A Couple of Squared Circles, Sarris and Kael – Part II

Part Two: ‘Circles and Squares’ – Pauline Kael

II

Pauline Kael’s acerbic reply to Andrew Sarris’s ‘Notes on The Auteur Theory in 1962’ starts by examining the basic method or concept of the proposed auteur theory. Kael explains:

Sarris has noticed that in High Sierra (not a very good movie) Raoul Walsh repeated an uninteresting and obvious device that he had earlier used in a worse movie. And for some inexplicable reason, Sarris concludes that he would not have had this joy of discovery without the auteur theory.(1.)

Kael is asserting that the auteur theory venerates directors who repeat uninteresting and obvious devices. The supposed “joy” of the auteur theory, to Kael, is the celebration of a director’s usage in a bad film of a technique used in another earlier worse film. Kael also takes exception at the tone that Sarris uses in relation to the importance of the auteur theory in examining a director’s work as an organic whole. Kael asserts:

In every art form, critics traditionally notice and point out the way the artists borrow from themselves (as well as from others) and how the same device, techniques, and themes reappear in their work. This is obvious in listening to music, seeing plays, reading novels, watching actors; we take it for granted that this is how we perceive the development or the decline of an artist.(2.)

As Kael notes artists have always re-used older material. Leonardo di Vinci reused several sketches in many of his paintings and reputedly used a sketch of a young man as a template for the face of the ‘Mona Lisa’ – even though the Mona Lisa was based on a woman. What Kael seems to be asking is whether this is really a good criterion for the critique of film. Although noting the continued development of increasing technical ability, or competence in Sarris’s words, over an artist’s lifetime is important it is not often the only criterion of judgement. To Kael, a better area of critique, and the ultimate function of a critic, is ‘perceiving what is original and important in new work and helping others to see’.(3.) To Kael, Sarris concentrates on what is established, unoriginal in a work and ignores new ideas, one-offs and innovations. Kael asserts that the auteur critic only identifies how a film relates to a director’s past canon or filmography and ignores the new elements: what is “important” and makes something a new or original film.

Kael proceeds by exploring the three premises or criterion of judgement that Sarris sets out. Sarris’s three premises are:  

1. The technical competence of a director as a criterion of value.(4.)
2. The distinguishable personality of the director as a criterion of value.(5.)
3. Interior meaning… the tension between a director’s personality and his material.(6.)

To Kael the “outer circle”, or first premise , of a director’s basic technical competence, is either a weak premise, a commonplace attitude of artistic judgement – and therefore the auteur theory is not as radical or as “fresh” as it seemed to be as a critique of film in 1962 – or a complete misunderstanding of the necessarily talents required for the production of art. Kael notes ‘sometimes the greatest artists in a medium bypass or violate the simple technical competence that is so necessary for hacks’.(7.) Kael explains further that ‘the greatness of a director like [Jean] Cocteau has nothing to do with mere technical competence: his greatness is in being able to achieve his own personal expression and style’.(8.) Kael seems to arguing that although technical competence is important to a director its use as a criterion of judgement “misses the point” in the evaluation of director’s ability to make art. Cocteau once remarked that the only technique, in any art, one needs is the technique you invent for yourself and in relation to this Kael argues that ‘if [a director] can make great films without knowing the standard methods, without the usual craftsmanship of the “good director”, then that is the way [the director] works’.(9.)

The second criterion, and according to Kael the actual premise of the auteur theory, relates to the director’s distinguishable personality. Kael, in characteristically sardonic and bitchy style, explains that:

Traditionally, in any art, the personalities of all those involved in a production have been a factor in judgement, but that the distinguishability of personality should in itself be a criterion of value completely confuses normal judgement. The smell of a skunk is more distinguishable than the perfume of a rose; does that make it better?. (10.)

In essence Kael is arguing that the distinguishable personality of a director is a poor choice for criterion of judgement. One may be able to more distinctly distinguish the gaudy, accidental, clumsy hand of a second-rate director than the light, delicate hand of a first-rate director but it does not, or should not, indicate the better director between the two. Kael goes on to add:

When a famous director makes a good movie, we look at the movie, we don’t think about the director’s personality; when he makes a stinker we notice his familiar touches because there’s not mush else to watch. (11.)

