . . . cannot the writer realize that it must necessarily become a lost art in this collective world ? AS I say, I don't understand it. I don't like it. And I'm against it. Personally, I don't ever want to become a symbol of any group, and I hope I never have to invent characters in fiction who are. I hope that I never become imbued with a romantic and fierce despair over my own country. I hope I don't ever become savage about conservative folks . . . the kind that writers invariably call reactionaries. Personally I like reactionaries and believe our way of governing America is often benefited by their tenacity. I also like reformers and liberals and think likewise. But I hope I shall always resent, and never accept, the intrusion on my private life which is the end result of the collective state. It threatens to invade my home, my mind, my sense of privacy, in a way that is hardly worth the gaudy and fictitious promises it makes to the group. And speaking as a writer, it threatens to destroy, not only my freedom to write as I please, but much more basically, the fierce and tender individualism, the uniqueness of each man and woman, which is the very essence of all creative writing. That's about all I had to say, except, oh yes, I did promise to say something further about the attitude of the writer in this atomic age. Well, and you may quote me, I sincerely believe the writer in the atomic age should be pretty darned scared. I know I am. "f Vital statistics on United States filmgoers, compiled by Paul Lazarsfeld, head of Columbia University Bureau of applied social research, reveal that patrons under 35 account for two-thirds of the nation's box office receipts. Facts further show that while 70 per cent of film-goers under 24 attend films at least once weekly, only 19 per cent over 45 attend with the same regularity. Biggest reason for attending films is the plot; title and star names attracting a lesser number. Daily Variety The Screen Writer, April, 194 17