On Broadway the success of a play is usually determined by the drama critics of the New York papers. There are a few exceptions, such as "Tobacco Road" and "Hellzapoppin," that succeed in spite of bad notices, but nine times out of ten if a critic says "No" you may be sure the play will fold shortly. The success of a motion picture depends very slightly on critical acclaim. Proper exploitation and the star system have been developed into a fine art in Hollywood. It is advertising that accounts for a picture's financial success. And to Hollywood, money is the gauge of success.

There are few public checks on the films, besides the moral issues settled by Will Hays. True, the great moviegoing public, through fan mail and fan clubs, can build up its favorites and by staying away from the box-office can write a quick finis to a star's career. If sufficiently organized the public might even be able to combat the double feature menace. But as long as the moviegoers remain unorganized and subservient, their effect on the industry will be slight.

Actually, there is very little real criticism of films; there are reviews printed in papers, movie magazines, and trade papers, but few aim at sound criticism, and those that do reach a limited audience. The singularly weak effects criticism has on the movies at present is seen in the receptions given two similar films: "How Green Was My Valley" and "The Stars Look Down."

Both movies were highly praised by the critics; the former received the Academy Award, and the latter was listed as one of the ten best pictures of the year by the New York critics. Both are based on novels; both deal with coal-mining. But while "How Green Was My Valley" has grossed heavily at the box-office through shrewd advertising based on the appeal of the book and the prestige of the director, John Ford; "The Stars Look Down," an English film directed by Carol Reed, has had to succeed on merit alone, even though it is the better picture. Aside from a week at the Fine Arts in Boston, its only local showing was at the U. T. last Wednesday. Since the producers did not spend any great sums of money exploiting it, the average exhibitor considers it a poor risk and avoids showing it.

It is a sad state of affairs when cheap publicity stunts, lavish newspaper and magazine displays determine the success of a movie. Though the film critic may feel unwanted and unheeded at the moment, he should persevere with intelligent and constructive criticism. Such a potent influence on American morals and manners as the movies needs more surveyance than is offered by the public with its latent and incoherent reactions, or by the Hollywood producers who allow commercialism to triumph over integrity and honesty.