Kael is asserting that the touch of a director – the evident touch – is an indicator of a poor film or at least a symptom of boredom and apathy towards the film’s narrative. If we can distinguish the director’s personality then it is not really a ‘part of the texture of the film’ and therefore it overrides and dominates the film itself.(12.) Kael also criticises Sarris’s second criterion of judgement, and the auteur position in general, by arguing that ‘it is an insult to an artist to praise his bad work along with his good; it indicates you are incapable of judging either’. Kael asserts that this form of analysis and criticism is similar to attitudes to fashion labels ‘this is Dior, so it’s good’.(13.) Kael position is that the auteur theory cannot, once a director is given the title of auteur, discriminate between the director’s good and bad work – especially if the director fulfils the criterion or premises of the auteur theory.

The third premise, or inner circle, is, according to Kael, ‘the opposite of what we have always taken for granted in the arts, that the artist expresses himself in the unity of form and content’.(14.) To Kael the auteur theory glorifies “trash”, ‘the frustrations of a man working against the given material’.(15.) The conflict of a director’s style with the content is what produces great art to the auteur, or at least to Sarris, but to Kael is it a weakness of a film. According to Kael if a director does not unify his style, the form, with the content of the script, then the director does not produce good art. Kael explains:

Their ideal auteur is the man who signs a long-term contract, directs any script that’s handed to him, and expresses himself by shoving bits of style up the crevasses of the plots. If his “style” is in conflict with the story line or subject matter, so much the better.(16.)

The consequence of admiring the directors who shove style up a script’s crevasse is that ‘the director who fights to do something he cares about is a square’.(17.) This statement is related to Sarris’s criticism of Ingmar Bergman’s later work which Sarris felt had declined due to the absence of any progression of ‘technique’ which directly related to Bergman’s ‘sensibility’.(18.) Kael responds harshly – rather too angrily for a really rational debate – but does pose an interesting question wondering whether ‘writer-directors are disqualified by [the] third premise?’.(19.) Kael sums up her criticism by wondering why the auteur theory prefers certain commerical films – a saving grace of the auteur theory some will say. Kael expands on this point by asserting that ‘those travelling in auteur circles believe that making [a] purse out of a sow’s ear is an infinitely greater accomplishment than making a solid carrying case out of a good piece of leather’.(20.) Kael’s harsh criticism of the auteur theory continues into the very last vitirolic paragraph when she argues:

These [auteur] critics work embarrassingly hard trying to give some semblance of intellectual respectability to a preoccupation with mindless, repetitious commercial products… They’re not critics: they’re inside dopesters.(21.)

The auteur critic, according to Kael, prefers products made out of inferior products: mindlessly repetitious commercial films. Kael’s article is an angry, sardonic, reply to Sarris’s auteur theory – she even questions whether an auteur critic is a critic at all –  she has highlighted some problems and flaws in his conception of the primary criterion of judgement an auteur critic makes. In my next article (part III) I will conclude by examining both Sarris and Kael’s position. I will indicate where I feel both critics have got things right and got things wrong.

1. Pauline Kael, ‘Circles And Squares’, in Gerald Mast & Marshall Cohen (ed), Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, (1979), pp. 666-679. p. 667.

2. Pauline Kael, ‘Circles And Squares’, pp. 667-668.

3. Pauline Kael, ‘Circles And Squares’, p. 669.

 4. Andrew Sarris, ‘Notes On The Auteur Theory In 1962’, in Gerald Mast & Marshall Cohen (ed), Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, (1979), pp. 650-665, p. 662.

