Squeezing the Critics

British movie critics have always appeared to take a special delight in poking fun--or just plain poking--at Hollywood's product. On occasion, Hollywood has foolishly struck back. One London reviewer, E. Arnot Robertson, was dropped by the BBC after M-G-M charged that her criticisms were "unnecessarily harmful" (TIME, Dec. 13, 1948). Last week the battle was out in the open again.

"Stay at Home . . ." Led by MGM's Sam Eckman, nine member companies of the Motion Picture Association of America last month withdrew their display advertisements from Lord Beaverbrook's Evening Standard and Sunday Express. "We're not going to spend another goddam penny," an Express official was told, "until you change your critics." Chief target was the Evening Standard's Milton Shulman, who recently joshed the plot of Affair in Trinidad (which contains some schemers fiddling with the V-2 rocket): "Launched from bases in the Caribbean, [the V2] could destroy most of the major centers in the United States and presumably, with any luck, Hollywood." Also on Hollywood's list was the Sunday Graphic's Robert Ottaway, who wrote: "A mediocre lot of movies go the rounds this week . . . If I were you, I'd stay at home and catch up on my reading."

No sooner was it started than the advertising squeeze play backfired embarrassingly. Announced the Beaverbrook Daily Express (circ. 4,000,000): Since the film companies were discriminating against two of the chain's papers, the Express would also refuse Hollywood movie ads. The moviemen hurriedly tried, but failed, to get nonmember companies to join the boycott (snorted Sir Alexander Korda: "Disgustingly silly"). Meanwhile the American companies were losing out on valuable advertising, promotion and good will. Even Beaverbrook's competitors rallied to his side. The News Chronicle, denouncing "an attempt at dictatorship," gave "its full support . . . for the whole conception of a free press is involved . . ." Said the Spectator: "A really vital principle is at stake . . . This kind of pressure is completely intolerable."

"What You Want . . ." As the blows fell, Eckman & Co., still adamant, were uncertain about their next move. Still unruffled and unrepentant was the Standard's Critic Shulman. Said he last week: "I tell them, 'You confuse the whole conception of criticism. What you want is free publicity . . . but three-quarters of the films are designed for adolescents . . . When you put in an ad for Esther Williams in the one-piece bathing suit, you do it just to tell people it's there and available. Nothing I say will deter those people who just want to see Esther Williams floating on her back. But if I say it's a good film too, a lot of people who wouldn't go otherwise will go.' "

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.