Spielberg Replies

I would like to point out some severe misrepresentations which occured in the interview which Crum sent you and which you most irresponsibly printed in your issue April 17 1978. In an interview accuracy is most important, and those little bastards in Crum completely altered some of my statements, and edited out some extremely significant others.

When asked about the money I make from my movies Crum claimed that I mentioned the figure 10 million dollars. This is a downright lie. Do they want people to think that I am a pauper? The true figure is about three times as great, and as I have studied John Smith's excellent book "Tax and how to avoid paying it", I can honestly say that the American Government gets very little of your money, I get just about all of it. I hope this will reassure some of your readers.

Also in the interview you printed were statements which implied that I held a high opinion of that little squirt Richard Dreyfuss. He is a pill and his only asset is that he is very cheap to hire. He is also related to my wife's brother's daughter in a manner that I am reluctant to go into in too much detail. But it is nice to keep all the money in the family.

I was particularly upset that your article seemed to give the impression that I believed in UFOS. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is most important that the director keeps a distance between himself and the material about which he is writing. I would not have found it possible to make either of my two materpieces had I been emotionally involved. Who could be so stupid as to believe in little green men from outer space?

In case you are tempted to run more interviews in your little newspaper I wonder if I might offer some advice. Few men have been interviewed more than me, and my experience has shown that it is essential that the interviewer establish a rapport with the interviewee. In the case of the Crum interview this was simply not done.

By persistant reference to what they found were the boring aspects of the film, they presented the reader with a very biased view of this masterpiece. If I could redress this influence by including a summary of what I thought were the high points of the film, your readers might be in a better position to reach the right decision about it.

Fundamentally the film was an action film. This was quite deliberate on my part. There has been a tendancy for theatre to move towards consideration of political and personal matters. This morbid interest has manifested itself in the production of some of the most boring films ever made.

I feel that the Western represents the pinnacle of the movie business. Good buys fighting bad guys, shoot outs, everything simple and straightforward. "Close Encounter" and "Jaws" both followed this formula. And the public just loved it, I loved it and my wife loved it. What more could you ask?

Face it people, I am an expert with regard to the movie business (and just about everything else) so you could be well advised to take my opinion as gospel.

Just to get back to the interview however, I felt that the cutting which was performed by Crum (or perhaps even by yourselves) showed grave editorial irresponsibility. I made some very penetrating remarks about the moral justification for the existance of the Jewish state. As is typical with PLO supporters, these persuasive comments were cut, as these communists attempt to sway the public.

I told these people that the way to solve the Middle-East problem is very simple. We could send them ail to Tonga, and throw the Tongans into their capital—Auckland. As this might involve you a little, perhaps you might like to make representations to the Capital of New Zealand—Canberra.

I am sure your readers will be fascinated by my incisive comments, although I recognise that it is the perogative of those of us with ability to use of for the benefit of mankind. I am proud to be part of God's great plan. Your fawning comments would be greatly appreciated.

No more Perversions

Why do you persist in printing dirty letters about sex with animals? e.g. aardvarks? Surely there is such a thing as journalistic etiquette (which maybe you have never heard of?) which means that letters and articles printed should always be in good taste and not offend. Articles therefore talking of sexual perversions or containing libellous language to persons and things like that should not be printed. Things like Colin's Column will only get our newspaper a bad name and students in general a bad reputation of having base and filthy minds.

Students Satisfied with Status Quo?

We are two average students, who commute to varsity from home, like most other students. We came to Varsity to study hard, broaden our limited horizons and gain a degree. We hope to be able to make positive contributions to New Zealand society (and if we can't we shall go overseas).

We did not come here to indulge in petty revolutionary politicking. As we are here at the tax payer's expense we should be very careful about biting the hand that feeds us.

We also feel that students are not part of some privileged elite. We have no right to force our minority opinions on the government that a large majority of New Zealanders elected.

Although we agree that education is a right not a privilege, we feel that the bursaries issue is a different kettle of fish. Students should, as we do carry some of the burden themselves.

We are sick and tired of the same beady-eyed slogan-screaming, left wing agitators, (whose views are shared by less than l% of students) getting up in SRC's and trying to extort money from the government.

The government is well aware that most students are satisfied with the status quo because they can see how many votes radical left wing parties received in the last general election.