5. Andrew Sarris, ‘Notes On The Auteur Theory In 1962’, p. 662.

6. Andrew Sarris, ‘Notes On The Auteur Theory In 1962’, p. 663.

7. Pauline Kael, ‘Circles And Squares’, p. 669.

8. Pauline Kael, ‘Circles And Squares’, p. 669.

9. Pauline Kael, ‘Circles And Squares’, p. 670.

10. Pauline Kael, ‘Circles And Squares’, p. 671.

 11. Pauline Kael, ‘Circles And Squares’, p. 671.

12. Pauline Kael, ‘Circles And Squares’, p. 672.

13. Pauline Kael, ‘Circles And Squares’, p. 673.

14. Pauline Kael, ‘Circles And Squares’, p. 674.

15. Pauline Kael, ‘Circles And Squares’, pp. 674-675.

16. Pauline Kael, ‘Circles And Squares’, p. 674.

17. Pauline Kael, ‘Circles And Squares’, p. 674.

18. Andrew Sarris, ‘Notes On The Auteur Theory In 1962’, pp. 662-663.

19. Pauline Kael, ‘Circles And Squares’, p. 676.

20. Pauline Kael, ‘Circles And Squares’, p. 678.

21. Pauline Kael, ‘Circles And Squares’, p. 679.

Kael Online Database

http://www.paulrossen.com/paulinekael.html

This is a link to an online database of the often adored often criticised film critic Pauline Kael’s work. Although the actual article I am writing on – Kael’s criticism of Sarris – is not in the database there are several different and interesting articles and papers. One of interest is Kael’s position on Citizen Kane (1941) that the film cannot be attributed to Orson Welles – Welles is not, according to Kael, the author of Citizen Kane.

Future Worlds: Sport Culture and Costume in Rollerball

Future Worlds: Rollerball (1975)

In order to create a critique of society a filmmaker will tend to focus upon a certain aspect of society or a social practice. In Rollerball sport is used as the vehicle for the film’s narrative. Rather than extending one particular sport to social dominance a new sport, a combination and synthesis, of several of the most popular sports in America, is developed. Costume in Rollerball is an important aspect in establishing the sport and the futuristic setting. The helmet is a direct replication of the NFL helmets worn in the 70s. The pads also replicate the image of American football athletes. The use of rollerskates produces a similar image, style of movement and tempo found in ice hockey – evidenced in the repeated “bodychecking”. The gloves the Rollerballers’ use, to pick up the ball after it is shot out of a cannon, are identical to contemporary baseball’s outfielder’s glove. The Rollerballer’s costume is a patchwork of several important parts of major American sports.

 

The controllers of the dangerous sport, and society, are several multi-national corporations who provide essential utilities – such as energy – and are altogether under the command of an ultimate ‘Executive Directorate’: some shady controlling corporate power something similar in essence to the Gran Consiglio del Fascismo [Grand Council of Fascists]. I have read the shady Directorate as something like a facsist group in relation to what Franklin D. Roosevelt said concerning the strengthening of the anti-trust laws:

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism; ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.(1.)

In the future world of Rollerball a grand council of corporate power has assumed total control over social practices, such as sport, and everyday life itself. Corporate power even extends to the ability to revoke a marriage and to take a persons’ spouse without question. In order to establish this sense of corporate cultural control the traditional national anthem is replaced with a “corporate anthem” and every member of the audience willingly stands and places their hand to their heart. The future world of Rollerball, a state dominated by fascistic corporations, is explored through the setting of sport. The sport is established by costume and the allusion to the most popular contemporary American sports. Rollerball, often seen as an anti-sport film – incorrectly as the last image is of the protagonist Jonathan E. finishing the game by scoring then walking away in disgust – creates a critique of the way corporate-media and power is welded to produce and provide the ability to dominate and control society and social practices.

(1.) Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Appendix A: Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Recommendations Relative to the Strengthening and Enforcement of Anti-trust Laws”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 32, No. 2, Part 2, Supplement, Papers Relating to the Temporary National Economic Committee (Jun., 1942), pp. 119-128, p. 119.

The Ideology of Realism: Jean-Luc Comolli & Jean Paul Narboni’s Cinema/Ideology/Criticism

In my previous article about Andre Bazin I explored his claims that the ontology of the photograph and film – ontology being the essential essence – is its ability to represent life as it appears. According to Bazin, film is inclined to, and again best when, realist in aesthetic. In a series of articles I will examine Bazin’s position on film however I came across an excerpt of Jean-Luc Comolli and Jean Paul Narboni’s Cinema/Ideology/Criticism (an online copy of which can be found here) which I felt was interesting as it came from the opposite position. In this article I will explore their claims that the aesthetic of realism is a reliance on the status quo and an aesthetic implicitly reliant on ideological cultural dominants.

