Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / Nov. 29, 1960, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
J f '1 M ... . Page Two THE DAILY TAB HEEL r y v. Tuesday, !Tc7grab?f 23, ItZO r-, : w : 4 AM .. V.W.W WdA Parlance veu-auie ' Aff1"1' iveauy AO laKe jit Again Last Chance? tmng 1 sixty-eighth year of editorial freedom, unhampered by restrictions from either the administration or the student body, i The Daily Tar Heel 'is the official student publication of the Publica- Hons Board of the University of North Carolina, Richard Overstreet, Chairman. Co Saon i j: All editorials appearing in The Daily Tar Heel are the personal expres l siont of the editor, unless otherwise credited; they are not necessarily represen-- tative of feeling on the staff, and all reprints or quotations must specify thus. November 29, 1960 Volume LXIX, Number 60 A Move In The Right Direction We, along with a great many other North Carolinians, were very pleasantly surprised to learn that Chancellor William B. Aycock, in a move unprecedented at this Uni versity, has recommended that the contract of football coach Jim Hickey be not merely fulfilled but extended for another three years. Inasmuch as Hickey's football warriors have experienced a less than pleasant season though, for the second year in a row, they bounced back to win their last two games a good many devoted supporters of victorious football were after the coach's neck. But it is encouraging to see that the Chancellor and, as was later shown, President Friday do not be lieve that winning is the ultimate goal, that a loss or tie well taken is of equal value not only to those who play on the field but also to those who cheer, or moan, in the stands. Coach Hickey has, to many of us, exemplified many of the things we have found so wanting in most of the nation's coaches. He is not a blustering fanatic who finds gloom in defeat, happiness only in smash ing victory. He realizes the value and exhilaration of victory but knows it is not the reason his team has been assembled. His personal conduct on and off the field has been that of a quiet, modest man; one whom this University of any other would be proud to claim as its representative in any field. To recommend the extension of Coach Hickey's contract an addi tional three years is, in effect, to recognize that how you play the game is considerably more impor tant than how the final score turns out. And it also recognizes the fact that just because Coach Hickey has had two seasons out of the top ten he will not necessarily con stantly produce losing teams. A couple of weeks ago the Uni versity of Pittsburgh, in a move even less precedented than Ay cock's, hired Coach Johnny Miche losen on a lifetime basis. His teams have not been consistent winners, though he has turned out a few powerhouses from time to time. In the statement released to the press, the University said that Michelosen had become a member of the community of as much sta ture as many of the professors and that it would like to be sure that he would always be in Pittsburgh. Michelosen, on his part, was elated at the news and told report ers of the encouragement the 'new contract gave him and of the se curity he felt upon its being signed. We wonder why this University could not, in light of the move ment toward an enlightened ath letic policy, do the same for Coach Hickey? He, too, has proved him self a popular and valuable mem ber of the Chapel Hill community. He does his job, which is to coach football, well; or so the members of his team would have us be lieve. . Chancellor. Aycock and President Friday have made great progress in a matter of hours; the Univer sity will grow as a result of their conscience and thoughtfulness. We would suggest that this be carried to its logical fruition in the sign ing of a lifetime contract with Coach Jim Hickey and his accept ance as merely another member of the faculty. Kennedy Comes To Japan Except for the sipping of green tea and occasional little polite bows to the Japanese TV audience, pro-American candidate and victor Prime Minister Hayado Ikeda, brought in many of the aspects of this year's U.S. presidential cam paign. We are not concluding that the Americanized approach brought pro-American results, but the similarities interestingly enough exist. Although the favorite candidate, John F. Kennedy, wasn't running, Japan was alive with signs of his popularity. One Japanese bar cele brated Kennedy's victory by serv ing free beer to all males who sould prove they were 43 the same age as the President-elect. Some impressionable young Japanese women hinted they would not vote at all, because the Japa nese parties lacked "a handsome candidate, like Jack Kennedy.' Besides taking advantage of the American TV debates, victor Ikeda made American-like promises. Con vinced that it was the "New Fron tier" that has won for Kennedy, Ikeda promised: "My Liberal Democratic Party will have pre cisely such a New Frontier pro- giawi 111 Udpdli. JONATHAN YARDLEY Editor Wayne King, Mary Stewart Bakeb Associate Editors Margaret Ann Rhymes Managing Editor Edward Nzax. Riner Assistant To The Editor Henry Mayer, Lloyd Little News Editors Susan Lewis Feature Editor Frank Slueseh Sports Editor Ken Friedman.. -Asst. Sports Editor 11 John Justice. Davis Young Contributing Editors Tim Burnett Business Manager Richard Weineh Advertising