We urge all students to boycott all Bursaries Activities and concentrate on getting down to some damn hard work—after all that is what we are here for.

Druid Rave and Rave

We, the Druids of Victoria, have had enough. This letter is to annouce the formation of the Druid Liberation Front, or Front d'Liberation des Druids—FLD. For centuries and centuries we have been persecuted and driven out of here there and everywhere. The time has come to an end when Druids will be persecuted with impunity!

Our terrorism will strike back, here, there and everywhere—we will take our vengence out from continent to continent and sea to sea until every druid can hold his head high and announce his true essence without fear of giggling behind his back or sometimes even raucious laughter to his face!

You out there—all you Druid persecutors—you know who I mean and what I am talking about—those shameful songs—"Druid Mouse" and that joke about "How many Druids does it take to paint a house?"

No more, you hear! Or else we will unleash our secret weapon on unsuspecting Wellington. Our weapon? The rain Dance! Yes that's right, we will make rain and fog whenever something nasty happens to a Druid.

(Last week's rain was our doing you know. Vengence against a particularly nasty nasty committed against a Druid when someone drove into his car!)

Another thing you should be aware of is that Druids control all of the umbrella factories in New Zealand, and if you're not nice to us we'll not only make rain—we'll go on strike.

Another Mile on Christianity

Jim Murphy's "reply" ignored my letter and instead repeated the traditional Christian assertion that "Intellectualised, rational and purely secular arguments" are useless against Christianity since Jesus "doesn't claim to be understood on this lever". Then followed an appeal to me to succumb to the Muggendge syndrome—"Open up your heart to Him, Gary"—and finally he signed his letter not with a simple "Yours" or "Yours sincerely" but with "All our love". You should lay off the piss, Jim, it's starting to addle your brain.

The Christians have been quite successful in persuading people to accept the view that their assertions shouldn't be judged by the standards of ordinary common sense but I have never understood why they are so special. Jim's reason that Jesus "doesn't claim to be understood on this level" is nonsense. I suppose it's worth a try though, so I hereby give notice to my lecturers that my answers in exams are not to be challened on the grounds that they may bear no relation to reality or are illogical because I don't claim to be understood on that level. Somehow I doubt my claim will be accepted as readily as some people have accepted the Christian's.

The report on the University Inaugural Church Service attempted to clear Christianity of the charge of being a reactionary superstition by claiming it is a distortion of "true" Christianity. The argument usually goes on that Christianity is in fact a revolutionary ideology but this is a little difficult to reconcile with the views of its founder who was capable of such rebellious outbursts as "And if one of the occupation troops forces you to carry his pack one mile, carry it another mile." (Matt. 5.41). If to get around this they say they mean an "internal" revolution they are simply confirming the reactionary nature of their religion.

Christian PR emphasises the charitable work the Churches do and it suggests Christianity is a form of humanism albeit with a large component of mysticism but this is a distorted view because in fact it is a set of beliefs and principles stated in the Bible and elsewhere which the Christians believe derive their authority from God and therefore are to be followed whether or not this involves hardship for themselves or for others. An example of this attitude is the Catholic belief that all abortions including therapeutic ones are a violation of God's Law and therefore should be illegal. Of course not all religionists hold views which are as extreme as those of the Catholics but generally speaking any society which through misguided liberalism allows religious organisations to operate legally is asking for trouble. The University could set an example by scrapping the Chaplaincy and the Christian Clubs.

Circuitous Critique of Culture

Late one night I went to the top floor of the Union Building. The TV room was open and a well-known quiz show was on. Next door the joanna was under lock and key.

Now, this may seem a trivial incident in itself, but to me it seems to demonstrate in a glaringly blatent fashion the cultural favouritism than manifests itself unexpectedly in remote corners of our society. My own interpretation of cultural history is this: cultural objects were created by the first men, primarily as a source of trade. So I respect the right of culture to sell itself on an open market for whatever the market will bear. My objection is rather on political grounds.

Most television shows—especially those imported—show class predominance and discrimination against the sexes. It is especially notable that since 1976, as the content of American programs has decreased, discrimination has increased, and values are expostualted more and page 15 more freely. Such repression is especially advantageous to the present Government—(witness certain recent legislation etc.) and is encouraged on the grounds that closer ties with the USA will encourage these values.

