Andrew Sarris v. Pauline Kael OR:
Auteurism v. Love
Auteurism v. Love
Alright, I'll concede that my title is unfair. The analogy drawn is not only asymmetrical (person to theory & person to emotion), even further, it is a simplification. Worse, I'm not particularly well-read on either Sarris or Kael (rival heavy-weight champions of American film criticism past). Nonetheless, I hope to propose several questions in my title alone (hopefully questions which are sufficiently endearing; I don't intend to write that much): Does the introduction of theory minimize visceral experience? Does the preference of elastic non-theory minimize extended awareness? How do we watch movies? How should we watch movies?
The auteur theory was at once reinterpreted, translated, and transposed, by Andrew Sarris, from the French periodical Cahiers du cinéma in the 1962 essay "Notes on the Auteur Theory" (Film Culture, Winter 62/63). This development inarguably changed American criticism. Suddenly, the sexiest thing a writer could do, especially a young one, was to celebrate a film as if it were penned by a singular author, or auteur, and that that premise was a critical starting point above any other. However, the celebration was not, according to Sarris, without serious scholastic concern. Sarris 'academianized' film by attempting to make criticism the part of a scientific method: Notes is defined by its many tiers and rankings. This theoretical approach would dominate film journals and magazines all over the nation.
Although, Sarris and his giant swinging mace of an auteur theory could not, for all the violence of it, coerce every person - in specific, the witty, sardonic, and many-other-things-of-marvel (no sarcasm there) Pauline Kael. Sarris' infamously opinionated colleague (of whom I have already quoted) could not be seduced by the mechanized model of Sarris. In the following year, after Sarris had published the notes of his model, Kael printed a biting and absolutely condemning rebuttal entitled "Circles and Squares" (Film Quarterly, Vol. 16, Spring, 1963, pp. 12-26) This entry into the debate would secure what could be the greatest rivalry in all of American film criticism.
As I myself could not do the rivalry justice, nor could I detail either side of the argument comprehensively (both of which, I feel, have proved true and useful), I will, instead, leave you with a recording of a lectured near verbatim reading of "Circles and Squares" by Pauline Kael herself (which I graciously found here, thank you!*). The talk takes place sometime in 1963 at the San Fernando Valley State College in California. Kael delivers the speech with her nose taped up to her forehead, possibly holding a glass of elegant, but not too expensive, wine, and taking each moment of pause as an opportunity to smugly grin. Her snideness most profound when she transparently chastises Sarris, "I do not understand what goes on in the mind of the critic who thinks that a theory is what his colleagues need because they are not great critics." The passive aggressive brutality alone makes this worth lending your ear. Though, a sense of stubbornness and a high note of hypocrisy might have you hearing no evil.
.jpg)
Nonetheless, Kael's movie talk is exciting. It demonstrates a passion and a love, outside of the bounds of theory. Further, it is a beacon of impassioned and intelligent filmic discourse. I mean, there is a reason this woman, who, according to David Lean himself, "kept me from making a movie for 14 years," [1] is so influential, so remembered. Her attack does not leave her frothing at the mouth. Somehow, despite all its nastiness, Kael's argument leaves her saintly and majestic (which is, even from her own admission, far from the truth). And, really, I'm just left wondering why today's popular critics can't (or won't) talk this way.
"Circles and Squares" lecture at San Fernando Valley State College (Pauline Kael, 1963)
---------
*Thanks to all the fantastic contributors at the amazing "Gunslinger." If you haven't checked out this collage of extra-media culture yet, you simply must. (http://tsutpen.blogspot.com/)
The auteur theory was at once reinterpreted, translated, and transposed, by Andrew Sarris, from the French periodical Cahiers du cinéma in the 1962 essay "Notes on the Auteur Theory" (Film Culture, Winter 62/63). This development inarguably changed American criticism. Suddenly, the sexiest thing a writer could do, especially a young one, was to celebrate a film as if it were penned by a singular author, or auteur, and that that premise was a critical starting point above any other. However, the celebration was not, according to Sarris, without serious scholastic concern. Sarris 'academianized' film by attempting to make criticism the part of a scientific method: Notes is defined by its many tiers and rankings. This theoretical approach would dominate film journals and magazines all over the nation.
Although, Sarris and his giant swinging mace of an auteur theory could not, for all the violence of it, coerce every person - in specific, the witty, sardonic, and many-other-things-of-marvel (no sarcasm there) Pauline Kael. Sarris' infamously opinionated colleague (of whom I have already quoted) could not be seduced by the mechanized model of Sarris. In the following year, after Sarris had published the notes of his model, Kael printed a biting and absolutely condemning rebuttal entitled "Circles and Squares" (Film Quarterly, Vol. 16, Spring, 1963, pp. 12-26) This entry into the debate would secure what could be the greatest rivalry in all of American film criticism.
As I myself could not do the rivalry justice, nor could I detail either side of the argument comprehensively (both of which, I feel, have proved true and useful), I will, instead, leave you with a recording of a lectured near verbatim reading of "Circles and Squares" by Pauline Kael herself (which I graciously found here, thank you!*). The talk takes place sometime in 1963 at the San Fernando Valley State College in California. Kael delivers the speech with her nose taped up to her forehead, possibly holding a glass of elegant, but not too expensive, wine, and taking each moment of pause as an opportunity to smugly grin. Her snideness most profound when she transparently chastises Sarris, "I do not understand what goes on in the mind of the critic who thinks that a theory is what his colleagues need because they are not great critics." The passive aggressive brutality alone makes this worth lending your ear. Though, a sense of stubbornness and a high note of hypocrisy might have you hearing no evil.
.jpg)
Nonetheless, Kael's movie talk is exciting. It demonstrates a passion and a love, outside of the bounds of theory. Further, it is a beacon of impassioned and intelligent filmic discourse. I mean, there is a reason this woman, who, according to David Lean himself, "kept me from making a movie for 14 years," [1] is so influential, so remembered. Her attack does not leave her frothing at the mouth. Somehow, despite all its nastiness, Kael's argument leaves her saintly and majestic (which is, even from her own admission, far from the truth). And, really, I'm just left wondering why today's popular critics can't (or won't) talk this way.
"Circles and Squares" lecture at San Fernando Valley State College (Pauline Kael, 1963)
---------
*Thanks to all the fantastic contributors at the amazing "Gunslinger." If you haven't checked out this collage of extra-media culture yet, you simply must. (http://tsutpen.blogspot.com/)
Posts
+five-thrity+in+the+morning.jpg)
1 comment:
armond white kind of does.
Post a Comment