JFK Assassination Sysem Date: 5/13/20 Identification Form Agape: Information AGENCY: FBI _ RECORD NUMBER; — 124-90143-10430 RECORD SERIES: HQ AGENCY FILENUMBER: —100-370750-333 Document Information ORIGINATOR: CIT ‘TROM: — [Restricted] TO: [Restricted] TITLE: DATE: 01/31/1967 ‘PAGES: 5 JFK INT b(iii) Withhotd-in-full SUBJECTS : : JOHN HOWARD LAWSON DOCUMENT TYPE: PAPER, TEXTUAL DOCUMENT fy CLASSIFICATION: “Confidential partment of the Army EQ 13526 RESTRICTIONS: 1B BDeclassify 9 Excluce o in CURRENT STATUS : er Autho rity empt DATE OF LAST REVIEW : een . Rio 2 °° OPENING CRITERIA: APPROVAL OF USA Review Date Linegle by ET COMMENTS: ‘LET, ENV vol 5 NWH: 45838 DocId: 32339012
t H * JOHN HOWARDLAWEON - : an ; 949 ELYRIA-ORIVE - ‘ woe . ” { a LOS ANGELES, CALIF. 20088 tes we soe " Sanuaty -31, 1967. 0°~—O 3 “Dear Jays : Your letter. makes me feel that I did not - pead your manuscript with as much insight or sensitivity ‘as I should have: brought to it. The fault may be. in part in the manuscript. itself, but I feel that I cannot be altogether absolved gtom blame for not under- i, Standing the intent, the inner drive of the. thing: “even af this purpose is not fully realized, I feel: it ‘48 not realized, yet I believe, it is there, wrapped “tholgh it may be in detail,. The concept of broadening: the study” ‘of fim, . to use it (as yous say) as & lens for' the study of a ‘country 's. history and character, if necessary and I- - “+ +, am sure'you are well equipped for the task. (Yhe horrib-— [| » "T+ .dy, low level of film history. or criticism inthe U. 8., o: 7, resting. ag sit-does om a phoney aesthetic, has been t ; ?* @viderit to me (perhaps with some “subjective ‘over= = \ 4 emphasis) if the ‘treatment ‘of my FILM:. THE CREATIVE . “+, PROCESS-- not merely that so many critics attacked ~ «ic dit, but.that they attacked it without the: faintest » suspicion of what it is about. I feel that your lettér states some of the prob lens , ‘but also states certain limitations (as I - “-, see it) in your approach, . Let-me make three points; ., « Pirst, you speak of"aesthet ics" and “sociology:") ‘ ".. , You say, "sociology is. probably dominant", I feel . there is a danger in this, be¢ause it suggests a sep-. ' avation o£ the two approaches’, and I feel that we , “must achieve an integral approach, Marxist thought has . | 1, suffered badiy in ‘the cultural field from the separa-- ".. tion, and a rather stuffy ‘certainty that. sociology is. [| _ 'pitimary: art. in the real sense, the creative realization /: of human; ‘potentialities, ‘is primary, and I think this _° view of art (along with its misuse and degradation in. “; societies which are not creative) is the basis for a .:.-Nicher approach,  « ‘ vt second point; the theme of' "treatment of ‘ - women," ‘which you mention could, I think, be infinitely . more revealing; and. more realized. ‘in terms of Ziln-- - and through the lens of film, the whole sotial situation. .. - Third point :!Chronology'¥ou are. right that — * -:it must Have more freedom-~ forward and’ backward; but — “ Fs *-s@mahou, the frame ‘of reference, the reality of tine , . «must. determine the movement back and. forward, The ‘+ question of. time. is - , I think, a central factor in cinema art—— and - at! must be so ia your nook. . “all\.these- ‘Brobléns face me in somewhat’ . . INWH:45838  -Doceld:32339012
JOHN HOWARD LAWSON BY pall nim 3" 945 ELYRIA DRIVE : 2° LOS ANGELES, CALIF. 90065 , aifferent, but related, forms, in my autobiography. fe I have withdrawn it, after some mixed and very stimulating comments from friends, scholars and theatre people, and am : ing it through to wie fo ane tc een een re ee AIT + ‘reorganizing, cutting savagely, and carry the end of the thirties. B I expect to beat this revision .. a months and months. Eventually, f shall’want _ _ for months an and ask.gour advice. gg of I wonder if you neard’ of Jerome's death-- almost a year ago. ——- ™ * 4 are of the photo, of-Processional in SE eee Geixe “oy was not aw and shall look it up... se - §teichen's autobiography, sy Sue. joins in love to you: both, + mete oe - bik pete 2 a FY oH fw» E td A Flats tera LY “DE Fi Dos Linea +. | res t wre nae ® rete * £ <P _— \ WWH: 45838 DoeId: 32339012
Smarte.  ganstLVE SOyRCES: UP os a | AND p asttiobs INVOLVED <n [nh cnniete Rtev el a DoT “GARE oF. FLinarensy, # 2 Kronenstrasse ms ‘Berlin 108,202} 9 Fh German Democrat ie: R Repub lic = | BOWNGRADED AT: 12 YEAR INTERVALS | P NOT. AUTOMATICALLY DECLASSIFIED. DOD Dik 5200.10 fi a ae DOWNGRADED AT 12, YEAR INTERVALS | NOT.AUTOMATICALLY DECLASSIFIED “op DIR 5200.10 DOWNGRADED AT 12 YEAR INTERVAIS} ¢ NOT AUTOMATICALLY DECLASSIFIED | *, “DOD DIR 5200.10 '-\DOWNGRADED AT 12 YEAR INTERVALS | NOT AUTOMATICALLY DECLASSIFIED DOD Din 200.10 [DOWNGRADED ‘AT.12 YEAR. INTERVAIS | “NOT AUTOMATICALLY DECLASSIFIED "DOD DIR 5209.9 DOWNGRADED AT 32 YEAR INTERVALS | - NOT AUTOMATICALLY DECLASSIFIED * DOD DIR. 5200.10 - ‘ | NWH:45838  Docld:32339012
9 "SBNSEEIVE SOURCES. a. ao es a LE ARD cdc if ‘BEB, 1987 paz nu Sats Me tha ct fAALEL a bals ofnddee leitndy’ okiee eee PAS GUT. Vets mes, . . ene 4 mF OT AUTORATICNEY DECCASSFED"| a BOD DIR 5200.10 i “ BOWNGRADED "AT 12 YEAR INTERVALS me “of NOT AUTOMATICALLY: DECLASSIFIED : | a bob DIR 5200.30 ~ -*\ TBGWNGRADEO AT 12 YEAR INTERVALS] ¢] NOT AUTOMATICALLY DECLASSIFIED: = POD Dik $200.10 : [DOWNGRADED AT 12 YEAR INTERVALS] NOT AUTOMATICALLY DECLASSIFIED: DOD DIR 200.10 ': DOWNGRADED AT-12 YEAR. INTERVALS a NOT AUTOMATICALLY DECLASSIFIED: , : oD DIR 520010 ° L DOWNGRADED AT 12 YEAR NTERVAIS] “NOT AUTOMATICALLY DECLASSIFIED. ____.DOD DIR 20010 7 |” TROWNGRADED AT 12 YEAR INTERVALS [| | NOT AUTOMATICALLY DECLASSIFIED. : ~ DOD DIR. 5200.10- . | NWH:45838  Doerd:32339012
ZLOBEEZEPICCd «= BESSY FHMN! . Bs valued Sythe exivalepe) RRS | - ‘. =! . : 4° eR | | A Beas RAN EAN ayerta’