Circles and Squares

Author(s): Pauline Kael

Source: Film Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 3, (Spring, 1963), pp. 12-26
Published by: University of California Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1210726
Accessed: 18/08/2008 16:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.org
 12

PAULINE
KAEL
Circles and Squares
In 1957, in the Paris monthly "Cahiers du Cinema," Frangois Truffaut
proposed for the magazine a "politique des auteurs"--a policy of focussing criticism
primarily upon directors, and specifically upon certain chosen directors whose
individuality of style qualified them, in the eyes of the Cahiers "team," as
"auteurs"'--creators in the personal sense we accept for other arts. This doctrine
galvanized the "Cahiers" polemicists, and lent some of the impetus which helped
Truffaut, Godard, and many other young men break through as film-makers
(and aspiring "auteurs"). In the years since then, the doctrine
has gained adherents in England, chiefly around the magazine "Movie," and to some
extent in the United States, through the "New York Film Bulletin" and
"Film Culture." In its homeland the politique has led to many peculiar judgments,
especially of American film-makers: it is Samuel Fuller, Nicholas Ray, and Otto
Preminger who figure as the gods of this new pantheon. The results upon export
are turning out to be even more peculiar on occasion. The time seems ripe,
therefore, for a direct examination of the Anglo-Saxon version of the "politique des
auteurs." Is it, in fact, a new and stimulating approach to films, which ought to
displace the tradition of criticism developed by the "Sequence" and "Sight &
Sound" writers? Pauline Kael offers a resounding negative view; and we anticipate
in our next issue a rejoinder by Andrew Sarris, in whose writings the politique
has had its most extended and thoughtful American presentation.

JOYSANDSARRIS
".... the first premise of the auteur theory is the "Sometimes a great deal of corn must be
technical competence of a director as a criterion husked to yield a few kernels of internal
of value.... The second premise of the auteur meaning. I recently saw Every Night at
theory is the distinguishable personality of the Eight, one of the many maddeningly rou-
director as a criterion of value .... The third and tine films Raoul Walsh has directed in his
ultimate premise of the auteur theory is concerned long career. This 1935 effort featured
with interior meaning, the ultimate glory of the George Raft, Alice Faye, Frances Langford
cinema as an art. Interior meaning is extrapolated and Patsy Kelly in one of those familiar
from the tension between a director's personality plots about radio shows of the period. The
and his material." film keeps moving along in the pleasantly
unpretentious manner one would expect of
-Andrew Sarris,"Notes on the Auteur Theory Walsh until one incongruously intense scene
in 1962," Film Culture, Winter 62/3 with George Raft thrashing about in his
 CIRCLES
AND SQUARES 13:

sleep, revealing his inner fears in mumbling where with Sarris if we tried to examine what
dream talk. The girl he loves comes into he is saying sentence by sentence.
the room in the midst of his unconscious So let us ask, what is the meaning of the
avowals of feeling, and listens sympatheti-
cally. This unusual scene was later ampli- passage? Sarris has noticed that in High Sierra
fied in High Sierra with Humphrey Bogart (not a very good movie) Raoul Walsh repeated
and Ida Lupino. The point is that one of the an uninteresting and obvious device that he
screen's most virile directors employed an had earlier used in a worse movie. And for
essentially feminine narrative device to some inexplicable reason, Sarris concludes that
dramatize the emotional vulnerability of he would not have had this joy of discovery
his heroes. If I had not been aware of without the auteur theory.
Walsh in Every Night at Eight, the crucial But in every art form, critics traditionally
link to High Sierra would have passed un- notice and point out the way the artists bor-
noticed. Such are the joys of the auteur row from themselves (as well as from others)
theory." Sarris,ibid.
and how the same devices, techniques, and
themes reappear in their work. This is obvious
Perhaps a little more corn should be husked; in listening to music, seeing plays, reading
perhaps, for example, we can husk away the novels, watching actors, etc.; we take it for
word "internal" (is "internal meaning" any granted that this is how we perceive the devel-
different from "meaning"?). We might ask opment or the decline of an artist (and it may
why the link is "crucial"? Is it because the be necessary to point out to auteur critics that
device was "incongruously intense" in Every repetition without development is decline).
Night at Eight and so demonstrated a try for When you see Hitchock's Saboteur there is no
something deeper on Walsh's part? But if his doubt that he drew heavily and clumsily from
merit is his "pleasantly unpretentious manner" The 39 Steps, and when you see North by
(which is to say, I suppose, that, recognizing Northwest you can see that he is once again
the limitations of the script, he wasn't trying toying with the ingredients of The 39 Steps -
to do much) then the incongruous device was and apparently having a good time with them.
probably a misconceived attempt that dis- Would Sarris not notice the repetition in the
turbed the manner-like a bad playwright in- Walsh films without the auteur theory? Or
terrupting a comedy scene because he cannot shall we take the more cynical view that with-
resist the opportunity to tug at your heart- out some commitment to Walsh as an auteur,
strings. We might also ask why this narrative he probably wouldn't be spending his time
device is "essentially feminine": is it more fem- looking at these movies?
inine than masculine to be asleep, or to talk If we may be permitted a literary analogy,
in one's sleep, or to reveal feelings? Or, pos- we can visualize Sarris researching in the
sibly, does Sarris regard the device as feminine archives of The Saturday Evening Post, tracing
because the listening woman becomes a sym- the development of Clarence Budington Kel-
pathetic figure and emotional understanding is, land, who, by the application of something like
in this "virile" context, assumed to be essen- the auteur theory, would emerge as a much
tially feminine? Perhaps only if one accepts the more important writer than Dostoyevsky; for
narrow notions of virility so common in our in Kelland's case Sarris' three circles, the three
action films can this sequence be seen as premises of the auteur theory, have been con-
"essentially feminine," and it is amusing that sistently congruent. Kelland is technically com-
a critic can both support these clich6s of the petent (everl "pleasantly unpretentious"), no
male world and be so happy when they are writer has a more "distinguishable personality,"
violated. and if "interior meaning" is what can be extrap-
This is how we might quibble with a differ- olated from, say Hatari! or Advise and Con-
ent kind of critic but we would never get any- sent or What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?
 14 SCIRCLES
AND SQUARES