Manager John Jester Circulation Manager Charles XVuEmzE..Subscrijtion Manager The Daily Tar Heel Is published daily except Monday, examination periods and vacations. It is entered as second class matter in the post office in Chapel Hill, . N. C, pursuant with the act of March 6, 1870. Subscription rates: $4 per semester, $7 per year; The Daily Tar Heel is a subscriber to the United Press International and utilizes the services of the News Bu reau of the University of North Caro lina. Published by the Colonial Press. Chapel Hill. N. C. i m m i II II li ii m m m m t The American influence and pro American outcome brought sighs of relief last week when we dis covered that the election results gave Mr. Ikeda's party 296 of the 467 seats. His conservative coali tion held 283 in the pre-election legislature. This outcome pleased the west in many ways it first of all con demned the left-wing riots which prevented President Eisenhower from making his visit to Japan; it secondly reflected Japanese sup port of the Japan-U.S. treaty. We were disappointed in the failure of the Liberal Democrats to gain the coveted two-thirds ma jority which is necessary to revise the Constitution. Although the So cialists and Communists did make gains, the overwhelming victory of Kennedy-loving Ikeda leads us to believe that some of the trite as pects of our own campaign weren't as. useless as we thought. M. S. B. Parlance, the hew campus magazine, will publish its first issue two weeks after Christmas vacation, announced Editor Gar roll Raver today. The magazine, sponsored by the "Y", seeks an , introspective look at campus life and values, and plans articles on all aspects of student life. Parlance began as an idea last spring, under the auspices of the YM-YWCA Executive Board. The Board agreed that there was a need at the University for a magazine that looked critically at student institutions. This fail, "Y" President Lewis appointed Carroll Raver as editor of the publication. "Considerable progress has been made on the magazine,' not ed Associate Editor Bob Silliman, "but our main concern seems to be writers that won't write." A staff meeting is scheduled for Thursday, December 1, at four o'clock, at which time a deadline system will be arranged. "Our goal is to have twice as much copy as we need for the first is sue," explained Carroll Raver. "In this way, we can condense the essence of each article, and bring to the students a broader spec trum of campus opinion." Raver concluded with this re mark on Parlance: "The first is sue of our magazine must be a success. Everyone working on the magazine believes that our proj ect will be an asset to the formu lation of student opinion. By pre senting our ideas to the campus, we hope to stimulate student thinking on University institutions." A LETTER TO 'ESQU I RE' How vulnerable a position has General DeGaulle placed himself in by calling for a national refer endum on a new "Algerian Al geria?" There is no doubt that voters in France will stand behind him in this new program. But the real sore spot is within the ranks of the French army both in France and Algeria. If the referendum is approved, a program providing for provi sional new executive and consul tative legislative bodies in Al geria will be installed. The real purpose of the plan i.v to take the Algerian question out of the domestic politics of conti-' nectal France and place it in Al gerian domestic politics. The French president wants to throw the burden of the current diffi culties on the shoulders of the Al gerians themselves the Arabs. Kabyles, Europeans, French' Loyalists and rebel nationalists. If the provisional regime proves strong enough, DeGaulle hopes that it will attract Moslems of independence and stature to its service; this leadership might tempt the rebel organization in Tunis to seek a cease-fire that! would permit its leaders to par ticipate in the construction of the future. The question of DeGaulle's sue-. cess depends almost entirely on how the million Europeans in Al geria and the French army will react to this relaxation of ties, with France. It is within these, ranks that DeGaulle's vulner ability lies and the results of his gamble will only be told by the future. Jerry Wald Di e f ends His cSons And Lovers (The following letter was written to Esquire Magazine by Jerry Wald of "Sons and Lov ers" fame in response to a Dwight MacDonald review of that movie. JVVc, reprint it here because the letter seems to us a particularly stirring and valid defense of the mingling of art and commercialism in the Am erican motion picture.) The Editor Dear Mr. Macdonald: I have been reading your lively and out spoken film criticism with inter est since you started your month ly column in the pages of Esquire. Having, in my time, received for the films I've been associated with almost every kind of criticism from the most damning to the most flattering, I am able by now to absorb it all with a cer tain equanimity. I am naturally pleased when the criticism affirms that I succeeded in what I set out to do, and try to profit from any. perceptive comment that points up my mistakes. I don't believe in quarreling with a critic, because one assumes that his opinions are offered in good faith and he certainly has a right to voice them in public prints. In the case of your review in the October issue of Sons and Lovers, however, I am somewhat