In the examination of Comolli and Narboni’s paper it is important to note that they are Structuralist in outlook, in contrast to Bazin who was a staunch Humanist, and they therefore perceive the realist aesthetic differently. This is immediately evidenced when Comolli and Narboni explain that film is partly a ‘product, manufactured within a given system of economic relations, and involving labour [Money] to produce… a commodity, possessing exchange value… governed by the laws if the market’ as well as ‘an ideological product of the system, which in [the Western world] means capitalism’.(1.) Film is made to be sold. Film is an art that is also primarily a source of income and export: film is explicitly a commercial product. However film, according to Comolli and Narboni, is also implicitly the product of the ideology that dominates the field, or place, it was constructed in. A film-maker, according to Comolli and Narboni, cannot change the economic circumstance, or system they find themselves in [if they could would it be the film business anymore anyway?]. One may ‘deflect it, but not negate it or seriously upset its structure’.(2.) An example of this “deflection” may be found in the music industry where the Arctic Monkeys, and several other bands, initially gave away free CDs and allowed their music to be downloaded for free. They originally refracted the “rules” or logic of the music industry however they didn’t change the system itself as after a period of time, and a rise in popularity, they returned to the normal procedure of selling music. For Comolli and Narboni film ‘is determined by the ideology which produced it’.(3.)

As I explained in my article ‘Influential Theorists: Andre Bazin – The Ontology Of The Photographic Image’ Bazin believed that film provides a reproduction of reality and although Comolli and Narboni may permit that film does reproduce reality when they say ‘this is what a camera and film stock are’ they hold a diametrically opposed view of what “reality” really is.(4.) Comolli and Narboni explain that ‘the tool and techniques of film-making are a part of [the] “reality” themselves… [Reality] is nothing but an expression of the prevailing ideology’.(5.) The realist aesthetic does not reproduce “the way things are”; it is in fact, at most an explicit and at least an implicit, a reproduction of the dominant way of seeing. Comolli and Narboni explain their position when they state ‘what the camera in fact registers is the vague, unformulated, untheorized, unthought-out world of the dominant world’.(6.) To use a similar image that Bazin utilized, film does not blow-away the “dust” of regular perceptions and conceptions but rather relies upon and reproduces that “dust” which has settled upon our way of seeing things. The realist aesthetic reproduces the way we experience the world, and the way we experience the world is defined by cultural dominants: and one major cultural dominant, of which Comolli and Narboni are particularly concerned with, is ego-centred capitalism.(7.) In Comolli and Narboni’s words:

When we set out to make a film, from the very first shot, we are encumbered by the necessity of reproducing things not as they really are but as they appear when refracted through the [dominant] ideology. (8.)

Realism is a reproduction, on the screen, of the ideological structures/world we encounter in “everyday” life. The realist aesthetic fails to comprehensively challenge or explore the structures of the dominant forces and world-view in society and art – which cannot challenge or explore sexist, racist or fascistic ideologies – is a blank critique and an utterly redundant social activity; art without the ability to challenge or explore social attitudes is not really art at all. According to Comolli and Narboni to stop film art from just becoming the “tool” of the dominant world-view ‘the film-maker’s first task is to show up the cinema’s so-called “depiction of reality”‘ and, if they are able to achieve that; the film-maker may be able to ‘sever’ or ‘disrupt’ the ‘connection between the cinema and its ideological function’.(9.)

To Comolli and Narboni just simply reproducing reality ensures one relies on the assumptions found in “everyday” life. They argue for the utilization of techniques which upset the viewers ability to accept the supposedly unadulterated reality of the world depicted. The use of jump-cuts in Jean-Luc Godard’s A Bout de Souffle (1960) could be argued to facilitate this sort of alienating technique. There are many films that are naturalistic or realist in aesthetic that, at least appear, to transverse and critique society and this is a definite critique of Comolli and Narboni’s position. A lack of examples and instances in film of the realist aesthetic is also another critique I would level against their article – however It should be understood that the article is intended as theory rather than “practice”. Rather than quickly explore the counter-arguments a critic who favours the realist aesthetic would raise I will leave that duty to Bazin, whose position I will continue to explore in the coming weeks and months.