then surely Kelland's stories with their attempts a commonplace of judgment, as Sarris himself
to force a bit of character and humor into the indicates when he paraphrases it as, "A great
familiar plot outlines are loaded with it. Poor director has to be at least a good director."
misguided Dostoyevsky, too full of what he But this commonplace, though it sounds rea-
has to say to bother with "technical compe- sonable and basic, is a shaky premise: some-
tence," tackling important themes in each times the greatest artists in a medium by-pass
work (surely the worst crime in the auteur or violate the simple technical competence that
book) and with his almost incredible unity of is so necessary for hacks. For example, it is
personality and material leaving you nothing doubtful if Antonioni could handle a routine
to extrapolate from, he'll never make it. If directorial assignment of the type at which
the editors of Movie ranked authors the way John Sturges is so proficient (Escape from Fort
they do directors, Dostoyevsky would prob- Bravo or Bad Day at Black Rock), but surely
ably be in that almost untouchable category Antonioni's L'Avventura is the work of a great
of the "ambitious." director. And the greatness of a director like
It should be pointed out that Sarris' defense Cocteau has nothing to do with mere technical
of the auteur theory is based not only on competence: his greatness is in being able to
aesthetics but on a rather odd pragmatic state- achieve his own personal expression and style.
ment: "Thus to argue against the auteur theory And just as there were writers like Melville
in America is to assume that we have anyone or Dreiser who triumphed over various kinds
of Bazin's sensibility and dedication to provide of technical incompetence, and who were, as
an alternative, and we simply don't." Which I artists, incomparably greater than the facile
take to mean that the auteur theory is neces- technicians of their day, a new great film direc-
sary in the absence of a critic who wouldn't tor may appear whose very greatness is in his
need it. This is a new approach to aesthetics, struggling toward grandeur or in massive ac-
and I hope Sarris' humility does not camou- cumulation of detail. An artist who is not a
flage his double-edged argument. If his aesthet- good technician can indeed create new stand-
ics is based on expediency, then it may be ex- ards, because standards of technical compe-
pedient to point out that it takes extraordinary tence are based on comparisons with work
intelligence and discrimination and taste to already done.
use any theory in the arts, and that without Just as new work in other arts is often
those qualities, a theory becomes a rigid attacked because it violates the accepted stand-
formula (which is indeed what is happening ards and thus seems crude and ugly and in-
among auteur critics). The greatness of critics coherent, great new directors are very likely
like Bazin in France and Agee in America may to be condemned precisely on the grounds that
have something to do with their using their they're not even good directors, that they don't
full range of intelligence and intuition, rather know their "business." Which, in some cases,
than relying on formulas. Criticism is an art, is true, but does it matter when that "business"
not a science, and a critic who follows rules has little to do with what they want to express
will fail in one of his most important functions: in films? It may even be a hindrance, leading
perceiving what is original and important in them to banal slickness, instead of discovery
new work and helping others to see. of their own methods. For some, at least,
Cocteau may be right: "The only technique
"THEOUTER
CIRCLE" worth having is the technique you invent for
yourself." The director must be judged on the
".... the first premise of the auteur theory is basis of what he produces - his films - and
the technical competence of a director as a if he can make great films without knowing the
criterion of value."
standard methods, without the usual craftsman-
This seems less the premise of a theory than ship of the "good director," then that is the
 CIRCLES :
AND SQUARES 15

way he works. I would amend Sarris' premise reason than because Hitchcock repeats while
to "In works of a lesser rank, technical com- Reed tackles new subject matter. But how does
petence can help to redeem the weaknesses of this distinguishable personality function as a
the material." In fact it seems to be precisely criterion for judging the works? We recognize
this category that the auteur critics are most the hands of Carn6 and Prbvert in Le Jour se
interested in - the routine material that a good Love, but that is not what makes it a beautiful
craftsman can make into a fast and enjoyable film; we can just as easily recognize their
movie. What, however, makes the auteur critics hands in Quai des Brumes-which is not such
so incomprehensible, is not their preference for a good film. We can recognize that Le Plaisir
works of this category (in this they merely and The Earrings of Madame De are both the
follow the lead of children who also prefer work of Ophuls, but Le Plaisir is not a great
simple action films and westerns and horror film, and Madame De is.
films to works that make demands on their un- Often the works in which we are most aware
derstanding) but their truly astonishing in- of the personality of the director are his worst
ability to exercise taste and judgment within films-when he falls back on the devices he has
their area of preference. Movie-going kids are, already done to death. When a famous direc-
I think, much more reliable guides to this kind tor makes a good movie, we look at the movie,
of movie than the auteur critics: every kid we don't think about the director's personality;
I've talked to knows that Henry Hathaway's when he makes a stinker we notice his familiar
North to Alaska was a surprisingly funny, touches because there's not much else to watch.
entertaining movie and Hatari! (classified as a When Preminger makes an expert, entertaining
"masterpiece" by half the Cahiers Conseil des whodunit like Laura, we don't look for his
Dix, Peter Bogdanovich, and others) was a personality (it has become part of the texture
terrible bore. of the film); when he makes an atrocity like
Whirlpool, there's plenty of time to look for
"THEMIDDLE
CIRCLE" his "personality" - if that's your idea of a
good time.
".... the second premise of the auteur theory It could even be argued, I think, that Hitch-
is the distinguishable personality of the cock's uniformity, his mastery of tricks, and
director as a criterion of value."
his cleverness at getting audiences to respond
Up to this point there has really been no according to his calculations - the feedback
theory, and now, when Sarris begins to work he wants and gets from them - reveal not so
on his foundation, the entire edifice of civilized much a personal style as a personal theory of
standards of taste collapses while he's tacking audience psychology, that his methods and
down his floorboards. Traditionally, in any art, approach are not those of an artist but a presti-
the personalities of all those involved in a pro- digitator. The auteur critics respond just as
duction have been a factor in judgment, but Hitchcock expects the gullible to respond. This
that the distinguishability of personality should is not so surprising - often the works auteur
in itself be a criterion of value completely con- critics call masterpieces are ones that seem to
fuses normal judgment. The smell of a skunk reveal the contempt of the director for the
is more distinguishable than the perfume of audience.
a rose; does that make it better? Hitchcock's It's hard to believe that Sarris seriously at-
personality is certainly more distinguishable in tempts to apply "the distinguishable personal-
Dial M for Murder, Rear Window, Vertigo, ity of the director as a criterion of value" be-
than Carol Reed's in The Stars Look Down, cause when this premise becomes troublesome,
Odd Man Out, The Fallen Idol, The Third he just tries to brazen his way out of difficul-
Man, An Outcast of the Islands, if for no other ties. For example, now that John Huston's
 16 AND SQUARES
CIRCLES