perplexed. You start Out by say ing that it's "hard to say what's wrong with" the movie. You feel it just doesn't "add Up." Later, you admit that it observes a "lit eral fidelity" to the hovel,, but at the same time fails tb capture the novel's spirit. Surely this latter statement may at least be taken as an acknowledgement on your part that we made an honest effort to be true tb bur source in transferring this cbmplex nov el to the screen. Damning With faint praise? You make the point of the fact that we are "trying but the film in both commercial and art the atres, but you feel that it Will please neither. Yet if the general critical and box office response is any indication, the film is ac tually doing a great deal of pleas ing in both camps, and I am proud to be able to say so.' I also believe that it is not an ignoble ambition to want to make films that will have some thing to say to a wide segment of the public, especially if you do it without "playing down" to an imaginary low group intelligence. If I have any quarrel with your point of view as a critic it is that I often don't feel you take in to full account the actual cir cumstances under which films are made. You can't divorce a product from its source. I think you would agree that Sons and Lovers represents a departure from the tritely run-of-the-mill commercial effort at film mak ing. Yet no producer working for a major company can ignore the fact the inotion picture is entertainment to the masses, that films are produced primarily for profit, and that some pretty inane films have made a great deal of money. Still there remain a great many producers in Hollywood who continue tb make a sincere and honest effort to turn out films that will not be an insult to the intelligent Viewer, and I count myself among them. I say the above with all due humility. I'll match my bad pic tures with the worst, and at the same time ruefully admit that I never tried to make a bad pic ture. Most often it's a compromise that fouls you up. And the temp tations to compromise in the com mercial film business are so nu merous that I would hesitate to try and list them. In attempting to bring works like Faulkner's The Hamlet (which became The Long, Hot Summer) and The Sound and the Fury and Lawrence's Sons and Lovers to the screen, we are real ly looking for material that will stretch the boundaries of the screen and stimulate the aud ience's imagination. I think a kind of revolution has taken place in the world of film making since the definitive arrival of television and that the only direction for the motion picture to gb is up in terms of quality, imagination, Originality. The "B" picture, the soap opera, the formula western --all this and much ' more is henceforth and forever after en shrined in the homes of America in that little box. I feel that film makers should make their peace With this fafct. and get on With the business of making better films films that explore human experience more deeply, more honestly, and that use the cine matic medium With creative im agination. In relation tb this creative art of film making the producer is often in an ambiguous position. Few people, including film critics, seem tb have a very fair idea of just what he does. The praise Or blame for the success of a film is often times a Hard credit to place, Unless it is the rare one-man job of an Ingmar Bergman, Jean Coc teaU or Robert Bresson. In the theater, the play's always been the thing and playwright is held primarily responsible. The func tion of the producer and director are quite easily held in perspec tive. But an films, although ad mittedly the director most often takes precedent as the creative mind chiefly responsible, the sit uation is different. Having been in the business of producing films for over twenty five years iJohnny Belinda, Key Largo, Destination Tokyo, The Eddy Duchin Story, Pride of the Marines, Mildred Pierce and some hundred other films), and having spent five years before that writ ing for pictures, I'd JLike to clarify this point at least insofar as I performed the producer's func tion (which I freely admit can vary in depth of creative involve ment). The producer is most often the man Who sees the project through from its inception (as, often, no more than a wisp of an idea) to its completion. He is a sort of mainstay around which the va rious creative elements gravitate. He chooses the story, works with the writer to mold it into a screen play, chooses the director, per formers, composer, etc. A good producer is to the movies what Diaghileff was to the world of the ballet an animater, a man of great enthusiasm and with a sensitivity to and appreciation for talent, who blends the personali ties and elements that go into the creation of a theatrical concept, guides them, helps them, keeps a proper perspective and sees, in the final days, that the package is all tied up with paper and ribbon. The genesis of the film Sons and Lovers is a good illustration of this theory. It was a modern literary classic that had been ig nored by film makers for years. I read it, was enthused by its film possibilities, and began a corres pondence with the author's widow about obtaining the film rights. This I succeeded in doing in 1954, and a first-draft screen play was completed in 1956. About the latter Mrs. Lawrence wrote: "Thank you very much for sending it to me. I