Page 2
THE DIALETTE
APRIL 19, 1968
Letters To The Editoi
Vnlley of the Dolls,
Little More Than
A Character Sketch
Dear Editor:
“Valley of the Dolls” may be
“one of the year’s biggest money
making motion pictures,” but this
fact is true not because of its depth
of meaning but because the produc
ers of the tabloid have spent millions
of dollars in raising the curiosity of
the public via publicity. It is clearly
a sensational movie, filmed to make
money and that’s all.
The movie is not, however, en
tirely unenjoyable. Credits to the
movie would be the beautiful New
England scenery, the glamorous
clothes, and the young and attractive
stars. Aside from this, there is little
else to its credit. There is no depth
to the story, few absorbing charac
terizations, no surprises. The movie
is little more than a character sketch
(and a poorly organized one at that)
of three girls as they live out their
lives in the world of sleeping pills,
movie stars, models, pep pills, sex,
slimming pills, insane asylums, tran
quillizing pills and getting to the
top. And, I suppose, the “moral” of
the movie might be that once they
have reached the top (whatever that
is) there is nothing more. It is only
the portrait of the easy success story
which is really not very successful.
Ann Welles, perhaps the best de
veloped character but the most dis
appointing, begins as the secretary to
a theatrical lawyer and then becomes
famous as a model of cosmetics. She
is the girl who left her New England
home to make her way in the big
city, but as she does, she succumbs
to sex and dolls (the pills.) At the
end she takes hold of herself, returns
home, and walks off into the snow-
covered countryside, supposedly
proving something, just like in the
movies.
Neely O’Hara wins quick success
as a singer, but because she thinks
there is no one as good as she is,
she destroys those who loved her,
uses her friends and husbands, and
alternates between sanitariums and
stage comebacks.
The most pathetic character in
the movie is that of Jennifer North.
Jennifer is constantly seeking a true
romance, someone who will love her
for herself and not for her body.
In spite of this, she uses her body
to make French nude movies, and in
the end commits suicide (via the
“dolls”) because of an operation
that will mar her body.
In closing, I would like to quote
Penelope Mortimep, one of England’s
foremost film critics: “What this
film does is to succeed entirely in
what it sets out to do—to wrench
tears from those whose tears are
near enough to the surface to be
wrenched, to involve those whose in
volvement needs to be vicarious, to
tug at heart-strings attached to
sleeves. It is a kind of poor girl’s
‘The Group’ with show-biz birds for
grraduate ladies and a deep welter
for female masochism replacing the
spark of intelligence.”
—Nancy Spann
"Be Specific Or
Withdraw
Your Comment"
Dear Editor:
Throughout this year, the editorials
in The Dialette have maintained the
time-honored tradition of campus
newspapers by frequently being crit
ical of various aspects of college life.
These criticisms, sometimes deserved,
have usually been tempered with con
structive suggestions. Unhappily this
cannot be said of the comments on
required chapel in your recent edi
torial (March 22.) That discussion
seems to me to be irresponsible, mis
leading and harmful.
Your editorial is irresponsible, be
cause it makes general and un-suD-
•stntiated accusations of maltreated
Scriptures and personal obsessions
on the part of people who'have come
here to address the student body. As
a member of the Religious Activities
Committee, which has invited some
of these speakers, 1 feel this is a se
rious slur which ought not to go un
challenged. In fairness to all the
men who have spoken in our chapel,
you should be specitic or withdraw
your comment.
Your editorial is misleading be
cause it chooses to ignore the con
siderable variety of style and sub
ject matter on the part of visiting
speakers in order conveniently to
lump all that has been offered in
Friday chapels under the heading of
“pious irrelevance.” Some speakers
may, at times, be pious or irrelevant
or both at once. But chapel talks
have ranged widely over tnemes as
diverse as the current sexual mores
and the nature of the problem of
evil. So perhaps you could enlighten
your readers as to the standard you
use which leads you to suggest ail
of these are a waste of time for stu
dents. The editorial is further mis
leading in declaring that the chapel
rules ‘states simply that each stu
dent is allowed to miss only three
chapel services each semester.” The
statement on page 33.of the Student
Handbook reads as follows: “Each
student is allowed three unexcused
absences from Sunday morning wor
ship and a total of six unexcused ab
sences from chapel, college convo
cations and official college functions
combined.” As the system is set up
at present a student could, if he so
desired, take-.each of those six cuts
on Fridays.
Your editorial is harmful because
it advocates a disrespecful attitude
toward our chapel speakers. You do
our campus the disservice of suggest
ing that if a student does not wish
to participate, “he should turn his
back to the speaker. He should read,
play cards, study for the third pe
riod test or whatever . . . . ”
In effect you invite students to
violate one of the basic standards of
a responsible community, that of ac
cording its guests a respectful and a
fair hearing. No one requires that
students agree with all they hear;
quite the contrary, bue even disa
greement, if it is to be informed,
necessitates some attention to what is
being saidl
The advantages and disadvantages
of one required chapel service dur
ing the school week ought to be dis
cussed on campus and when the sub
ject is taken up in the editorial col
umn of the official campus newspa
per your readers are surely not un
reasonable in expecting a responsi
ble contribution to the debate. You
could, for example, render a service
to all of us by stating and exploring
some of the basic questions which
you say “hammer within” the stu
dent body. You could also promote
some positive suggestions as to how
to get the most out of the brief 40
minutes that are dedicated to com
munal worship each school week.