work has gone flat* Sarris casually dismisses rejected along with his mediocre recent work,
him with: "Huston is virtually a forgotten man but Fritz Lang, being sanctified as an auteur,
with a few actors' classics behind him,.." has his bad recent work praised along with his
If The Maltese Falcon, perhaps the most high- good? Employing more usual norms, if you
style thriller ever made in America, a film respect the Fritz Lang who made M and You
Huston both wrote and directed, is not a direc- Only Live Once, if you enjoy the excesses of
tor's film, what is? And if the distinguishable style and the magnificent absurdities of a film
personality of the director is a criterion of like Metropolis, then it is only good sense to
value, then how can Sarries dismiss the Huston reject the ugly stupidity of The Tiger of
who comes through so unmistakably in The Eschnapur botch. It is an insult to an artist to
Treasure of the Sierra Madre, The African praise his bad work along with his good; it
Queen, or Beat the Devil, or even in a muddled indicates that you are incapable of judging
Huston film like Key Largo? If these are actors' either.
movies, then what on earth is a director's A few years ago, a friend who reviewed
movie? Jean Renoir's University of California produc-
Isn't the auteur theory a hindrance to clear tion of his play Carola, hailed it as "a work of
judgment of Huston's movies and of his career? genius." When I asked my friend how he could
Disregarding the theory, we see some fine film so describe this very unfortunate play, he said,
achievements and we perceive a remarkably "Why, of course, it's a work of genius. Renoir's
distinctive directorial talent; we also see inter- a genius, so anything he does is a work of
vals of weak, half-hearted assignments like genius." This could almost be a capsule version
Across the Pacific and In This Our Life. Then, of the auteur theory (just substitute Hatari!
after Moulin Rouge, except for the blessing of for Carola) and in this reductio ad absurdum,
Beat the Devil, we see a career that splutters viewing a work is superfluous, as the judgment
out in ambitious failures like Moby Dick and is a priori. It's like buying clothes by the label:
confused projects like The Roots of Heaven this is Dior, so it's good. (This is not so far
and The Misfits, and strictly commercial proj- from the way the auteur critics work, either).
ects like Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison. And this Sarris doesn't even play his own game with
kind of career seems more characteristic of film any decent attention to the rules: it is as ab-
history, especially in the United States, than surd to praise Lang's recent bad work as to
the ripening development and final mastery dismiss Huston's early good work; surely it
envisaged by the auteur theory - a theory would be more consistent if he also tried to
that makes it almost de rigeur to regard Hitch- make a case for Huston's bad pictures? That
cock's American films as superior to his early would be more consistent than devising a
English films. Is Huston's career so different, category called "actors' classics" to explain
say, from Fritz Lang's? How is it that Huston's his good pictures away. If The Maltese Falcon
early good - almost great - work, must be and The Treasure of Sierra Madre are actors'
classics, then what makes Hawks' To Have
*And, by the way, the turning point came, I and Have Not and The Big Sleep (which were
think, not with Moby Dick, as Sarrisindicates, but obviously tailored to the personalities of Bogart
much earlier, with Moulin Rouge. This may not and Bacall) the work of an auteur?
be so apparent to auteur critics concerned primar-
Sarris believes that what makes an auteur is
ily with style and individual touches, because
what was shocking about Moulin Rouge was that "an d1an of the soul." (This critical language
the content was sentimental mush. But critics who is barbarous. Where else should 6lan come
accept even the worst of Minnelli probably from? It's like saying "a digestion of the
wouldn't have been bothered by the fact that stomach." A film critic need not be a theoreti-
Moulin Rouge was soft in the center, it had so cian, but it is necessary that he know how to
many fancy touches at the edges. use words. This might, indeed, be a first pre-
 CIRCLES
AND SQUARES 17

mise for a theory.) Those who have this dlan Sarris experiences "joy" when he recognizes
presumably have it forever and their films re- a pathetic little link between two Raoul Walsh
veal the "organic unity" of the directors' pictures (he never does explain whether the
careers; and those who don't have it - well, discovery makes him think the pictures are any
they can only make "actors' classics." It's better) but he wants to see artists in a pristine
ironic that a critic trying to establish simple state - their essences, perhaps? - separated
"objective" rules as a guide for critics who he from all the life that has formed them and to
thinks aren't gifted enough to use taste and in- which they try to give expression.
telligence, ends up - where, actually, he began
- with a theory based on mystical insight. "THEINNER
CIRCLE"
This might really make demands on the auteur "The third and ultimate premise of the
critics if they did not simply take the easy way auteur theory is concerned with interior
out by arbitrary decisions of who's got "it" and meaning, the ultimate glory of the cinema as
who hasn't. Their decisions are not merely not an art. Interiormeaning is extrapolatedfrom
based on their theory; their decisions are the tension between a director's personality
beyond criticism. It's like a woman's telling us and his material."
that she feels a certain dress does something This is a remarkable formulation: it is the
for her: her feeling has about as much to do opposite of what we have always taken for
with critical judgment as the auteur critics granted in the arts, that the artist expresses
feeling that Minnelli has "it," but Huston himself in the unity of form and content. What
never had "it." Sarris believes to be "the ultimate glory of the
Even if a girl had plenty of "it," she wasn't cinema as an art" is what has generally been
expected to keep it forever. But this "dlan" is considered the frustrations of a man working
not supposed to be affected by the vicissitudes against the given material. Fantastic as this
of fortune, the industrial conditions of movie- formulation is, it does something that the first
making, the turmoil of a country, or the health two premises didn't do: it clarifies the interests
of a director. Indeed, Sarris says, "If directors of the auteur critics. If we have been puzzled
and other artists cannot be wrenched from their because the auteur critics seemed so deeply in-
historical environments, aesthetics is reduced volved, even dedicated, in becoming connois-
to a subordinate branch of ethnography." May seurs of trash, now we can see by this theoreti-
I suggest that if, in order to judge movies, the cal formulation that trash is indeed their chosen
auteur critics must wrench the directors from province of film.
their historical environments (which is, to put Their ideal auteur is the man who signs a
it mildly, impossible) so that they can concen- long-term contract, directs any script that's
trate on the detection of that "dlan," they are handed to him, and expresses himself by shov-
reducing aesthetics to a form of idiocy. Elan ing bits of style up the crevasses of the plots.
as the permanent attribute Sarris posits can If his "style" is in conflict with the story line
only be explained in terms of a cult of per- or subject matter, so much the better - more
sonality. May I suggest that a more meaning- chance for tension. Now we can see why there
ful description of dlan is what a man feels when has been so much use of the term "personality"
he is working at the height of his powers - in this aesthetics (the term which seems so in-
and what we respond to in works of art with adequate when discussing the art of Griffith or
the excited cry of "This time, he's really done Renoir or Murnau or Dreyer) - a routine, com-
it" or "This shows what he could do when he mercial movie can sure use a little "personal-
got the chance" or "He's found his style" or ity."
"I never realized he had it in him to do any- Now that we have reached the inner circle
thing so good," etc., a response to his joy in (the bull's eye turns out to be an empty socket)
creativity. we can see why the shoddiest films are often
 18 AND SQUARES
CIRCLES

