Underscoring the importance of objective review sources

MileFilms@aol.com
Mon, 20 May 2002 10:05:07 -0700 (PDT)

I've certainly been in Chip's place and can sympathize. Basically I agree
with him AND Gary. I think the editor does have the choice to print the
author or distributor's protest -- and should if the letter raises valid
points or provokes an interesting discussion. The New York Times Sunday Book
Review does it all the time with some fascinating results.

In the case where there's a misquote or an incorrect statement presented as
fact (though it doesn't seem to be this case), then it definitely is the
obligation of the editor to publish a correction.

With the latter case, my favorite misrepresentations of my films have been:

1) A complaint that the reviewer's tape was defective because "the colors
kept changing." (For those that don't know, most silent films were
beautifully tinted and/or toned with various colors to suggest time of day,
mood or location.)

2) That one of my films was presented "without vocals" and "only" had
intertitles. Though indeed factual, it's a very weird way of describing a
film that was made in 1926.

I can complain about the reviewer's lack of historical knowledge to the
editor, but I didn't want to argue the point that they didn't especially like
the film.

(AND if one more person calls a silent film "primitive"....)

Dennis Doros
Milestone Film & Video
PO Box 128
Harrington Park, NJ 07640
Phone: (201) 767-3117 or in the US (800) 603-1104
Fax: (201) 767-3035
Email: MileFilms@aol.com
Website: www.milestonefilms.com