Sir: May I correct some of the shoddier . inaccuracies
and confu- sion in Kenneth Tynan's letter about my piece about his ePolan- skes forthcoming film of Macbeth!
First the heading. Not mine, r10 afraid (sorry Ed.) The suggestion that I paralleled the murder of Polanski's wife with aspects of Macbeth is loathsome and untrue. Next, the screenplay. My information came direct from the film's very own press represen- tative and the associate producer. Next, the party was originally lo announce Lady Macbeth and I did not say it was just the lack of AO actress which caused shooting 10 be delayed for one week. Which it was. Nor did I say that modem. istic meant in modern dress. 1 do wish Tynan would stop telling int gplueaffinnegd. what I said. Lastly, huffing and from an intasan ervi twenty minutes after he armed during the course of which 1 thought he was unnecessarily rude. etsehreya g.liaola Students of disreputable iournalbm will notr how the writer (Tynan) used the annoying habit of sitgrol" ing that he does not, after all, behave in a pompous and Deerbeletaterirsngtownaeyws—epxacepeprst . when writing Also, last week I suffered from being misquoted again. 80c04, of a misprint, the word 'Rattigal) was included in my column. It should have been `Milligan'. Poor to nd reTyurenan. and 1—we have o much
i
Previous page
