THE ADVERTISER AND THE PRESS
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR] SIR,—Purely from the point of view of a film critic, I should like to comment on several of the statements made .by Mr. F. P. Bishop in The Spectator recently. " In many of the subordinate sections of the modem newspaper," he wrote, " in book-reviewing, in theatrical and film criticism . . . . it is not to be denied that the influence of the advertiser is often 'plainly apparent." He uses soft words. I should like to agree almost entirely with his admirable article, " The Advertiser and the Press," but after a long and bitter ex- perience of film criticism on a provincial newspaper, I would suggest that the " puff paragraph," base coinage tendered only by the mentally dishonest, is part of the slow but ever- widening movement towards the prostitution of public taste, due solely to the influence of advertising, and of which the creeping paralysis of film criticism is a symptom.
The facts are all too well known in most provincial daily and weekly newspaper offices, but the cinema-going public might be surprised to know the conditions under which the reviews, to which they presumably look for guidance, are written. In most cases the critic is a member of the report- ing staff, and the cinema reviews are rarely considered of sufficient importance to justify more than a negligible frac- tion of his working week. He must rely, not on his unbiased judgement of the films themselves, but on the trade journals usually provided in these offices, and confronted with the " puff " reviews of the trade journals, he must have the wisdom of Solomon to do justice at one and the same time to the film, the potential audience, and himself. He .is forced into plagiarism of one kind or another, and the National Union of Journalists, in its Code of Conduct, has condemned plagiarism as unprofessional. The abuse, however, the direct
result of unwilling reliance on the advertisers' " puffs," continues.
Any attempt by an advertiser to make the continuance of advertising conditional upon editorial support, maintains Mr. Bishop, would be met with an uncompromising refusal. From my own experience, I can hardly express the same confidence. Some time ago I wrote a film review (a far too generous estimation of the film, which I had seen) which was approved by the Editor, set into type and inserted in the page. A few hours before publication the manager of the cinema, where the film was to be shown, sent in his own review. He would like it to appear. Policy prevailed. It appeared. It would not have paid to offend him. He had a substantial advertisement on the front page.
Here is another example. A letter was received from the local manager of a big chain of cinemas, enclosing reviews for the next week's programme at his cinema, " with the usual request from my Head Office that you should do your best to insert them in full. Quite frankly, we would rather have the space available devoted to next week's programme, rather than your critic's opinions of the current show. I should also add that we want an eight-inch double-column advertisement tomorrow." The reference to the advertisement is, of course, a polite but not very subtle form of blackmail. In this case also the manufactured reviews, a combination of slovenly English and hysterical praise for two third-rate films, were published.
The threat of the withdrawal of advertising is another plank in Mr. Bishop's argument, and here again I must dis- agree with him when he says : " No editor would dare to yield to such direct pressure, and no experienced advertiser would attempt it." Eventually, in my capacity as a film critic, my point of view became too independent for the managers of local cinemas, who were important advertisers, and my refusal to laud to the skies the trash which frequently appeared upon their screens led to a deputation to the manage- ment of the newspaper. The managers demanded that I should not be allowed to review their films, and that in future all film reviews appearing in the newspaper should be favour- able, in other words, " puffs." Failing their demands, they would withdraw advertising. They won. Direct pressure of the advertisers proved stronger than editorial dignity. Since then, I am glad to say, I have not been burdened with the unequal struggle of maintaining the right of fair comment against the advertisers of the film trade.
This is by no means the whole story. But it will be seen that advertising does play a definite and deadly part in local film criticism, and the conditions I have outlined are certainly not confined to the particular newspaper to which I have referred.
I would disagree only in one small particular with Mr. John Grierson when, in "The Arts Today," he says of the body of film criticism, " it is consciously or subconsciously influenced by the paid advertisement and the flattering hospitality of the trade. It is, consciously or subconsciously, affected by the continuing dearth of critical subject matter. The observation of technical skill is the only decent gambit available to a disheartening, sycophantic, and largely contemptible pursuit." As I see it, Mr. Grierson, not " largely " contemptible, but wholly.—Yours faithfully,
K. L. BATHURST.
Previous page