praised the most. Subject matter is irrelevant he means, and that when he refers to Cukor's
(so long as it isn't treated sensitively - which "more developed abstract style" he means by
is bad) and will quickly be disposed of by "abstract" something unrelated to ideas, a
auteur critics who know that the smart direc- technique not dependent on the content of the
tor isn't responsible for that anyway; they'll films. This is curiously reminiscent of a view
get on to the important subject - his mise-en- common enough in the business world, that it's
scone. The director who fights to do something better not to get too involved, too personally
he cares about is a square. Now we can at least interested in business problems, or they take
begin to understand why there was such con- over your life; and besides, you don't function
tempt toward Huston for what was, in its way, as well when you've lost your objectivity. But
a rather extraordinary effort - the Moby Dick this is the opposite of how an artist works. His
that failed; why Movie considers Roger Cor- technique, his style, is determined by his range
man a better director than Fred Zinnemann of involvements, and his preference for certain
and ranks Joseph Losey next to God, why Bog- themes. Cukor's style is no more abstract (!)
danovich, Mekas, and Sarris give their highest than Bergman's: Cukor has a range of subject
critical ratings to What Ever Happened to matter that he can handle and when he gets
Baby Jane? (mighty big crevasses there). If a good script within his range (like The Phila-
Carol Reed had made only movies like The delphia Story or Pat and Mike) he does a
Man Between - in which he obviously worked good job; but he is at an immense artistic dis-
to try to make something out of a rag-bag of advantage, compared with Bergman, because
worn-out bits of material - he might be con- he is dependent on the ideas of so many (and
sidered "brilliant" too. (But this is doubtful: often bad) scriptwriters and on material which
although even the worst Reed is superior to is often alien to his talents. It's amusing (and/
Aldrich's Baby Jane, Reed would probably be or depressing) to see the way auteur critics
detected, and rejected, as a man interested in tend to downgrade writer-directors - who are
substance rather than sensationalism.) in the best position to use the film medium for
I am angry, but am I unjust? Here's Sarris: personal expression.
"A Cukor who works with all sorts of projects Sarris does some pretty fast shuffling with
has a more developed abstract style than a Huston and Bergman; why doesn't he just come
Bergman who is free to develop his own scripts. out and admit that writer-directors are dis-
Not that Bergman lacks personality, but his qualified by his third premise? They can't
work has declined with the depletion of his arrive at that "interior meaning, the ultimate
ideas largely because his technique never glory of the cinema" because a writer-director
equaled his sensibility. Joseph L. Mankiewicz has no tension between his personality and his
and Billy Wilder are other examples of writer- material, so there's nothing for the auteur critic
directors without adequate technical mastery. to extrapolate from.
By contrast, Douglas Sirk and Otto Preminger What is all this nonsense about extrapolat-
have moved up the scale because their miscel- ing "interior" meaning from the tension be-
laneous projects reveal a stylistic consistency." tween a director's personality and his material?
How neat it all is-Bergman's "work has de- A competent commercial director generally
clined with the depletion of'his ideas largely be- does the best he can with what he's got to work
cause his technique never equaled his sensibili- with. Where is the "tension"? And if you can
ty." But what on earth does that mean? How locate some, what kind of meaning could you
did Sarris perceive Bergman's sensibility except draw out of it except that the director's having
through his technique? Is Sarris saying what he a bad time with lousy material or material he
seems to be saying, that if Bergman had devel- doesn't like? Or maybe he's trying to speed
oped more "technique," his work wouldn't be up the damned production so he can do some-
dependent on his ideas? I'm afraid this is what thing else that he has some hopes for? Are
CIRCLES
AND SQUARES 19

these critics honestly (and futilely) looking for out of a sow's ear. But if he has it in him to do
"interior meanings" or is this just some form of more in life than make silk purses, the triumph
intellectual diddling that helps to sustain their is minor - even if the purse is lined with gold.
pride while they're viewing silly movies? Where Only by the use of the auteur theory does this
is the tension in Howard Hawks' films? When little victory become "ultimate glory." For
he has good material, he's capable of better some unexplained reason those travelling in
than good direction, as he demonstrates in auteur circles believe that making that purse
films like Twentieth Century, Bringing Up out of a sow's ear is an infinitely greater accom-
Baby, His Girl Friday; and in To Have and plishment than making a solid carrying case
Have Not and The Big Sleep he demonstrates out of a good piece of leather (as, for example,
that with help from the actors, he can jazz up a Zinnemann does with From Here to Eternity
ridiculous scripts. But what "interior meaning" or The Nun's Story).
can be extrapolated from an enjoyable, harm- I suppose we should be happy for Sirk and
less, piece of kitsch like Only Angels Have Preminger, elevated up the glory "scale," but
Wings; what can the auteur critics see in it I suspect that the "stylistic consistency" of, say,
beyond the sex and glamor and fantasies of Preminger, could be a matter of his limitations,
the high-school boys' universe - exactly what and that the only way you could tell he made
the mass audience liked it for? And when some of his movies was that he used the same
Hawks' material and/or cast is dull and when players so often (Linda Darnell, Jeanne Crain,
his heart isn't in the production - when by the Gene Tierney, Dana Andrews, et al., gave his
auteur theory he should show his "personality," movies the Preminger look). But the argument
the result is something soggy like The Big Sky. is ludicrous anyway, because if Preminger
George Cukor's modest statement, "Give me shows stylistic consistency with subject matter
a good script and I'll be a hundred times better as varied as Carmen Jones, Anatomy of a
as a director"* provides some notion of how a Murder, and Advise and Consent, then by any
director may experience the problem of the rational standards he should be attacked rather
given material. What can Cukor do with a than elevated. I don't think these films are
script like The Chapman Report but try to kid stylistically consistent, nor do I think Preminger
it, to dress it up a bit, to show off the talents of is a great director - for the very simple reason
Jane Fonda and Claire Bloom and Glynis Johns, that his films are consistently superficial and
and to give the total production a little flair facile. (Advise and Consent-an auteur "master-
and craftsmanship. At best, he can make an piece" - Ian Cameron, Paul Mayersberg, and
entertaining bad movie. A director with some- Mark Shivas of Movie and Jean Douchet of
thing like magical gifts can make a silk purse Cahiers du Cindma rate it first on their ten
*In another sense, it is perhaps immodest. I best lists of 1962 and Sarris gives it his top
would say, give Cukor a clever script with light, rating-seems not so much Preminger-directed
witty dialogue, and he will know what to do with as other-directed. That is to say, it seems calcu-
it. But I wouldn't expect more than glossy enter- lated to provide what as many different groups
tainment. (It seems almost too obvious to mention as possible want to see: there's something for
it, but can Sarris really discern the "distinguish- the liberals, something for the conservatives,
able personality" of George Cukor and his "ab- something for the homosexuals, something for
stract" style in films like Bhowani Junction, Les the family, etc.) An editorial in Movie states:
Girls, The Actress, A Life of Her Own, The Model
"In order to enjoy Preminger's films the specta-
and the Marriage Broker, Edward, My Son, A tor must apply an unprejudiced intelligence; he
Woman's Face, Romeo and Juliet, A Double Life?
I wish I could put him to the test. I can only is constantly required to examine the quality
suspect that many auteur critics would have a hard not only of the characters' decisions but also of
time seeing those tell-tale traces of the beloved his own reactions," and "He presupposes an
in their works.) intelligence active enough to allow the specta-
20 AND SQUARES
CIRCLES