 (1.) Jean-Luc Comolli & Jean Paul Narboni, ‘Cinema/Ideology/Criticism’, in (Ed) J. Hollows, P. Hutchings, M. Jancovich, Film Studies Reader, London: Oxford Uni Press, (2000), pp. 197-200, p. 197.

(2.) Jean-Luc Comolli & Jean Paul Narboni, ‘Cinema/Ideology/Criticism’, p. 197.

(3.) Jean-Luc Comolli & Jean Paul Narboni, ‘Cinema/Ideology/Criticism’, p. 197.

(4.) Jean-Luc Comolli & Jean Paul Narboni, ‘Cinema/Ideology/Criticism’, p. 197.

(5.) Jean-Luc Comolli & Jean Paul Narboni, ‘Cinema/Ideology/Criticism’, p. 197.

(6.) Jean-Luc Comolli & Jean Paul Narboni, ‘Cinema/Ideology/Criticism’, p. 197.

(7.) Jean-Luc Comolli & Jean Paul Narboni, ‘Cinema/Ideology/Criticism’, p. 198.

(8.) Jean-Luc Comolli & Jean Paul Narboni, ‘Cinema/Ideology/Criticism’, p. 198.

(9.) Jean-Luc Comolli & Jean Paul Narboni, ‘Cinema/Ideology/Criticism’, p. 198.

A Couple of Squared Circles, Sarris and Kael – Part I

 

Part One: ‘Notes On The Auteur Theory In 1962’ – Andrew Sarris

Andrew Sarris, influenced and inspired by the politique du auteur, produced his “notes” not as a manifesto but rather a clarification of the auteur issue. In 1950s-60s America, auteurism was not well-received by screenwriters and the many other people who collaborated in film production. However, Sarris felt that several articles constructed “straw-men” or clichéd versions of auteurism. In reaction to this Sarris decided to produce his article on the auteur theory. In this article I will explore Sarris’s ‘Notes On The Auteur Theory In 1962’ however in my next article (part two) I will explore Pauline Kael’s criticism of Sarris’s defence and definition of the auteur theory. In the next article I will also conclude and explore the strengths and weaknesses of both articles. 

I

 An outcome, or implication, of the “Auteur Theory”, according to Sarris, is the belief that ‘the weakest Ford is superior to the strongest King’.(1) The worst John Ford film is held to be ‘invariably superior’ to the best, or most enjoyable, Henry King film.(2) Sarris wryly notes then that ‘by auteur rules, the Fords will come up aces as invariably as the Kings will come up deuces. Presumably, we can all go home as soon as the directorial signature is flashed on the screen’.(3) There are no good or bad films, just good or bad directors. This ‘inflexible attitude’, as Sarris notes, seems counter to commonsensical notions of a films’ worth. After noting these consequences of the auteur theory Sarris notes however that he intends to praise the auteur theory.(4) Beyond these problems for the auteur theory Sarris argues that a positive aspect of the auteur theory is that is is a ‘critical device for recording the history of the American cinema’.(5) Sarris goes on to explain:

the auteur theory is the only help for extending the appreciation of personal qualities in the cinema. By grouping and evaluating films according to directors, the critic can rescue individual achievements from an unjustifiable anonymity.(6)

Directors’ minor films, due to the focus the auteur theory puts on exploring a directors’ total catalogue, are evaluated and analysed beyond their popularity and apparent, or immediately evident, importance or interest. Films are re-analysed and re-criticised continuously in relation to a director’s canon. To Sarris this is an important element of the auteur theory and one that replicates the way critics’ treat literary figures such as Shakespeare and artists such as Van Gogh. Another reason why Sarris embraced the auteur theory is that it is an account of film which does not, and in some ways rewards, directors in a constrictive environment such as the Hollywood studio system. Sarris explains that in the auteur theory ‘there is no justification for penalizing Hollywood directors for the sake of collective mythology’.(7) The pressures of Hollywood and its funding system should not be used to penalize and disqualify Hollywood directors from the “pantheon” of directors or auteruism. A Hollywood director may not be allowed to choose their subject matter – they may hate making gangster films – or the leading star, but they do, according to Sarris, author the film the same way a non-Hollywood director does. [For this example we must assume unfairly that all non-Hollywood director are given total freedom over their subject matter].