have read all Of the script of Sons and Lov ers and like it very, very much." At this time we intended to have Montgomery Clift play the role of Paul Morel. But for var ious reasons we could not get the film started and in the mean time I went to another studio. I had then to "sell" the project all over again to a new group of ex ecutives. This wasn't an easy thing to do. To them, Sons and Lovers was "downbeat," "not box office," and several other things they didn't like. But through pa tience, persistence and my own unqualified enthusiasm for the project I finally pushed it through. Of course by then Clift Was no longer young enough to play Lawrence's protagonist so we chose Dean Stockwell to do the part. Although Freida Lawrence had been pleased with out first script, it had, in my opinion, departed too radically from the novel and I engaged Gabin Lambert to do a new script. This brought it much closer to the novel. I would like to add here that both Mr. Lam bert, and Jack Cardiff, the direc tor, were at this time relatively unknown and untried talents. Lambert had shown great ability as a film critic, formerly editing the British Film Institute maga zine, Sight and Sound, and Car diff had directed two low -budget films that I felt showed great promise. I mention this because I would like you to know that we are making an attempt to give an opportunity to younger talents for this is the only way in which the vitality and health of the fu ture of motion pictures can be as sured. There is, in Hollywood, no lack of talent only a lack of that executive insight to find that talent and make proper use of it. That is, in brief, the history of how Sons and Lovers came to be made. We shot it, incidentally, in1 Lawrence own home town not Wales, as you erroneously state in your review. (Where did you ever get that idea?) Also,, does it really help in elucidating your' opinion of a conscientiously made' film, whatever its shortcomings' may be, to descend to repeating a hoary canard about its pro ducer? Yours for more in the way of responsible, perceptive and il luminating criticism. For those who iove motion pictures, both for their past achievements and their infinite future promise as a creative medium, this means p. great deal. Jerry Wald Jean Kerr's Latest Booh, Perceptive A nd Hilarious The Snake Has All the Lines, by Jean Kerr. Double day, New York. Fall, 1960. $3.50. Jean Kerr is a girl who sees things. Her mind works like the trick mirrors at the amusement parks that take true images and throw them back at us looking hilarious and sometimes maybe just a little petty. Mrs. Kerr rides herd on five sons, and when she gets out of the saddle every eve ning, she writes about them, her husband, status seeking, an after noon at the beach, show business, Queen of the May, and whatever else comes into her kaliedoscopic mind. Jean Kerr's sense of satire can be gently amusing or devastat ingly uproarious. About the beach: "Speaking about dead crabs, I have found it advisable when presented with any species of marine life, no matter how ad vanced in decay, to assume that it is still alive. In this way you can appeal to the children's nobler, nature. I have stood, as close as my nose would allow, over the ghastly carcass of some unlovely denizen of the deep (now clearly past the reach of all wonder drugs) and muttered sagely, 'The thing is, darling, he seems dead because he's scared.' (He's scared?) 'He's just lone some, so why don't you put him back in the water and let him play with his brothers and sisters?' It's better this way, really. Otherwise they would take him home to bury him, which would be all right if they buried him." It is this ability to note all of life's little foibles with the air of an indulgent if confused grand mother that makes Jean Kerr so fascinating. She is telling you things about yourself. Her favor ite target is everything of, by, and for Suburbia. This subject: has been attacked often enough before, but never by one who was both the "hunter and the hunt ed." Her tales are fashioned around the most simple routine items: lunch money, school plays, notes to the teacher: "This will be complicated by the fact that I don't know his teacher's name (Sister Mary Arthur was his teacher last year, but that's no help) and I will have to address the note, "Dear Teacher," which reveals not only that I am woe fully out of touch with my son but clearly without the most rudimentary interest in the fine young woman who is moulding his character." Jean Kerr's first book was Please Don't Eat the Daisies, also a perfect comment of our so ciety's comedy of errors. But there is nothing sharp or wrist -slapping about her writing it is more in the tone of helping her readers to laugh away their sor rows. Sample sorrow: "Now, I buy underpants the way some people buy gin recklessly, ex travagantly and I secrete them at various key points through out the house. As a result, I can always find eleven clean pairs of underpants in size eight. Jean Kerr constantly has the attitude and innocense of an Alice in Wonderland, with time out for bits of sparkling sophis tication. It is this widely-varied spectrum of entertaining and re vealing essays that make The Snake Has All the Lines well worth reading. Chris Farm
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Nov. 29, 1960, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75