tor to make connections, comparisons and judg- barrassingly hard trying to give some semblance
ments." May I suggest that this spectator would of intellectual respectability to a preoccupation
have better things to do than the editors of with mindless, repetitious commercial products
Movie who put out Preminger issues? They - the kind of action movies that the restless,
may have, of course, the joys of discovering rootless men who wander on 42nd Street and
links between Centennial Summer, Forever in the Tenderloin of all our big cities have
Amber, That Lady in Ermine, and The always preferred just because they could re-
Thirteenth Letter, but I refuse to believe in spond to them without thought. These movies
these ever-so-intellectual protestations. The soak up your time. I would suggest that they
auteur critics aren't a very convincing group. don't serve a very different function for Sarris
I assume that Sarris' theory is not based on or Bogdanovich or the young men of Movie -
his premises (the necessary causal relationships even though they devise elaborate theories to
are absent), but rather that the premises were justify soaking up their time. An educated man
devised in a clumsy attempt to prop up the must have to work pretty hard to set his in-
"theory." (It's a good thing he stopped at tellectual horizons at the level of I Was a Male
three: a few more circles and we'd really be War Bride (which, incidentally, wasn't even a
in hell, which might turn out to be the last good commercial movie).
refinement of film tastes - Abbott and Costello "Interior meaning" seems to be what those
comedies, perhaps?) These critics work em- in the know know. It's a mystique - and a
mistake. The auteur critics never tell us by
what divining rods they have discovered the
dlan of a Minnelli or a Nicholas Ray or a Leo
Long Live the -er-King McCarey. They're not critics; they're inside
"Two Weeks in Another Town is without a dopesters. There must be another circle that
doubt Minnelli's best film to date and per- Sarris forgot to get to - the one where the
haps the best thing he'll ever do, for never secrets are kept.
again will the coincidence arise of having
a piece of 'respectable trash' like Shaw's
novel, and a director who respects trash. OUTSIDE
THECIRCLES,
or
The thing that makes Two Weeks great is WHATISA FILMCRITIC?
not the acting (Douglas as per usual is hor- I suspect that there's some primitive form
rendous; Robinsonstupid, and Claire Trevor, of Platonism in the underbrush of Sarris'
faintly interesting). Certainly not the story, aesthetics.* He says, for example, that "Bazin's
for the changes from the novel only make it
more banal. It is the fact that Minnelli has greatness as a critic. . . rested in his disinter-
taken something not fit for even the slightest ested conception of the cinema as a universal
bit of serious critical attention, and turned entity." I don't know what a "universal entity"
it into a film which demands exhaustive is, but I rather imagine Bazin's stature as a
visual analysis on one level and offers a critic has less to do with "universals" than with
cinematic joy-ride on a more visceral level. intelligence, knowledge, experience, sensitivity,
... Most of all it is a movie which does not perceptions, fervor, imagination, dedication,
take itself seriously. . . full of beautiful shots
and startlingly poetic moments, all of which lucidity, etc. - the traditional qualities asso-
would mean nothing unless placed in the *This might help to explain such rather quaint
context of Minnelli's background-a back-
ground that indicates, especially with Two statements as: Bazin "was, if anything, generous
Weeks, that Minnelli is fast challenging to a fault, seeking in every film some vestige of
the cinematic art"-as if cinema were not simply
Douglas Sirk's title as Hollywood's 'King of
Camp.'" -New York Film Bulletin, #45 the movies that have been made and are being
made, but some preexistententity. If Bazin thought
in these terms, does Sarris go along with him?
 CIRCLES
AND SQUARES S21

