Talk:Bosley Crowther

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Journalism

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

The statement "even by his editors at the Times" is proved by Arthur Gelb's autobiography City Room.

Okay then cite it. Then there will be no need to put a Fact tag. Yojimbo501 (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mentor and Protégé[edit]

Howard Thompson often spoke of Crowther as being his mentor. Must find third-party documentation (now that both Crowther and Thompson have passed on) to support this. AndreasKQ 05:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged leftist leanings[edit]

I am concerned by the statements concerning Crowther's political viewpoints. No source is cited for these statements. They need to be cited or I will have to take them out. I'm not saying they're not true. They may be. I just think that controversial statements need to be attributed even for dead people.--Stetsonharry (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one has come forward on this issue, so I removed the text about his political prejudice because it was not referenced or sourced. It appears to be original research. If not, I would ask that it be reinstated with appropriate citations.--Stetsonharry (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing 'alleged' about Crowther's leftist and pro-Stalin views as it affected his film reviews (which is the subject of the section) - they were an established fact. Crowther's own review of Mission to Moscow, a film he acknowledged was quite flawed as a picture, contained unadulterated praise for its accuracy of its 'facts' concerning Stalinist Russia. Even though he was simply reviewing a film, not writing a political essay, Crowther did not stop there, taking an openly pro-Stalinist line in condemning (in a supposedly politically neutral film review) Trotskyist opposition to Stalin as a fascist conspiracy! In Crowther's eyes, even Trotsky, an old Bolshevik and co-founder of the modern Communist Party, was a fascist traitor. This took place in 1943, long after the truth about Stalin's phony show trials and mass liquidations of anarchists, foreign radicals, and Soviet citizens, soldiers, and officials had already surfaced in the West - not to mention the assassination of Trotsky himself! This political viewpoint was affirmed in his reviews of later films containing anti-communist themes, which both political essayists and film historians have noted over the years (see references). As for Mission to Moscow, Crowther's enthusiastic advocacy for Stalin comes right out of his own written column (Crowther, Bosley, Mission to Moscow, New York Times, 30 April 1943). You can read this for yourself, as the appropriate citations are already there:

Particularly will it anger the so-called Trotskyites with its visual re-enactment of the famous "Moscow trials." For it puts into the record for millions of moviegoers to grasp an admission that the many "purged" generals and other leaders were conspirators in a plot—a plot engineered by Trotsky with the Nazis and the Japs to drain the strength of Russia and make it an easy victim for conquest. Further, it takes some healthy potshots at Britain's Chamberlain government. It pictures the pre-war Ambassador of Great Britain to Russia as a foggy person. It characterizes the French and Polish envoys as anti-Russian to the core and swings a vicious wallop at Congressional isolationists over here. In short, it says quite clearly that reactionaries permitted the war and that Russia, far from earlier suspicion, is a true and most reliable ally...Then come the Moscow "purge" trials, which are briefly but effectively played; a vivid representation of Russian armed strength and a final, plain and frank talk with Stalin...The story is never told with as much excitement or compulsion as resided in the times.But still it should be a valuable influence to more clear-eyed and searching thought. LKH (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the user who left the lengthy note above ("LKH") is an unregistered user, editing from IP addresses different from those stated in his/her signature. There is no "User:LKH", and the page history shows that the edit did not come from IP "113.72.132.222." Stetsonharry (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but simply saying that his alleged leftist leanings must be stated in an independent third party source, under WP:NOR. Stetsonharry (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's probably a little burned you completely excised his contribution, referenced as it was, while leaving untouched a completely unreferenced controversy over Crowther's alleged dislike of Japanese avant-garde. I think WP standards should be evenly applied, not applied on an excruciatingly technical level in one instance, while ignored in another. Anyway, I do see he has added third-party sources for you. Personally to me these are actually less reliable than reading a man's own statements about his beliefs, as later authors often can't resist interpreting things to suit their own political outlook. But that's another debate.Dellant (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These allegations now seemed to be sourced, but they consume far too much of this biography, at least one-third. He is not notable because of his alleged left-wing bias, but because he was a powerful film critic for the Times. This needs to be cut back substantially. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for intervention from the Biography Notice Board. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seems to be no immediate objection, I've made appropriate edits per WP:SYN and WP:WEIGHT. Stetsonharry (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crowther's review of "Mission to Moscow" in the NY Times[edit]

I have a problem with this: Crowther's review of the wartime drama Mission to Moscow chided the film by saying it should show "less ecstasy", and said "It is just as ridiculous to pretend that Russia has been a paradise of purity as it is to say the same thing about ourselves."[3][4] The problem is that if you read his original NY Times review from April 20, 1943 (http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9505E5DD1638E33BBC4850DFB2668388659EDE), nowhere in the review will you find those quotes. In fact, Crowther's review pretty much does not take the film to task whatsoever, except to say it's a bit too long, and even seems to laud it as mostly fact-based. (It was revealed later that the film was secretly commissioned by FDR himself as a propaganda piece, in an attempt to get Americans to feel more comfortable with our new ally, the Soviet Union.) The first of those two references may be the source of your quotes, I don't know, but I do know the April 20, 1943 review, as found in the NY Times archive, is not. 71.204.84.204 (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]