The auteur theory has, according to Sarris, three central premises. Sarris explains ‘the first premise of the auteur theory is the technical competence of a director as a criterion of value’.(8 ) The ability of a director to organise or implement their “vision” requires technical competence. To Sarris to be an author of a film technical understanding is required. Knowing which technique, method, suits one’s aims best is the basic level of competence that Sarris asserts is required to be evaluated as a director. Sarris argues that ‘if a director has no technical competence, no elementary flair for the cinema, he is automatically cast out from the pantheon of directors’.(9) This position is summed up by Sarris when he states ‘A badly directed or an undirected film has no importance in an [evaluative system]’.(10) Technical ability is, according to Sarris, the ability to organise a film with some degree of clarity and coherence.(11)

 

Sarris explains ‘the second premise of the auteur theory is the distinguishable personality of the director as a criterion of value’.(12) Sarris continues that ‘over a group of films, a director must exhibit certain recurring characteristics of style’ which the auteur theorist asserts ‘serve[s] as his signature’.(13) The similar shooting style of John Ford’s domestic screens, and the death valley vistas, could be cited as a signature of Ford’s direction. Sarris argues that:

An expert production crew could probably cover up for a cimpanzee in the director’s chair. How do you tell the genuine director from the quasichimpanzee? After a given number of films, a pattern is established.(14)

The continued utilization of the same concepts/techniques – worked through, altered, re-analysed, mocked, readjusted – is of critical importance to the auteur critic because it facilitates the ability to analyse over a period of several films the growth and development of a director’s technical competence and the emergence, and continued influence, of a director’s world-view.

The third premise of Sarris’s auteur theory is more obtuse and a bit more difficult to define. Sarris explains that:

The third and ultimate premise of the auteur theory is concerned with interior meaning, the ultimate glory of the cinema as an art. Interior meaning is extrapolated from the tension between a director’s personality and his material.(15)

The third and ultimate premise, indicating that it is according to Sarris the most important essential criterion of the auteur theory, relates to the meaning or outcome produced from the tension, or difficulty, a director encounters and overcomes in the production of film. Sarris seems to acquire a rather mystical note here arguing that an important criterion of judgement is “internal” in a visual medium but he explains his position better when he notes that internal meaning springs from the ‘intangible difference between one personality and another’.(16) The third premise of the auteur theory is that the internal meaning, to Sarris that certain something about an individual that is produced in everything they do, is produced by the director’s attempt to create a whole from significantly desperate and opposing meanings and influences. Internal meaning is the combination of contradictions; the director’s word-view combined, meshed with the film’s subject matter and all the other contributing factors of the film. A meaning and outcome ultimately derived from the director.

Alfred Hitchcock is seem as a prime example of an auteur and Sarris would agree because Hitchcock satisfies all three of the auteur theory criteria. Hitchcock was a competent technician and his films contain similar techniques played with time and time again – sometimes hitting other times missing. And all of Hitchock’s films retain an aspect of his distinguishable personality. Sarris would assert that Hitchcock is an auteur because the continued utilization of certain film techniques, film form, which are in-line with, and rely on, Hitchcock’s personal/internal interpretation of the psychology of cinema viewers. Hitchcock authors his films. The three “circles” of Sarris’s auteur theory are technical ability, personality and internal meaning.

(1) Andrew Sarris, ‘Notes On The Auteur Theory In 1962’, in Gerald Mast & Marshall Cohen (ed), Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, (1979), pp. 650-665, p. 650.

(2) Andrew Sarris, ‘Notes On The Auteur Theory In 1962’, p. 651.

(3) Andrew Sarris, ‘Notes On The Auteur Theory In 1962’, p. 651.

(4) Andrew Sarris, ‘Notes On The Auteur Theory In 1962’, p. 651.

(5) Andrew Sarris, ‘Notes On The Auteur Theory In 1962’, p. 660.