The Student Union, more than most places has a vested interest in such cultural favouritism, given the future probable employment of most of of its students. Beethoven sonatas, like debate of legislation are shunted aside to inconspicuous times. As unemployment rises these become an embarrassing reminder to the National Party of a more affluent age.

But everyone has colour TV so that must be alright. The prime aim of Muldoon is to see that everyone swims with the current—that means his way. It's not his fault the water keeps going the wrong way. So we are placated with left-wing cliches about the delicate introspective nature of the piano, compared with the cultural favouritism of television programs.

My argument is Not that TV programs have never practices any form of cultural favouritism, but rather, if they have dictated social consequences in terms of restraints imposed by cultural barriers, then we must view the alternatives with concern; but if, on the other hand (and this I believe) cultural favouritism is practised only in regard to combatting measures against the establishment of political expansionism, we must view alternatives to the present values-orientated system as a measure of dissatisfaction with economic materialism. There is more than one way of political repression!

I stress that if such programs predominate because they are in good supply and cheap to run, and are popular I have no concern with them. However note that most of these programs end happily which is superlative artistically but very bad in political terms, seeing that unless continued awareness is maintained concerning the repression of cultural favouritism, left wing elements in society will gradually subvert the sacred rules of this art. Let us not forget that culture was created to satisfy man's deepest instincts.

On Identifying the Enemy

I want to reply to the letter written by Guru Nathan K. and signed by some other overseas students.

First of all, I would like to point out a few inaccuracies. The letter states "we pay the same amount of tuition fees but get nothing substantial in return" The Students' Association does not receive the money paid for tuition fees—I only wish we did. Rather, the Students Association receives $37.00—$2.00 of which goes as a levy to NZUSA. Does the letter imply that those overseas students who are dissatisfied with NZUSA's performance will not pay the whole $37 to VUWSA or just the $2.00 to NZUSA?

Personally I deplore the tactics of an individual or group, who instead of using open debate at SRC's forums etc. would rather write a threatening, childish, unsubstantiated and incorrect letter, which is a direct insult not only to James Movick himself, but also to the overseas and local students who fought so hard for him to stay in the country.

Why do I say this? Though the opening paragraph of the letter is is directed at an attack against the immigration authorities who with Gill and the National Government are the real enemies of overseas students, the rest of the letter is directed at NZUSA's failure to keep James in the country.

A great deal of time and money was put into trying to appeal against the Minister of Immigration's decision through the Courts; now that James has left that battle still continues.

At present an appeal is being made to gain funds to continue the legal struggle. NZUSA also prepared numerous leaflets, arranged a speaking tour of James around the country and generally tried to win support for James' case. Though the VUW Council did not at first support James, after an SRC motion and a deputation to see the Vice-Chancellor a special emergency meeting was held which overturned this decision and supported James.

The overseas students at Victoria also called a meeting to try and gain the support of both local and overseas students by distributing leaflets. The author of the letter. Guru Nathan K.'s sole contribution to the meeting was that if the battle was not won he would withdraw his $37. At no stage did he help in any other aspect of the the campaign by either joining the pickets or by helping to organise activities.

Though we have lost the first stage of this campaign NZUSA is obliged to continue the Struggle to win equal rights for overseas students. It is an important principle, and one which I personally am prepared to continue to fight for. To say that NZUSA has not got off its "bureaucratic arse" and done nothing is completely erroneous.

Besides the James Movick campaign, what else does NZUSA do for overseas students?

In 1975 after pressure by NZUSA the Education Advisory Committee (EAC) was set up to hear immigration appeals by overseas students. This concession, won by NZUSA for overseas students was of direct benefit to those who wished to stay longer in the country.

A representative from NZUSA sits on that Committee spends a great deal of time researching and preparing a case for those who are appealing. It is estimated that NZUSA spends twice as much time on overseas students' cases than on individual bursary cases.

Last year NZUSA gave $1550 directly to the National Overseas Students Action Committee (NOSAC), which is a body directly reponsible for overseas students. This does not count donations and hidden subsidies given by the individual Students' Associations.

Guru's letter stinks of inverted racism, e.g. "liberal pakehas" and does the work of the national government by dividing overseas students from local students. It is a letter which deliberately directs the attack away from the main enemy to organisations which are genuinely trying to work in the interests of all students, both local and overseas.

Finally, that letter was not written in support of James Movick or overseas students but rather in support of a particular person's own sectional, selfish and racist attitudes.

