aacapre

_ INSULT TO CANADIANS

There was an insult to Cana-
dians in the way the smart cyn-
ics of the Broadway newspaper
columns’ summarily dealt with
Ti-Coq, the Canadian play by the |
French-Canadian actor and play-
wright Gratien Gelinas (Fridolin).
‘And there was something humili-
ating in the way all Canadian
commentators accepted the ‘in-
<a the play deserved to be
criticized, as the Canadian Tri-
pune did, or that Gelinas made
a big mistake in throwing him-
self at the mercy of the com-
mercial, anti-popylar New York
theater, is not the point. eee
point is that the self-appointed
dictators of Yankee culture whis-
pered, and the play ended: and
that a patronizing attitude'as of
‘civilized persons” towards
‘hicks” governed their criticism.

‘One dollarized Yankee pundit
complained about “French - Can-
adian accents”; another that the
theme of the play was remote
(naturally, to highly - paid hot-
house “criticis’ who support Tru-
man!); another that the charact-
ers did not “materialize,” presum-
ably in the proper “tragic” direc-
tion beloved of people-haters like
the New York MacArthur Kul-
turbund. d

Let Canadian cultural workers
learn something from this. Thére
is everything to be welcomed in
the frank and honest appraisal
by people of other countries of
the culture of another, and that
includes.the honest people of New
York. But there is nothing of
such honest and frank exchange
in the experiences of Ti-Coq on.
Broadway.

What dominated the damna-
tion of the play was an admixture
of contempt for anything which
portrays the real lives- of real
people, and the expression of any-
thing “foreign”, this time, French-
Canadian. That Quebec could be
peopled with real people with real
problems, and could produce play-
wrights and actors dealing (no
matter how ineffectively) with a
real theme, got in the way of the
swank tourism which portrays
the “quaintness” of the Chateau
Laurier and the Seignory Club
much in the same way that the
South is “different” or that Puer-

N. Y. reception of -
‘Ti-Coq’ proves point

to Rico is such a cheap place to
have a good itme.

The Yankee contempt for the
people of other countries was
present in the whole episode. Any
Canadian interested in the theater
who does not see this, or feels
that he should not look for fan-
cied insults, is actually the victim
of the cultural gauleiters of Am-
erican imperialism.

Pierre Gelinas, sharply and ex-
cellently, criticized Ti-Coq in the
columns of the Canadian Tribune.
If Gratien Gelinas takes the ad-
vice given in all good will—to
stop trying to “make” the ‘New
York theatre, stop trimming his
materials to make money, but
sticks to the people’s art he is
capable of producing, he will be
living up to the responsibilities
of the French-Canadian men and

4

women who in their turn produced :

him as a fine artist.

That was not the criticism
handed out in New York; it also
was not the criticism made of

‘Gelinas by the CBC and newspap-

er critics here, who either swal-
lowed Ti-Coq uncritically, which
is no help to Gelinas, or criticized
him purely abstractly and from a
purely “theater” standpoint which
was less useless to a man who
knows more about theatre, as do

most actor-writers, than most
critics.
What Gelinas requires, and

what any honest and progressive
Canadian“ artist requires, fs an
audience who will be frank and
honest with him, and who, so long
as he fights for the interests of
the Canadian people, will get their
support. We have too few such
people. The export of Canadian
artists to the U.S. has been some-
thing like the export of our tim-
ber resources — a trade. which
brought us nothing of real value
but only increased the hold of
the Yankee dollar masters over
our country. :

Let there be an end to the wor-
ship of New York as a cultural
center, no matter in what field.
But let there instead be a fight
put up against the interference
of the Truman Kulturgauleiters,
who are doing a job for Wall
Street world domination equally
as important as Eisenhower or
MacArthur,—_LESLIE MORRIS.

ON THE SCREEN

‘The Steel Helmet’ glorification

of racism, brutality in Korea’

IN ‘The Steel Helmet, a film
glorifying the U.S. war of inter-
vention in Korea which is cur-
rently disgracing the screen at
the ‘Cinema here, an American
soldier, for the first time in a
Hollywood movie, is permitted to
kill a prisoner of war -in cold

blood without incurring anything -

more than a slap on the wrist
from his officer.

The scene shows a battle-hard-
ened “white supremacist” sergeant
turning his machinegun on a

‘North Korean prisoner of war.

Reprimanded by his superior of-
ficer, he dashes over to the dying
prisoner and bellows at him, “If
you die, I'll kill you.”