ciated with great critics. The role of the critic his ideals of movies are and how various ex-
is to help people see what is in the work, what amples of film live up to or fail to meet his
is in it that shouldn't be, what is not in it that ideals? And if there is an ideal to be achieved,
could be. He is a good critic if he helps people an objective standard, then what does 6lan
understand more about the work than they have to do with it? (The ideal could be
could see for themselves; he is a great critic, if achieved by plodding hard work or by inspira-
by his understanding and feeling for the work, tion or any other way; the method of achieving
by his passion, he can excite people so that the ideal would be as irrelevant as the "per-
they want to experience more of the art that sonality" of the creator.) As Sarris uses them,
is there, waiting to be seized. He is not neces- vitalism and Platonism and pragmatism do not
sarily a bad critic if he makes errors in judg- support his auteur theory; they undermine it.
ment. (Infallible taste is inconceivable; what Those, like Sarris, who ask for objective
could it be measured against?) He is a bad standards seem to want a theory of criticism
critic if he does not awaken the curiosity, en- which makes the critic unnecessary. And he is
large the interests and understanding of his expendable if categories replace experience; a
audience. The art of the critic is to transmit critic with a single theory is like a gardener
his knowledge of and enthusiasm for art to who uses a lawn mower on everything that
others. grows. Their desire for a theory that will solve
I do not understand what goes on in the all the riddles of creativity is in itself perhaps
mind of a critic who thinks a theory is what an indication of their narrowness and con-
his confrbres need because they are not "great" fusion; they're like those puzzled, lost people
critics. Any honest man can perform the criti- who inevitably approach one after a lecture
cal function to the limits of his tastes and and ask, "But what is your basis for judging a
powers. I daresay that Bogdanovich and V. F. movie?" When one answers that new films are
Perkins and Rudi Franchi and Mark Shivas judged in terms of how they extend our ex-
and all the rest of the new breed of specialists perience and give us pleasure, and that our
know more about movies than some people and ways of judging how they do this are drawn
could serve at least a modest critical function not only from older films but from other works
if they could remember that art is an expression of art, and theories of art, that new films are
of human experience. If they are men of feel- generally related to what is going on in the
ing and intelligence, isn't it time for them to other arts, that as wide a background as pos-
be a little ashamed of their "detailed criticism" sible in literature, painting, music, philosophy,
of movies like River of No Return? political thought, etc., helps, that it is the wealth
I believe that we respond most and best to and variety of what he has to bring to new
work in any art form (and to other experience works that makes the critic's reaction to them
as well) if we are pluralistic, flexible, relative valuable, the questioners are always unsatisfied.
in our judgments, if we are eclectic. But this They wanted a simple answer, a formula; if
does not mean a scrambling and confusion of they approached a chef they would probably
systems. Eclecticism is not the same as lack ask for the one magic recipe that could be fol-
of scruple; eclecticism is the selection of the lowed in all cooking.
best standards and principles from various And it is very difficult to explain to such
systems of ideas. It requires more care, more people that criticism is exciting just because
orderliness to be a pluralist than to apply a there is no formula to apply, just because you
single theory. Sarris, who thinks he is applying must use everything you are and everything
a single theory, is too undisciplined to recog- you know that is relevant, and that film criti-
nize the conflicting implications of his argu- cism is particularly exciting just because of the
ments. If he means to take a Platonic position, multiplicity of elements in film art.
then is it not necessary for him to tell us what This range of experience, and dependence
 22 AND SQUARES
CIRCLES

on experience, is pitifully absent from the and story, that believes the director is the
work of the auteur critics; they seem to view auteur of what gives the film value, they show
movies, not merely in isolation from the other an inexplicable fondness - almost an obsession
arts, but in isolation even from their own ex- - for detailing plot and quoting dialogue. With
perience. Those who become film specialists all the zeal of youth serving an ideal, they
early in life are often fixated on the period of carefully reduce movies to trivia.
film during which they first began going to It is not merely that the auteur theory dis-
movies, so it's not too surprising that the Movie torts experience (all theory does that, and helps
group - just out of college and some still in us to see more sharply for having done so) but
- are so devoted to the films of the 'forties that it is an aesthetics which is fundamentally
and 'fifties. But if they don't widen their inter- anti-art. And this, I think, is the most serious
ests to include earlier work, how can they charge that can possibly be brought against an
evaluate films in anything like their historical aesthetics. The auteur theory, which probably
continuity, how can they perceive what is dis- helped to liberate the energies of the French
tinctive in films of the 'forties? And if they critics, plays a very different role in England
don't have interests outside films, how can they and with the Film Culture and New York Film
evaluate what goes on in films? Film aesthetics Bulletin auteur critics in the United States -
as a distinct, specialized field is a bad joke: an anti-intellectual, anti-art role.
the Movie group is like an intellectual club for The French auteur critics, rejecting the
the intellectually handicapped. And when is socially conscious, problem pictures so dear to
Sarris going to discover that aesthetics is indeed the older generation of American critics, be-
a branch of ethnography; what does he think came connoisseurs of values in American pic-
it is - a sphere of its own, separate from the tures that Americans took for granted, and if
study of man in his environment? they were educated Americans, often held in
contempt. The French adored the American
SOMESPECULATIONS
ON gangsters, and the vitality, the strength, of
THEAPPEAL
OFTHEAUTEUR
THEORY our action pictures - all those films in which
If relatively sound, reasonably reliable judg- a couple of tough men slug it out for a girl,
ments were all that we wanted from film criti- after going through hell together in oil fields,
cism, then Sight and Sound might be con- or building a railroad, or blazing a trail. In
sidered a great magazine. It isn't, it's some- one sense, the French were perfectly right -
thing far less - a good, dull, informative, well- these were often much more skilfully made and
written, safe magazine, the best film magazine far more interesting visually than the movies
in English, but it doesn't satisfy desires for an with a message which Americans were so proud
excitement of the senses. Its critics don't often of, considered so adult. Vulgar melodrama with
outrage us, neither do they open much up for a fast pace can be much more exciting - and
us; its intellectual range is too narrow,' its more honest, too-than feeble, pretentious at-
approach too professional. (If we recall an tempts at drama- which usually meant just
article or review, it's almost impossible to putting "ideas" into melodrama, anyway.
remember which Peter or which Derek wrote Where the French went off was in finding
it.) Standards of quality are not enough, and elaborate intellectual and psychological mean-
Sight and Sound tends to dampen enthusiasm. ings in these simple action films. (No doubt we
Movie, by contrast, seems spirited: one feels make some comparable mistakes in interpreting
that these writers do, at least, love movies, French films.)
that they're not condescending. But they
too, Like most swings of the critical pendulum,
perhaps even more so, are indistinguishable the theory was a corrective, and it helped to
read-alikes, united by fanaticism in a ludicrous
remind us of the energies and crude strength
cause; and for a group that discounts content
and good humor that Europeans enjoyed in
 AND SQUARES
CIRCLES 23

