WAR ON FILMLAND

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18402, 21 May 1934, Page 5

WAR ON FILMLAND

ENGLISH CRITIC’S SCORN POISON DARTS LONDON, March 29. Filmland has no love for Mr fit. John Ervine, and, eminent critic though he be, Mr St. John Ervine detests Filmland, .concerning the defects of which lie waxed furious last week. Addressing an amused and highly delighted audience at University College on “The Alleged Art of the Cinema” —cruel title—he lashed this unhappy institution until it had not the proverbial leg to stand on. Even the film critics did not escape his scorn, for, as he was careful to. explain, “there is some vulgarity in the moving pictures which usually communicates itself to .those whose business it is to write about them.” Using his own sprightly invective (which would make the average politician turn .green with envy), he dc- ! dared that the cinema in relation to its spiritual and intellectual character,< was “beneath contempt.” It wasj vulgar; it was infantile; it was every-j thing that was unpleasant and fright-: ful. As for those happy mortals who rejoice in the name of “Film Fans,” they had “the souls of slaves.” “I know of few sights more-depressing,”; groaned Mr Ervine, “than a crowd of; dull-eyed, dazed film fans emerging from a cinema. I say to myself,, , ‘Here come the corpses looking for their coffins.” The audience sits in; a lethargic state scarcely daring to , whisper, and looking for the most part as though something had hit it. It definitely looks doped. These people have the souls of slaves. They hate personal distinction; they like common though’!, and ideas, herd habits and herd ideas.” . The concern of the cinema, so far, had been “ with man not as a thinking creature, but only as an active creature.” Endings were happy, bathrooms and bedrooms were palatial, and heroines were young ■ and 'beautiful: (“not thinking lest their brows should, wrinkle”). Thus he went on, shooting darts in a hundred directions, some of them,; i. is to be feared, having first been dipped in poison. But, of course, the! 'cinema industry does not mirnl. It is impervious to darts, poisoned or other-; wise. It doubtless congratulates itselfj •on the fact that even Mr fit. John Ervine admitted that he was not bold enough to assert that the film could, never be made a work of art. And, in any case, we all know that film dircc-} tors and actors have their own con-; c-cption of art, proceeding on the sound; assumption that nine-tenths of the; public ask only to be distracted. ■■ - ; ;