SIR,—Writing of Alice, Stuart Hood complains of 'a monstrous display
of prejudice ... by persons who had not seen the programme.' I was one of those persons. But why was it monstrous? We were told that a children's book had been turned into a film not suitable for young children. In fact, it hadn't, but that is neither here nor there. The point is that we protested against an authoritative statement that it had. Why was that prejudiced? If my child tells me he has broken a window with his football, I protest. If it turns out later that I was misinformed, the fault is surely his, not mine.
Stuart Hood goes on to write that we 'were aghast at the idea of an artistic intelligence being allowed to examine afresh a cult object.' We were, indeed, since no true artist would contemplate doc- toring the work of another artist, for the simple reason that an artist's is a one-man job and not a soviet.
But what I am even more 'aghast' about is Stuart Hood's description of Alice as 'a cult object.' Never before have I heard an original work of art de- scribed by a citizen of a democratic country as 'a cult object.' No wonder that, after this astonishing phrase, Stuart Hood concludes, with what can only be an inspired flash of self-criticism, that 'the language of illiberality is frighteningly alike on either side of the Curtain' It is indeed.
WILLIAM DOUGLAS-HOME
Drayton House, East Meon, Hampshire
Previous page