our movies. The French saw something in our wood. For the French, the name of a director
movies that their own movies lacked; they ad- was a guide on what American films to see:
mired it, and to some degree, they have taken if a director was associated with a certain type
it over and used it in their own way (trium- of film that they liked; or if a director's work
phantly in Breathless and Shoot the Piano showed the speed and efficiency that they en-
Player, not very successfully in their semi- joyed. I assume that anyone interested in
American thrillers). Our movies were a prod- movies uses the director's name as some sort
uct of American industry, and in a sense, it of guide, both positive and negative, even
was America itself that they loved in our though we recognize that at times he is little
movies - our last frontiers, our robber-barons, more than a stage manager. For example, in
our naivet6, our violence, our efficiency and the 'forties, my friends and I would keep an
speed and technology, our bizarre combina- eye out for the Robert Siodmak films and avoid
tion of sentimentality and inhuman mechaniza- Irving Rapper films (except when they starred
tion. Bette Davis whom we wanted to see even in
But for us, the situation is different. It is bad movies); I avoid Mervyn LeRoy films
good for us to be reminded that our mass cul- (though I went to see Home Before Dark for
ture is not altogether poisonous in its effect Jean Simmons' performance); I wish I could
on other countries, but what is appealingly avoid Peter Glenville's pictures but he uses
exotic - "American" - for them is often in- actors I want to see. It's obvious that a director
tolerable for us. The freeways of cities like like Don Siegel or Phil Karlson does a better
Los Angeles may seem mad and marvelous to job with what he's got to work with than Peter
a foreign visitor; to us they are the nightmares Glenville, but that doesn't mean there's any
we spend our days in. The industrial products pressing need to go see every tawdry little
of Hollywood that we grew up on are not gangster picture Siegel or Karlson directs; and
enough to satisfy our interests as adults. We perhaps if they tackled more difficult subjects
want a great deal more from our movies than they wouldn't do a better job than Glenville.
we get from the gangster carnage and the There is no rule or theory involved in any of
John Ford westerns that Europeans adore. I this, just simple discrimination; we judge the
enjoy some movies by George Cukor and man from his films and learn to predict a little
Howard Hawks but I wouldn't be much inter- about his next films, we don't judge the films
ested in the medium if that were all that movies from the man.
could be. We see many elements in foreign But what has happened to the judgment of
films that our movies lack. We also see that the English and New York critics who have
our films have lost the beauty and innocence taken over the auteur theory and used it to
and individuality of the silent period, and the erect a film aesthetics based on those commer-
sparkle and wit of the 'thirties. There was no cial movies that answered a need for the
special reason for the French critics, preoccu- French, but which are not merely ludicrously
pied with their needs, to become sensitive to inadequate to our needs, but are the results of
ours. And it was not surprising that, in France, a system of production that places a hammer-
where film directors work in circumstances lock on American directors? And how can they,
more comparable to those of a dramatist or a with straight faces, probe for deep meanings in
composer, critics would become fixated on these products? Even the kids they're made for
American directors - not understanding how know enough not to take them seriously. How
confused and inextricable are the roles of the can these critics, sensible enough to deflate our
front office, the producers, writers, editors, and overblown message movies, reject the total
all the rest of them - even the marketing re- content of a work as unimportant and concen-
search consultants who may pretest the draw- trate on signs of a director's "personality" and
ing powers of the story and stars - in Holly- "interior meaning"? It's understandable that
 24 CIRCLES
AND SQUARES

they're trying to find movie art in the loopholes most dangerous, most sensitive stage." Doesn't
of commercial production - it's a harmless exactly make one feel welcome, does it? I'm
hobby and we all play it now and then; what's sure I don't know what the problem is: are
incomprehensible is that they prefer their loop- there so many "lucidly minded" critics in this
holes to unified film expression. If they weren't country (like Andrew Sarris?) that they must
so determined to exalt products over works be fought off? And aren't these little "buds"
that attempt to express human experience, that have to be protected from critical judg-
wouldn't they have figured out that the mise- ments the same little film-makers who are so
en-scone which they seek out in these products, convinced of their importance that they can
the director's personal style which comes scarely conceive of a five-minute film which
through despite the material, is only a mere doesn't end with what they, no doubt, regard
suggestion, a hint of what an artist can do when as the ultimate social comment: the mushroom
he's in control of the material, when the whole cloud rising. Those "buds" often behave more
film becomes expressive? Isn't it obvious that like tough nuts.
mise-en-schne and subject material - form and Sarris with his love of commercial trash and
content - can be judged separately only in bad Mekas who writes of the "cul-de-sac of Western
movies or trivial ones? It must be black comedy culture" which is "stifling the spiritual life of
for directors to read this new criticism and dis- man" seem to have irreconcilable points of
cover that films in which they felt trapped and view. Sarris with his joys in Raoul Walsh seems
disgusted are now said to be their masterpieces. a long way from Mekas, the spokesman for the
It's an aesthetics for 1984: failure is success. "independent filmakers" (who couldn't worm
I am too far from the English scene to guess their way into Sarris' outer circle). Mekas
at motives, and far away also from New York, makes statements like "The new artist, by
but perhaps close enough to guess that the directing his ear inward, is beginning to catch
Americans (consciously or unconsciously) are bits of man's true vision." (Dear Lon Chaney
making a kind of social comment: like the Mekas, please get your ear out of your eye.
pop artists, the New Realists with their comic Mekas has at least one thing in common with
strips and Campbell's Soup can paintings, they good directors: he likes to dramatize.) But to
are saying, "See what America is, this junk is love trash and to feel that you are stifled by it
the fact of our lives. Art and avant-gardism are are perhaps very close positions. Does the man
phony; what isn't any good, is good. Only who paints the can of Campbell's Soup love it
squares believe in art. The artifacts of industrial or hate it? I think the answer is both: that he
civilization are the supreme truth, the supreme is obsessed by it as a fact of our lives and a
joke." This is a period when men who consider symbol of America. When Mekas announces,
themselves creative scoff at art and tradition. "I don't want any part of the Big Art Game"
It is perhaps no accident that in the same issue he comes even closer to Sarris. And doesn't the
of Film Culture with Sarris' auteur theory there auteur theory fit nicely into the pages of an
is a lavishly illustrated spread on "The Perfect "independent filmakers" journal when you
Filmic Appositeness of Maria Montez" - a consider that the work of those film-makers
fairly close movie equivalent for that outsized might compare very unfavorably with good
can of Campbell's Soup. The editor, Jonas films, but can look fairly interesting when com-
Mekas, has his kind of social comment. This pared with commercial products. It can even
is his approach to editing a film magazine: look original to those who don't know much
"As long as the 'lucidly minded' critics will film history. The "independent
filmakers,"
stay out, with all their 'form,' 'content,' 'art,' Lord knows, are already convinced about their
'structure,' 'clarity,' 'importance' - everything importance as the creative figures-the auteurs;
will be all right, just keep them out. For the a theory which suggested the importance of
new soul is still a bud, still going through its writing to film art might seriously damage their
 CIRCLES
AND SQUARES 25:

