1. Andrew Sarris and the Auteur Theory
In the 1960s, Andrew Sarris first introduced the concept of the auteur or "author" in his essay "Notes on Auteur Theory" published in the Winter 1962-63 issue of Film Culture (Hickenlooper 3). In film criticism, the auteur has come to be associated with the film director and originated from the 1950s when André Balzin and François Truffaut and their "comrades" used it in Cahiers du Cinéma (Hickenlooper 3). In George Hickenlooper's book, Reel Conversations, he suggests that Sarris made the auteur a "policy" rather than a "theory," which Sarris later emphasized in his book, The American Cinema, which rates auteurs by their work (3). While Sarris's theory remains controversial still today, he undeniably was responsible for being one of the first to directly give film directors credit for their role in their work.
To Sarris's surprise, his theory was almost immediately attacked. Pauline Kael published an essay in response to Sarris's entitled "Circles and Squares" (Film Quarterly, 1963) that accused Sarris of valuing works by director's names rather than by actual merit (Hickenlooper 4). Interestingly, it was this debate that suddenly made the field of film criticism "sexy," and it wasn't long after that a whole new influx of young critics were trying to make a living in Hollywood (Hickenlooper 4). In an interview, Hickenlooper asks Sarris about his opinion of the role he played in film criticism:
H: Pauline Kael and you have been called the Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy of film criticism for having made the profession sexy. Does that flatter you?
S: Well, not really [...] I know how to distinguish myself from Pauline as a critic in the sense that she makes herself the center of her piece. She makes it the job of the filmmaker to astonish her, and if he fails, you know, "Off with his head!" [...] I think the function of the film critic is to try to understand what the artist is doing and what he is feeling and how he is conveying it [...] The art means more than the artist. It is this work which is a thing of beauty forever, and it's my job to explain why and who. (9-10)
Sarris considers the "art" over the individual, including even the auteur.
Since Sarris began working as a film critic, there have been various advances in the way film criticism is presented to the public. Originally, most people read reviews in print, but in the 1980s a new form of consumer culture began to take hold: the television. Even in the 1990s, film critics were already worried that the integrity of film criticism was being compromised. Hickenlooper sums up a debate printed in the March-August 1990 issue of Film Comment between Andrew Sarris, Robert Ebert, and Richard Corliss: "Corliss, the founder of the magazine, feels that the profession of print criticism is being seriously compromised by the popularity of the television critic. Ebert, who is featured on his own television show, believes the air waves have made criticism more accessible to the general public" (5). Television does indeed make criticism more "accessible," but the remaining question is whether the theatricality inherent to the screen naturally leads to a "dumbing down" of the material or not. When something is made for general public consumption, does it necessitate a lower quality? And is it such a bad thing to have new, derived forms of criticism? Sarris's response to new media lies between the polar opinions of Corliss and Ebert:
H: What about film criticism? In a recent issue of Film Comment [May-June 1990], Richard Corliss was lamenting over the state of film criticism and how print criticism in particular wasn't flourishing as it used to.
S: I think there are more outlets for critics than there ever were. As I indicated, I think one of the problems is there are many more writers on film then there used to be, and I think that during the sixties, when film studies were at their peak, we propelled out a lot of professional critics who now can't find work. (Hickenlooper13)
Sarris suggests that new forms of media provide "outlets" for professionals who can't find work in print, an increasingly limited medium for aspiring critics. The profession is changing, whether the critics are ready for it, or not.
2. Pauline Kael
One of Andrew Sarris's biggest enemies in print, Pauline Kael has also managed to make her mark in the field of film criticism. In his introduction to his book, Conversations with Pauline Kael, Will Brantley calls Kael a "critic whose work has deeply mattered" (ix). Kael's influence on film criticism has spanned decades, and still continues to do so as a result of the large amount of work she has managed to produce and print. For over twenty years, she wrote reviews for The New Yorker in "one of the most successful liaisons of twentieth century journalism" (Brantley x). In a 1966 Newsweek article titled "Perils of Pauline," she was described as the "bitter opponent of all cinema cults," yet despite that she has her own "Kael cult" of followers (Brantley 3). What made Kael slightly different from other movie critics was her ability to win over her readers-and to offend them. In response to her dismissal from McCall's in 1966 as a result of her almost uniformly negative reviews, Kael shrugs it off: "From the beginning I thought I was the wrong person for their readers [...] but they were willing to take the risk. I had realized that I would sock the ladies right between the ears, but what the hell is the point of writing, if you're writing banality" (Brantley 4).
In one of her most contentious essays, "Raising Kane," published in the February 1971 issue of The New Yorker, Kael raised questions against Andrew Sarris's conception of the auteur theory (Alpert qtd. in Brantley 9). The essay critiques Orsen Welles's film, Citizen Kane (1941), long considered a paragon of American cinema. Kael argued that much of the film's credit shouldn't have gone to Welles, but to the screenwriter, Herman J. Mankiewicz (Brantley 9). Welles is listed high in Sarris's auteur rankings, so Kael's criticism was the source of much debate, critical attacks, and interest. Her contribution to the film world was a constant cause for upheaval, but at least it was never "banal."
3. Roger Ebert
A well-recognized name in the world of film criticism, Roger Ebert has been an active critic in several mediums: print, television, and online. While not really a fan of the amateur film critics who keep blogs, Ebert himself actually keeps a blog titled, Roger Ebert's Journal on the Chicago Sun-Times website. He was also one of the first critics to break into television with his show "Sneak Previews" that he hosted with Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune, and as a result has generally been a proponent of getting criticism to the general public, rather than to an elite few (RogerEbert.com). The weekly television show later evolved into the "Siskel & Ebert" program in 1982 and continued until Siskel's death 23 years later (RogerEbert.com).
In 1975, Ebert won the Pulitzer Prize for criticism, earning him a worldwide readership (RogerEbert.com). According to his website, RogerEbert.com, he is now published in more that 200 newspapers in the U.S., Canada, England, and Greece. Also widely published-even producing some volumes on an annual basis-Ebert has had a wide impact on the public's opinion of what makes a good film. While it is possible to belittle his television performance as a sort of "sell-out," in the context of his published work it's nothing compared to the large amount of printed criticism he has also managed to produce. Also, winning the Pulitzer Prize casts serious legitimacy to the film critic profession, even if it can seem as much of a performance as the medium that it critiques.
Works Cited
Ebert, Roger. "Rogerebert.com :: General Information." Rogerebert.com :: Movie Reviews, Essays and the Movie Answer Man from Film Critic Roger Ebert. Web. 09 Dec. 2010. <http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/GENERALINFORMATION/40909001>.
Hickenlooper, George. Reel Conversations: Candid Interviews with Film's Foremost Directors and Critics. Secaucus, NJ: Carol Group, 1991. Print.
Kael, Pauline. Conversations with Pauline Kael. Ed. Will Brantley. Jackson: University of Mississippi, 1996. Print.
Rothman, William. The "I" of the Camera: Essays in Film Criticism, History, and Aesthetics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2004. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment