ScreennContinued from previous pagendear human values. And when Paulan(Marsha Mason) announces that love andnhappiness can best be expressed throughna newly purchased bedroom set—that isnwhen she proclaims a petit bourgeoisndelight a center of humanness—she certainlynsounds more believable than thenentire women’s conference in Houston,nor the last ten years’ output of feministnwriting, while Neil Simon scores hisnsweet revenge and gives a raspberry tonexistentialists, counterculturists, andnjunkies of all kinds of liberation.nMiss Mason is mightily supportednby Richard Dreyfuss who succeeds innsuffusing Elliot, from the hack charmermavericknmold, with lovableness andncredible intentions. Then, we have QuinnnCummings, a marvel of a little girl, whonas Lucy performs an unheard-of cinematicnfeat: she pulls off a sketchy portraitnof an 8-year old who is fully up to NewnYork of the late ’70s and still remains annauthentic and sensible child. The presencenof Mr. Herbert Ross, the movie’sndirector, is scarcely noticeable, as MnnSimon and his trio preempt the wholenspace on screen. After the show, whennthe lights go up, the faces of the audiencenradiate satisfaction, and nobody seemsnto feel that the last two hours werenwasted—a rare expression on the moviegoer’snfaces these days in America.nEven the most skillful, intellectuallynmature and philosophically responsiblenscience fiction —a rare occurrence, indeed—isnman’s construct. This is whatndistinguishes it from art which must dealnin dimensions not of our making. Evennif art produces fantasy, we know that thenpoet, writer or artist who creates it attemptsnto fathom something he has nonsway over. The universe that exists in usnand around us, and which determinesnour destinies and interrelations, transcendsnour abilities to shape it. An artistncan add something to, or touch, a truthnabout it only by not adding anything ton321nChronicles of Cultttrenthe universe. Once he starts enriching itnwith the products of his intelligence ornimagination, he kisses seriousness goodbye.nA young and energetic film directornby the name of Steven Spielberg tries hisnhand at that chronic dilemma and is thenmost recent one to fail. He is all flair andngusto as an inheritor of the traditionalnHollywood skills of putting fast movingnimages into a coherent and entertainingnoperation. Mentally, he is a Hollywoodian—annextraterrestrial species—so fornhim elements like logic have the valuenof meat tenderizer—good to have butnnot necessary for the preparation of ansteak. In the beginning of his movie—nwhich depicts once again our eventualnmeeting with creatures from who knowsnwhere—he resorts to the Bergsonianndevices of dealing with the unknown,ngalactic, interstellar, out-of-this-world.nHe dabbles in intuition, a little boy’sninnocent insight, poetic and metaphoricalnobsessions of people who had been blessedn(victimized?) by exposure to UFO’s. Thenmovie is strong in the visual and utterlynfeeble in reason. The magnificent finalenis supposed to demonstrate how the visitorsnfrom yonder dwarf the earthlings’ntechnology. We watch it with relish,ntending to forget that we have, in fact,nmanufactured both our equipment andntheirs. Mr. Spielberg may be a Wunderkindndirector, but as with every juvenile,nhe ignores the fact that the allusive isnmuch more credible than the literal—andnthus introduces, at the end, some emaciatednlittle monsters from the impenetrablenendlessness that look like thenfamiliar creatures from kiddies’ comicnstrips. He thereby proves that he is anmoviemaker but not an artist, as artistry—nwhether its horizons are here orn”there”—must involve something realnand human. DnIn the forthcoming issue of the Chronicles of Culture:nThe Cult of Deficient Thinkingn”We believe that any interference with freedom ofnexpression endangers aW freedom of expression.”n~ Richard Howard,npresident of PEN American Center, and organization ofnprofessional writers, in a letter to The New York Times.n”The test of our commitment to a free society lies in thencourage to defend the disreputable or the vulgar in thenservice of a higher goal.”n— A New York Times editorial.nAn unassailable idolatry of irresponsible platitudes, protected by the liberal media,nconstitutes the gist of the Liberal Culture which engulfs America.nChronicles of Culture wishes to present its argument about somenexamples of deficient thinking.nAlso:nCommendables — In Focus — Waste of Money —n• Screen — Journalism — Polemics & Exchanges. Innn