(6) Andrew Sarris, ‘Notes On The Auteur Theory In 1962’, p. 660.

(7) Andrew Sarris, ‘Notes On The Auteur Theory In 1962’, p. 660.

(8 ) Andrew Sarris, ‘Notes On The Auteur Theory In 1962’, p. 662.

(9) Andrew Sarris, ‘Notes On The Auteur Theory In 1962’, p. 662.

(10) Andrew Sarris, ‘Notes On The Auteur Theory In 1962’, p. 662.

(11) Andrew Sarris, ‘Notes On The Auteur Theory In 1962’, p. 664.

(12) Andrew Sarris, ‘Notes On The Auteur Theory In 1962’, p. 662.

(13) Andrew Sarris, ‘Notes On The Auteur Theory In 1962’, p. 662.

(14) Andrew Sarris, ‘Notes On The Auteur Theory In 1962’, p. 664.

(15) Andrew Sarris, ‘Notes On The Auteur Theory In 1962’, p. 663.

(16) Andrew Sarris, ‘Notes On The Auteur Theory In 1962’, p. 663.

A Sketch of the First Episode in Nanni Moretti’s Caro Diario

I am currently writing a collection of articles on the auteur theory, exploring Sarris and his detractors, and as I finalise the first article I thought that a short article on the first episode of Caro Diario (1993) would be interesting. I am also in the process of writing a longer review of the second episode however I have a million and one ideas for articles and when that gets finished is hard to say.

“Vespa”

 

Nanni Moretti’s Caro Diario, “Dear Diary”, is a film split into three sections covering important elements of Moretti’s life. The first section, which this short article is evidently concerned with, called Vespa, reveals Moretti’s obsession with cinema and Rome. We follow Moretti’s Vespa as it weaves down long sun-drenched streets exploring and filming the classical, modernist and postmodernist architecture set to an energetic non-diagetic soundtrack. This section is filmed primarily using the tracking shot. The form of this technique allows us to engage in the same unadulterated pleasure Moretti feels gazing at the patchwork of modern Rome. As Rome is explored through Moretti’s favourite activity, riding the Vespa, we are invited into a strange whimsical narrative. Moretti’s opinions, dreams and desires are acted out in brief scenes and it becomes hard to differentiate between dreams, desires and biographical elements.

 

In one of the most hilarious moments we see Moretti despondent after seeing Henry: Portrait of A Serial Killer (1986) and as the camera slowly zooms into Moretti’s position, replicating our growing emotional connection with Moretti and our induction into his world, we hear his imagination fire. He wonders whether the critic who wrote the positive review of Henry ever reflects on, and is ashamed of, his reviews. We then cut to a scene where the silhouette of Moretti haunts the critic by repeating and rereading the critic’s own words to him just before bed. Moretti is giving the critic nightmares like Henry did to him. In another interesting moment Moretti starts to dance, while still on his Vespa, to the formerly non-diagetic soundtrack. This moment breaches even the apparently safe wall between the film world and the non-film world. Seconds later Moretti rebuilds the barrier between the diagetic and non-diagetic world by apparently appearing never to have started dancing at all. We have again slipped in and then out of Moretti’s imagination.

 

The choice of music in this episode, as with the whole film, is excellent. In one part of “vespa” the slow piano score beautifully matches the sadness and heartfelt emotion that Moretti feels when he finally decides to visit the site of Pier Paolo Pasolini’s murder. Even though the site, and drive to, is hardly a romantic or inspiring place Moretti’s slow tracking camera allows the innate beauty and emotion of his personal journey bleed into the final revelation of a small artwork celebrating and commemorating the deceased cultural icon Pasolini.

 

In the first section of Caro Diario Moretti has chosen to reject the traditional narrative structure of cause and affect. This allows Moretti to draw us into his subjective perception of Rome. This section, as the title suggest, is centralised by the regular motif of the Vespa, establishing a tentative interconnectivity between the continuously bizarre or angry or enamoured thoughts that stream into Moretti’s consciousness. In the first section of Caro Diario we travel between the gig-lamps of Moretti’s mind delighting in the feast of his highly perceptive and often self-deprecating humour.  A patchwork of desires, imagined conversations, monologues and situations Moretti has welded together, in the vespa episode, a postmodern mini-narrative of one man’s world.