egos. They go even farther than the auteur take time off from his devotional exercises with
critics' notion that the script is merely some- Raoul Walsh to explain why these films are
thing to transcend: they often act as if anyone worthless.) Sarris, too, can resort to the lan-
who's concerned with scripts is a square who guage of the hipster - "What is it the old jazz
doesn't dig film. (It's obvious, of course, that man says of his art? If you gotta ask what it is,
this aesthetic based on images and a contempt it ain't? Well, the cinema is like that." This is
for words is a function of economics and right at home in Film Culture, although Sarris
technology, and that as soon as a cheap, light- (to his everlasting credit) doesn't employ the
weight 16mm camera with good synchronous accusatory, paranoid style of Mekas: "You
sound gets on the market, the independent criticize our work from a purist, formalistic
film-makers will develop a different aesthetic.) and classicist point of view. But we say to you:
The auteur theory, silly as it is, can neverthe- What's the use of cinema if man's soul goes
less be a dangerous theory - not only because rotten?" The "you" is, I suppose, the same you
it constricts the experience of the critics who who figures in so much (bad) contemporary
employ it, but because it offers nothing but prophetic, righteous poetry and prose, the
commercial goals to the young artists who may "you" who is responsible for the Bomb and
be trying to do something in film. Movie with who, by some fantastically self-indulgent
its celebration of Samuel Fuller's "brutality" thought processes, is turned into the enemy,
and the Mackie Mekas who "knows that every- the critic. Mekas, the childlike, innocent, pure
thing he has learned from his society about life Mekas, is not about to be caught by "the
and death is false" give readers more of a tightening web of lies"; he refuses "to continue
charge than they get from the limp pages of the Big Lie of Culture." I'm sure that, in this
Sight and Sound and this journal. This is not scheme, any attempt at clear thinking imme-
intended to be a snide remark about Sight and diately places us in the enemy camp, turns us
Sound and Film Quarterly: if they are not more
sensational, it is because they are attempting to
be responsible, to hoard the treasures of our Beware of the Bull-Dozers...
usable past. But they will be wiped off the "Granted that one must be 'committed' to
cinema landscape, if they can't meet the blasts Welles to even like Arkadin, but once one
of anti-art with some fire of their own. has made the commitment,there is no choice
The union of Mekas and Sarris may be but to call it a masterpiece."
merely a marriage of convenience; but if it is -New York Film Bulletin, #45
strong enough to withstand Sarris' "Hello and
Goodbye to the New American Cinema" (in
The Village Voice, September 20, 1962), per- into the bomb-guilty "you," and I am forced
haps the explanation lies in the many shared to conclude that Mekas is not altogether wrong
attitudes of the Mekas group and the auteur -that if we believe in the necessity (not to
critics. Neither group, for example, is interested mention the beauty) of clear thinking, we are
in a balanced view of a film; Mekas says he indeed his enemy. I don't know how it's pos-
doesn't believe in "negative criticism" and sible for anyone to criticize his work from a
the auteur critics (just like our grammar school "purist, formalistic and classicist point of view"
teachers) conceive of a review as "an apprecia- -the method would be too far from the object;
tion." The directors they reject are so far but can't we ask Mekas: is man's soul going
beyond the pale that their films are not even to be in better shape because your work is pro-
considered worth discussion. (Sarris who dis- tected from criticism? How much nonsense
tributes zero ratings impartially to films as dare these men permit themselves? When Sar-
varied as Yojimbo, The Manchurian Candidate, ris tells us, "If the auteur critics of the Fifties
and Billy Budd could hardly be expected to had not scored so many coups of clairvoyance,
26 AND SQUARES
CIRCLES

the auteur theory would not be worth dis- ment: here is a man.") I don't think critics
cussing in the Sixties,"does he mean any more would use terms like "virile" or "masculine" to
than that he has taken over the fiats of the describe artists like Dreyer or Renoir; there is
auteur critics in the 'fifties and goes on apply- something too limited about describing them
ing them in the 'sixties? Does he seriously this way (just as when we describe a woman as
regard his own Minnelli-worship as some sort sensitive and feminine, we are indicating her
of objective verification of the critics who special nature). We might describe Kipling as
praised Minnelli in the 'fifties? If that's his a virile writer but who would think of calling
concept of critical method, he might just as Shakespeare a virile writer? But for the auteur
well join forces with other writers in Film critics calling a director virile is the highest
Culture. In addition to Mekas ("Poets are sur- praise because, I suggest, it is some kind of
rounding America, flanking it from all sides,") assurance that he is not trying to express him-
there is, for example, Ron Rice: "And the self in an art form, but treats movie-making as
beautiful part about it all is that you can, my a professional job. (Movie: Hawks "makes the
dear critics, scream protest to the skies, you're very best adventure films because he is at one
too late. The Musicians, Painters, Writers, with his heroes.... Only Raoul Walsh is as
Poets and Film-Makers all fly in the same sky, deeply an adventurer as Hawks .... Hawks'
and know Exactly where It's 'AT'." Rice knows heroes are all professionals doing jobs -
where he's at about as much as Stan Brakhage scientists, sheriffs, cattlemen, big game hunters:
who says, "So the money vendors have begun real professionals who know their capabilities.
it again. To the catacombs then.. ." In the ... They know exactly what they can do with
pages of Film Culture they escape from the the available resources, expecting of others
money changers in Jerusalem by going to the only what they know can be given.") The
catacombs in Rome. "Forget ideology," Brak- auteur critics are so enthralled with their
hage tells us, "for film unborn as it is has no narcissistic male fantasies (Movie: "Because
language and speaks like an aborigine." We're Hawks' films and their heroes are so genuinely
all familiar with Brakhage's passion for ob- mature, they don't need to announce the fact
stetrics, but does being a primitive man mean for all to hear") that they seem unable to
being a foetus? I don't understand that unborn relinquish their schoolboy notions of human
aborigine talk, but I'm prepared to believe that experience. (If there are any female practi-
grunt by grunt, or squeal by squeal, it will be tioners of auteur criticism, I have not yet dis-
as meaningful as most of Film Culture. I am covered them.) Can we conclude that, in Eng-
also prepared to believe that for Jonas Mekas, land and the United States, the auteur theory
culture is a "Big Lie." And Sarris, looking for is an attempt by adult males to justify staying
another culture under those seats coated with inside the small range of experience of their
chewing gum, coming up now and then to an- boyhood and adolescence - that period when
nounce a "discovery" like Joanne Dru, has he masculinity looked so great and important but
found his spiritual home down there? art was something talked about by poseurs and
Isn't the anti-art attitude of the auteur critics phonies and sensitive-feminine types? And is
both in England and here, implicit also in their it perhaps also their way of making a comment
peculiar emphasis on virility? (Walsh is, for on our civilization by the suggestion that trash
Sarris,"one of the screen's most virile directors." is the true film art? I ask; I do not know.
In Movie we discover: "When one talks about
the heroes of Red River, or Rio Bravo, or
Hatari! one is talking about Hawks himself.
.. Finally everything that can be said in pre-
senting Hawks boils down to one simple state-