Abstract

This article examines the ultimately unsuccessful libel case brought by the novelist and BBC film critic E. Arnot Robertson against Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. The action followed a letter the film company sent to Robertson’s employer in 1946, asserting she was ‘out of touch’ with public taste, excluding her from their press screenings and requested the broadcaster’s assistance in preventing her from reviewing further MGM films on air. Robertson charged the film company with libelling her professional competence and imperilling her earnings. This article explores the origins and outcomes of the ensuing three-year legal dispute. Drawing on trade journals, law reports, press coverage and BBC records, the article considers the contrasting models of the ‘audience’ underpinning the wider conflict between the film trade and the ‘quality’ critics. It explores the role of BBC policy and ‘broadcast style’ in making radio criticism a flashpoint and traces the specific circumstances that led the two parties into court. Finally, it considers the lasting legal and cultural consequences of the case. Turner (Robertson) v. MGM redefined the legal meaning of ‘fair comment’, it reshaped BBC policy on broadcast criticism, and shifted the consensus on what constituted responsible and professional criticism – making wit a less respectable critical tool.