Salient. Victoria University Students' Newspaper. Volume 39, Number 25. October 4, 1976

Editor's Film Review Criticised

Editor's Film Review Criticised

Dear Readers,

Dear John has mucked up in my opinion. His petty criticism of Warner Bros is irrelevant. Dear John states they are guilty of fostering the growth of cult figures. Yet he states "newspapers and magazines in every corner of the Western World have applauded the efforts of the Washington-Post". Surely John this is of more consequence in effect than a movie seen in a very limited timespan and by a comparatively limited audience.

Further, to go against the system especially at a time of election and point the finger at the leaden of the nation is a very brave thing to do.

Having personally witnessed this period of US history (living in the N.E. United States 1972-1973) I can say with a Little knowledge, experience and cautious authority that I can attempt to understand the incredible pressure on those two journalists concerned. One aspect exposed was their attention to detail - note well John it is the Washington Post, not Washington Star they work for.

Further, John claims that no where during the film do they explain what they are attempting to achieve.

I'm sure John, that after four years of publication and coverage in the media "in every corner of the western world" (that includes N.Z.John) that most seemingly astute individuals would have had the chance of realising for themselves just what had gone on. Or are you a product of a spoon feeding system of black and white instructions. For an editor, I'm amazed you are such an ignorant person.

Criticism of films are fair enough but to criticise any person who thinks differently is plain bloody biased.

I quote: "if anyone thought it was anything more, then you (apart from John) must be so far into the convulsions of the American Stale machine that you can't see the effects that its having on the real world". In other words, listen to the all mighty artehole himself.

The US "state machine" has done many had things, yet it also has and continues to underwrite a substantial proportion of all U.N. activities (currently 25%). When there is a world disaster, (take Nicaragua) who is there first with most aid. Not the Russian State machine, nor the Chinese.

What better effect on the real world than positive aid. Sure the US. state machine has had and probably still had distasteful aspects, but at least it has the ability to cleanse itselt without purges, bloodbaths and unnecessary loss of human life. Look at the facts John, not the opinion-based septic bullshit that guides your so obviously biased mind.

Dennis J. Hayden.

p.s. I'm sure in the interests of fair play and exposure of the truth, you will print my letter.

Thanks for your comments on my review Dennis. Unfortunately your concern for objectivity (I, myself never claimed to be unbiased, although I am concerned about developing a scientific analysis of any particular piece of art) is not manifest in your defence of U.S. imperialism in Nicaragua (your example). In fact the United States "aid" following the earthquake was conditional on that country re-establishing its capital city on a location favoured by the U.S.

In my review I did not question Woodward and Bernstein's bravery as I too know how difficult it is to take the Government on. But they have been used by many people, including Warner Brothers, to promote the idea that they radically shaped U.S. society. In fact, their action just [ unclear: meant] that one crook was replaced with another. U.S. society still tramps on and the "cleansing" that you mention has done absolutely nothing to shape the role of the US state both at home and abroad - Ed.