Comment of that kind might en
gender a fruitful discussion which
would help to drive out some of the
unconstructive and peevish complain
ing of which we have a surplus.
Yours Truly,
Donald Mitchell.
Dear Mr. Mitchell:
I have lately learned that this let
ter should be addressed to the en
tire Religious Activities Committee in
the form of a withdrawal or an apol
ogy. I sincerely hope that I have not
thus far offended or will not further
offend any of the committee mem
bers. I am sure the committee is
unbiased enough to see through the
opinion of one student and realize
that his views do not necessarily re-'
fleet those of the entire student
body. I was not aware of the reac
tion which could result from an edi
torial on such a sensitive subject.
Although, the committee must real
ize that this does not mean I am
withdrawing my editorial or the
parts you deemed worthy of with
drawal.
I appreciate being given the
chance to reply to your accusations.
I feel as Peter and John who were
brought before the Sanhedrin in the
fourth chapter of Acts for healing a
cripple. “By what power or by what
name did you do this thing?” was
the question put before them. The
Sanhedrin without knowing it, had
given the disciples of Christ a chance
to preach the word of God and win
souls to their cause. I will attempt
to be more specific and clarify the
points of interest you consider “ir
responsible, misleading, and harm
ful,” with all due respect to the Re
ligious Actiivties Committee.
When a person makes a discovery,
he often becomes so convinced-that
he wants everyone possible to learn
of it. If this, were not so,- Christi
anity would have not gotten as far
as it has in the world today. I can
find no place in the Bible where a
speaker of God’s word had an audi
ence which had to listen against its
will. Based on personal conviction
alone, I feel the Scripture, meaning
the word of God, is being maltreated
when we are forced by our institu
tion to listen to its exposition rather
than being allowed to accept it on
faith freely. At the same time that
the speaker is preaching the word of
God to the Montreat audience gath
ered against its own will he may also
use his conviction to the point where
it reaches obsession. George Bernard
Shaw once said, “When I was a little
boy, I was compelled to go to church
on Sunday; and though I escaped
from that intolerable bondage before
I was ten, it preiudicated me so vio
lently against churchgoing that 20
pars elapsed before, in foreign lands
in pursuit of art, I became once more
a church-goer. To this day, my flesh
creeps when I recall that genteel
suburban Irish Protestant Church,
—Cont, on Page 4
The Sin Of
Silence
—By James Halstead
I have had a troubling bout with
my conscience in the days following
the assassination of Dr. Martin
Luther King. I have been especially
troubled by some words reportedly
spoken by Dr. King here in Montreat
in 1965. In an address at that time,
he is said to have reserved his harsh
est criticism for the people of both
races who were largely “uncon
cerned” about racial problems.
Now, I have been concerned.
Concerned in a detached, distant
way by the riots in far-off cities.
My sin, basically, is the same as that
of much of the middle-class white
America; the sin of silence.
I have been silent. Many of us
have been silent, and the extremists
and anarchists have taken advantage
of our silence. The Stokely Car
michael’s and Rapp Browns.” The
ranting clansmen, and the red-neck
local politicians who gain votes on
the basis of their fervent racism,
they have been heard. And all the
while, supposedly decent and broad
minded people have been choking on
their comfort.
We turned our heads a decade
ago while King’s early followers
were doused with hoses and chased
by police dogs while demonstrating
- for the privilege of choosing any
seat on a bus. We continued to turn
heads from the almost unbelievable
forgivene.''s and courage of King and
his many followers.
It will be difficult for us to turn
our heads any longer. The black
man will not let us. He demands
confrontation. -And that confronta
tion, whatever form it takes, prom
ises to be difficult.
It will be difficult to carry out
the exhortation of former Secretary
of Health, Education and Welfare,
John Gardner, who challenged the
white race to “extend a hand across
the gulf of fear and anger” to our
black brother. There is evidence
that increasing numbers of blacks
will reject that hand. And if we are
not prepared to accept and under
stand this rejection we had better
think twice before extending the
hand.
Being realistic, however, it seems
that we have little choice but to
grant the black man full equality
and to offer our help and under
standing as he attempts to bridge
tVie wide gulf between subservient,
-second-class citizenship a responsible,
creative position in society as a
firet-class citizen. The gulf is indeed
wide in many cases, and the black
man will need white help and under
standing if he is to cross it. Martin
Luther King^ always exhorted black
men to maintain communication with
the white man whose help he needed.
There is, of course, an alternative
to extend the helping hand: open
warfare. It is dufficult to think that
decent men who have enjoyed un-
parralleled abundance in the most
highly civilized society of all history
would even consider this alternative.
Given time, they probably wouldn’t,
but it is possible that they will be
forced to it by less rational and less
decent men.
Decent men must speak out at last
—and soon. And all of us must be
constantly alert for opportunities—
large and small — to help bring an
end to racial distrust (ind to pro
mote racial good will.