The intent of the producer, by
provoking laughter, is to take the
edge off this scene, which might
have been lifted from a Nazi docu-
mentary. But underlying it is a
calculated attempt to accustom
film audiences, already satiated
with portrayals of lust and vio-
lence, to fascist-like brutality.

The U.S. War Department,
which maintains a special depart-
ment for censoring war films, per-
mitted this unprecedented scene
to be shown despite its aware-
ness that the killing of war pris-
oners is outlawed by the Geneva
convention.

The Pentagon has already re-
ceived’ so many protests against
the scene that it has been com-
pelled to deny having approved it,
contending that it is “powerless”
to have the scene eliminated from
the picture. Instead, without a
thought for the Hollywood pro-
ducers and writers who have been
driven from the screen by war-
hysterical witch-hunters, the Pen-
tagon pretends that it does not
want to be put in the light of in-
terfering with “freedom of the
screen,”

* * *

JAMES EDWARDS is cast as
a Negro doctor in The Steel Hel-
met. But he seems uncomfortable
in his role and turns in a listless
performance. In his reply to a
question put to him by a North
Korean prisoner a note of irony
is to be detected.

The question is a good one,
although it loses much of its
meaning because the prisoner is
a vicious caricature of the Ko-
reans who today are defending

their country against foreign in-
vasion, aan

“I don’t understand you,” the
North Korean says to the Negro.
“You can’t eat with them unless
there’s a war. You have to ride
in the back of the bus. What
are you fighting for?”

The Negro doctor answers half-
heartedly, as though convinced of
the absurdity of his remarks:

“One hundred years ago I
couidn’t ride in the bus at all.
Maybe in fifty years I’ll sit in the
middle. Some things you can’t
just rush.”

The film also mirrors the shock-
ing disrespect for the customs

and beliefs of colored peoples
that this unjust war has encour-
aged. The desecration of a Bud-
dhist temple by Americans makes
a mockery of the Hollywood pro-
duction code which specifically.
outlaws scenes that throw an un-
favorable light on religious insti-
tutions.

The Steel Helmet is only, the
rst of what may be expected to
be a whole series of Hollywood
pictures attempting to justify Am-
erica’s aggressive’ policies in Ko-
rea and China. But vigorous pro-
test by Vancouver movie-goers
can ensure that it will be the
last to be shown here.

GUIDE TO GOOD READING

Australion writer
completes trilogy

CONGRATULATIONS to: Kath-
arine Susannah Prichard on her
novel Winged Seeds, which com-
pletes her great trilogy of the
West Australian goldfields. ‘

This is how a reviewer for the
Tribune, left-wing labor weekly
published at Sydney, NSW, greets
publication of this new work by
a progressive Australian writer
who deserves to be better known
outside her own country.

All three volumes in Katharine
Prichard’s trilogy—Golden Miles;
$2; The Roaring Nineties, $2;

‘Winged Seeds, $2.75—are obtain-

able at the People’s Cooperative
Bookstore, 337 West Pender St.,
Vancouver.

The Tribune reviewer contin-
ues: ; :

Here is sincere, thoughtful
writing in the best Australian
tradition — the tradition of demo-
cracy, of the struggles of the
common people.

Here the earlier struggles of the
goldfields people develop into the
modern struggles, the fight to de-
feat fascism in Spain and on the ,
battlefields of the Second World
War, and the fight that is still
left today.

Winged Seeds moves slowly at
times, and has minor faults ,but

these are not important. It is the
reality of the book that matters.

The people in the book grow
in stature and become part of our
cultural tradition.

Where so many writers have
failed to give us real Communists,
Katherine Prichard succeeds with
Bill, makes him fine and strong*
and real.

‘And towering above the book
is the splendid figure of Sally
Gough, learning and developing—
a symbol of the best of our Aus- .
tralian people as they develop
and acquire socialist conscious-
ness. :

And though her friends and her
people die, she still finds strength.

“The life force strives towards’

perfection . . . The struggle had
gone on through the ages. The
vital germ in a-seed attained
its fine flowering and full fruit
How then could the great ideas
and ideals of human progress
be denied and annihiliated? . .

“The spirit of mankind strug-
gling through the _ centuries
against injustice and oppression
was the Power of Powers.”

This faith in mankind, in the
common people, is the real Aus-
trailan tradition. It is good that

- in Jubilee year, we have Winged

Seeds to read.

