"A false film might be refuted in a hundred books, without much affecting the million dupes who had never read the books but only seen the film."

...a certain privilege almost analogous to monopoly...belongs of necessity to things like the theatre and the cinema...If a man is repelled by one book, he can shut it and open another; but he cannot shut up a theatre in which he finds a show repulsive, nor instantly order one of a thousand other theatres to suit his taste. There are a limited number of theatres; and even to cinemas there is some limit. Hence there is a real danger of historical falsehood being popularised through the film, because there is not the normal chance of one film being corrected by another film. When a book appears displaying a doubtful portrait of Queen Elizabeth, it will generally be found that about six other historical students are moved to publish about six other versions of Queen Elizabeth at the same moment...But few of us are in a  position to pay the money required to stage a complete and elaborately presented alternative film-version of Disraeli. The fiction on the film, the partisan version in the movie-lay, will go uncontradicted and even uncriticised, in a way in which few provocative books can really go uncontradicted and uncriticised. There will be no opportunity of meeting it on its own large battlefield of expansive scenario and multitudinous repetition. And most of those who are affected by it will know or care very little about its being brought to book by other critics and critical methods...A false film might be refuted in a hundred books, without much affecting the million dupes who had never read the books but only seen the film...provincial prejudice of this kind is frightfully dangerous...

-January 5, 1935, Illustrated London News