BACK TO NATURE
S1R,—Mr. Booker's article on cinema-veriie last week started with a derisory reference to a commercial television programme he 'did not manage to see' himself; dealt with my attitude to the subject on the basis of a statement I did not make, in a television programme I did not produce; and ended with a witty account of a luncheon he 'heard described', but did not attend.
His account of the luncheon included comments on speeches by 'successful playwrights'—there were no speeches by any playwrights, successful or other- wise: and provided an insulting summary of a speech
by me--'Finally, Mr. Wheldon himself got up to say ... I made no such speech. I made no speech at all Film and teleVision are my business. What Mr. Booker's business is would be hard for anyone to say. Cinema-verite is, and has been as it developed in various ways over the years, one of my profes- sional preoccupations. It is not dead for those who care, and I care, about television and about film. It does not in the least require 'exhuming, without apology' by Mr. Booker except for his own question- able ends.
I object strongly to being called a 'craze-monger' and to having my work as a whole dismissed as 'trivial and gimmicky' in an article based entirely on craze-mongering and trite observation, written by a man who, having proceeded by mis-statement, in- accuracy, ignorance, and personal innuendo, is capable of ending with a reference, self-deluding as well as presumptuous, to 'artistic truth.'
Kew Gardens, Surrey 110W WHELDON
Previous page
