Copyright Statement - ResearchSpace@Auckland

344
of course expect from this first effort the heights of acting and production. I
have seen many much more hammy English films that reminded me of the
Mudthorpe Drama Group. Runaway was infinitely better with some simple
realism and warmth, and quite an effective work from the stars, who were
given a rather scrappy script. 38
This letter writer did agree with the reviewers in blaming the film’s shortcomings on
the script while praising the camerawork. “The photography and atmospheric effects
were impressive. I think it will cause real interest overseas, where the unusual localcolour
short would never cause a ripple.” 39 The letter ended with a curious query.
“Too bad, though, that the New Zealand copy was cut. Are we all children out
here?” 40 No censor’s cuts had been made to Runaway, but perhaps the poetic editing
in the final sex scene had left “More Please” confused.
Other letters to the editor were not so supportive. Two published in the Timaru
Herald a month after the film’s release, expressed grave concern. 41 The first, signed
by the pseudonym “Two Mothers”, declared, “on behalf of the mothers of New
Zealand who have sons and daughters of an age to compare with those depicted in
Runaway … we would like to register our disapproval of the film.” Illustrating the
New Zealand obsession with “what will they think of us overseas” the letter
concluded, “We feel it gives a wrong impression of the character and conduct of the
youth of New Zealand. We hope this film will not be shown overseas.” (This letter
may have pleased the film-makers since it shows that some of the film’s radicalism
had been noticed.) The second, signed by a Barbara Harper and published two days
later, commented, “I should imagine that not only mothers, but all sections of the
community would not so much disapprove but be utterly disappointed in Runaway.”
After briefly complimenting Barry Crump and the scenery, Harper complained that
the film “is painfully paltry in theme and consequence. With nothing subtle, romantic
or courageous in the limp story and insipid dialogue, the whole production verges on
the ridiculous.” But the writer’s real objection was on the grounds of morality.
“Promiscuity and absurdity increases with every situation, from the antics of the
wool-buyer’s mistress at Hokianga to the feline behaviour of the travelling city girl
with never a hair out of place in the mountains of Westland.” Although wrong about
the marital status of Laura Kosavitch, Harper was right to be surprised by Diana’s