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 9

Has Britain

Social (successful pressure for
cuts in housing and social pro-
gram); ;

Cultural (films, magazines,
radio, theater, language, etc.);

Political (size and extent of
USS. official appartus in Britain;
over-riding of parliament by
Wasihngton detisions, e.g. on re-
armament; transformation of of-
ficial parties, press, broadcasting
into American propaganda ma-
chines) ; ; :

Military (U.S. Supreme Com-
mand of British forces; standard-

_ ization of arms; military occupa-

tion; Britain as U.S. bomber base).

Uy

The Brussels Conference decis-
ions of the Atlantic Treaty Pow-*
ers, following the Washington
Truman-Attlee talks, have illus-
trated sharply and carried for-
ward this Satellite position of
Britain. ;

In the words of the Communist

_ Party’s Declaration on the Brus-

sels Plan:
“Britain’s armed forces are
placed under the control of a

é

“The Brussels War Plan means
the end of Britain’s national in-
dependence, ce )
foreign power. Control of the
‘armed forces of a country means
the end of its sovereignty.

“Britain’s industrial production
(for war production means in
practice all industrial production)
is similarly placed under an Am-
erican controller.

“Once Britains armed. forces
pass under Eisenhower’s supreme
control and the destiny of Brit-
ain’s industry is placed in» the

3
é

lost her sovereignty ?

If the American domination of
Britain were open, it would
arouse universal resistance. ‘The

camouflage of the American dom-

hands of an American economic

dictator,‘ it means an end of our
independence as. a nation:

“Whoever supports these ~de-_

cisions is a traitor to Britain.”
Who ‘re the traitors? It is
necessary to expose the top lead-
ership of the official parties, the
big .trust magnates interlocked
with the American monopolies,
the press and radio controllers
and their hired moulders of pub-
lic opinion, who have become the
conscious channels of American
domination in Britain. \

_ “controlling”

ination of Britain is only possible
because it is conducted through
British agents, while the Ameri-
can advisers and supervisers re-
main in the background. .

In Vichy France, Hitler was
careful to maintain th e ghastly
mockery of a “French govern-
ment” of Marshal. Petain with
all the paraphernalia of “diplo-
matic” relations. The French
population was regaled with the
spectacle of familiar political fig-
ures, a Flandin, a Weygand or a
Laval, reshuffling Cabihets and
administration and

the &rmed services. The German

military command was scrupu- -

lously \“correct” in its relations,
and was only giving them “assist-
ance” within the framework of
“United Europe” against “sub-
versive’ and “unpatriotic” ele-
ments. The French
party in a castrated Chamber of

Deputies voted special powers to

a

“Socialist” —

Petain. The Frenchman could
still read bourgeois newspapers,
the Temps or the Journal or the
Matin and receive the guidance of
his customary mass-sale journal-
ists and political oracles. But the
whole content was Nazi. i
“We are witnessing a first em-
bryonic form of this development
in Britain. The British citizen
still sees, not American rulers,
but the familiar political forms of
king and parliament; the shadow-
boxing of the familiar official
parties (only “united” on foreign
policy and “defense”? and the war
against Communism); British
broadcasting not yet the “Voice
of America”; the familiar British
titles of newspapers, even though
the syndicated American articles
begin to absorb a great deal of
the space. But the content be-

comes more and more American. |

The apparatus becomes more and
more obviously a gramophone: of
American propaganda.

1 ‘ -
The principal agency of Ameri-
can ideological penetration and

propaganda in Western Europe is
Social Democracy. This has be-
come the main function of Com-
isco and the ICFTU. .In Britain
it is the right-wing Labor leader-
ship, the Attlees, Bevins, Tew-
sons and Morgan Phillips; who
are the most obsequious bootlick-
ers of American imperialism.
The national upsurge of feeling
in the days of December against
the dragging of Britain behind
the reckless war policies of Mac-
Arthur and the atom bomb threats
of Truman was a first foretaste of
the future. We can be confident
that, as the issues deepen and
the disastroup consequences of
selling out Britain to the frenzied
American warlords ‘further reveal
. themselves, this national revolt,
extending to all sections, will rise:
to new heights. We need to set
our perspective to the aim of an
all-embracing national campaign
and movement, with the working
class in the forefront, to throw
‘off the American. shackles and

win British national independence

and peace.

} .
; PACIFIC TRIBUNE — MARCH 2, 1951 — PAGE 10