Fault?

I would like through your newspaper to ask the people who threw "a tennis ball" from their VW on the comer of The Terrace and Salamanca Road last term, to contact me (Ph. 661—625) so that I can return it to them.

Bursaries Suggestions

So who's got a typewriter? It wasn't like the this in the days of Roger Steele.

Nevertheless, I've a suggestion on bursaries. To avoid one anomaly of abatement the government could pay the abated bursary direct to the parents of students still living at home who could deal it out for fares etc.

Those not living at home could sign a declaration to that effect and receive the full bursary.

Bursaries should be subject to automatic cost of living increases. On the basis of the price of a Wellington Upper Hutt 10 trip at $6.30 it is only slightly more expensive to flat in town. Fares have risen dramatically and it's about time the government gave all students a more realistic bursary. Abatement needs to be examined close so that we don't just give the money to the off-spring of rich farmers.

Mongoose Defends Literary Standards

Reading the April 17th edition of Salient we are appalled by the moronic letters sent to your illustrious paper by seemingly equally moronic students.

Now a notice to all people who intend to write letters to Salient—improve or else. We cannot allow the literary standard of NZ's best student newspaper to go down the drain. If an improvement is not evident then we, the heads of the Victoria Mongoose Society (AGM coming up) will begin a written expose of your underworld activities.

Be warned Vic Urwin—any more trash from you and you're a marked mongoose.

Want to Know an Indonesian Banker?

From your embassy in Jacarta Indonesia I received a very kind letter with your address.

The reason that I wrote to them was that I am very interested in your country and that I tried already for many many years to find friends in your country to write to: to exchange ideas with and to hear a lot about your lovely country.

I wrote to many correspondence clubs, paid a lot of money to become a member but......... no success at all.

Your embassy then gave me your address and I really hope that you are able to help me.

I am an Indonesian (male).

My profession is a banker. My interests are: music; postcards; stamps; travelling; corresponding; reading; collection of antique articles; cinema and animals.

Maybe you can give my name and address to your students and then I hope to receive many letters to answer. I shall give the other letters to friends, so that everybody gets and answer from.

I really hope that you will do me this favour I will be so, so grateful to you.

Give Squid Pro Quo a go

In your article entitled "Squid Pro Quo" in the April 10th issue of Salient, I believe many facts were omitted and the truth was pushed well aside.

The basic: principle of the Exclusive Economic Zones as being developed at the Law of the Sea conferences is that nations which establish such zones must calculate the maximum sustainable yield of their zone and must make the surplus available to other nations.

Foreign fishermen have, in the past, competed with local industry, and now because of the Exclusive Economic Zones the New Zealand fishing industry has just experienced a year of record export earnings; some $50.4 m.

The South Koreans have not been "kicked out", as your article suggested, but were the first to sign an agreement, and now remain in New Zealand waters in some strength.

Also, Russia is far from being the "worst fishing nation". It has a record of efficiency, cooperation and concern for observing the local regulations. They cannot take up the "slack" left by departing Japanese except by agreement with the New Zealand government. Their rational allocation is based on the size of their historical catch in New Zealand waters.

Only Japanese and Taiwanese vessels have been arrested becasue they have been the only offenders so far. If the Russians offend they too will be arrested. But in New Zealand waters and in others Russia has repeatedly shown its respect for regulations and has exterted her own disciplinary and control measures on her own fishermen.

In addition to that, Russia is aiding the New Zealand economy by making use of New Zealand repair and replenishment facilities and 'Air New Zealand' for the turnover of crews.

These facts should clearly show that Russia is in no way an "offender", and that the writer of the article in question let political bias distort the truth.

Treen Lashed for Lashing

The letter written in last week's Salient by Mike Treen is a series of outrageous exaggerations.

When I said at the last SRC that I believed Mike Treen was at that time in Auckland lobbying for the position of NZUSA EVP I honestly believed this to be true. Mike claims that I was wrong and so I apologise to him for this. However from this one action Mike claims that this is "only the latest in a series of attacks on me since my election" and that "Leonie Morris is in the forefront of these attacks."

What am I supposed to have done Mike? In what ways have I attempted to obstruct your work? These allegations are nonsense. I have done nothing to obstruct Mike Treen's work. Quit the "Maoist" bashing Mike so that we can both get on with our work.