Spielberg Replies

I would like to point out some severe misrepresentations which occured in the interview which Crum sent you and which you most irresponsibly printed in your issue April 17 1978. In an interview accuracy is most important, and those little bastards in Crum completely altered some of my statements, and edited out some extremely significant others.

When asked about the money I make from my movies Crum claimed that I mentioned the figure 10 million dollars. This is a downright lie. Do they want people to think that I am a pauper? The true figure is about three times as great, and as I have studied John Smith's excellent book "Tax and how to avoid paying it", I can honestly say that the American Government gets very little of your money, I get just about all of it. I hope this will reassure some of your readers.

Also in the interview you printed were statements which implied that I held a high opinion of that little squirt Richard Dreyfuss. He is a pill and his only asset is that he is very cheap to hire. He is also related to my wife's brother's daughter in a manner that I am reluctant to go into in too much detail. But it is nice to keep all the money in the family.

I was particularly upset that your article seemed to give the impression that I believed in UFOS. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is most important that the director keeps a distance between himself and the material about which he is writing. I would not have found it possible to make either of my two materpieces had I been emotionally involved. Who could be so stupid as to believe in little green men from outer space?

In case you are tempted to run more interviews in your little newspaper I wonder if I might offer some advice. Few men have been interviewed more than me, and my experience has shown that it is essential that the interviewer establish a rapport with the interviewee. In the case of the Crum interview this was simply not done.

By persistant reference to what they found were the boring aspects of the film, they presented the reader with a very biased view of this masterpiece. If I could redress this influence by including a summary of what I thought were the high points of the film, your readers might be in a better position to reach the right decision about it.

Fundamentally the film was an action film. This was quite deliberate on my part. There has been a tendancy for theatre to move towards consideration of political and personal matters. This morbid interest has manifested itself in the production of some of the most boring films ever made.

I feel that the Western represents the pinnacle of the movie business. Good buys fighting bad guys, shoot outs, everything simple and straightforward. "Close Encounter" and "Jaws" both followed this formula. And the public just loved it, I loved it and my wife loved it. What more could you ask?

Face it people, I am an expert with regard to the movie business (and just about everything else) so you could be well advised to take my opinion as gospel.

Just to get back to the interview however, I felt that the cutting which was performed by Crum (or perhaps even by yourselves) showed grave editorial irresponsibility. I made some very penetrating remarks about the moral justification for the existance of the Jewish state. As is typical with PLO supporters, these persuasive comments were cut, as these communists attempt to sway the public.

I told these people that the way to solve the Middle-East problem is very simple. We could send them ail to Tonga, and throw the Tongans into their capital—Auckland. As this might involve you a little, perhaps you might like to make representations to the Capital of New Zealand—Canberra.

I am sure your readers will be fascinated by my incisive comments, although I recognise that it is the perogative of those of us with ability to use of for the benefit of mankind. I am proud to be part of God's great plan. Your fawning comments would be greatly appreciated.