 

Caro Diario Clip

I am currently composing several articles, one being on Caro Diario, but to whet your appetite here is one of the many bizarre but hypnotically engrossing scenes, featuring the beautiful Italian actress Silvana Mangano, from one of my favourite films:

 

And as i am feeling generous I’ll add this other clip. This a very beautiful shot sequence. I fully recommend you rent/buy/watch this film if you can. Enjoy:

 

Basic Film Techniques: Wipe

The much maligned wipe – infamous for its inclusion in “tacky” wedding videos – has recently become a regularly implemented but rarely seen, or noticed, technique. The wipe is the technique where one shot is replaced by another by the movemnt of an edge, or line, which replaces the previous shot by “wiping” it. By revealing a new scene, environment or space the wipe offers a spatial or temporal transition to the director. The line-wipe, which just replaces shot A with shot B with a vertical line which moves across the screen, is the most basic wipe technique and is found in the earliest cinema. The line-wipe obtained a certain popularity in the 20’s and 30’s. The technique fell into disfavour due to its overt formal nature which foregrounds the construction of a film to an audience, an effect opposed to the philosophy of the continuity editing style.

One contemporary usage of the wipe technique is the reference to a by-gone era, a nostalgic replication of a previous era’s television or cinematic form. The television series The Nero Wolfe Mysteries utilizes the technique attempting to add to the verisimilitude and aura of authenticity established by the use of historical costume and dialogue. Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope (1977) also uses the wipe technique, reputedly a reference to older science fiction films. In the early science fiction films and television serials, such as Flash Gordon, the wipe is intended to replicate the turning of a page or movement between boxes in a comic book. George Lucas allusion to these older serials, through the technique of the wipe, is meant to convey the personal enjoyment and impact early science fiction had on the Star War’s universe.

 

As I noted before, the wipe fell out of favour due to it foregrounding a film’s construction. The wipe however is a common technique due to the rise of the “invisible”wipe which implements the continuity editing system’s general guidelines. The invisible-wipe can be seen, however contradictory that sounds, in The Usual Suspects (1994). The invisible-wipe uses an object, or some other aspect of the screen, instead of an imposed line, to perform the wipe. In The Usual Suspects a police officer walks from right to left and as he does his back is used to signal the transition from shot A to B. The police officer’s back replaces the line in the traditional line-wipe technique. Due to the use of the the object within the digesis to facilitate the transition between shot A and shot B the invisible-wipe does not foreground the construction of the film; the invisible-wipe does not highlight the film’s editing. [In the video below this technique can be seen around 3:20 into the clip].

 

Short Note…

If you haven’t noticed I am currently snowed under with work at the moment and have been unable to write up/complete some articles for this journal. I am busy untill the end of this month with work but am really comping at the bit to get back to writing articles. On the back burner is an analysis and breakdown of a classic car chase – from the film Seven-Ups – and some more Future Worlds articles. An article or two about postmodernism is on the cards – due to my time currently being filled with Fredric Jameson and co – and hopefully i’ll finally get my lazy head back to the psychoanalysis articles i’ve written notes for. I will also get back to the questions, emails and querys i have had in the near future – i promise! – however it is back to work for me (yes sir it is a late one).

Basic Film Techniques: Extreme Long Shot

The extreme long shot is a shot wherein the object, in the western genre typically the “lonerider”, occupies a small ratio of the screen space in relation to the setting or their surroundings. In the extreme long shot the screen space is filled primarily with the surroundings: in the western genre this is a panoramic view of a desolate plain, mountain or valley.

A central reason a director may choose to use an extreme long shot is that it can foreground an environment a central character is borne from or finds themselves in. This may facilitate the reading that a certain protagonist is isolated and far from civilizations’ help. It could also illustrate the barren, harsh environment an antagonist is borne from; thereby explaining his psychological state. In The Searchers (1956) the extreme long shots are used to locate Ethan, the dark protagonist, as comfortable and at one with the harsh environment of the West. An extreme long shot may also be implemented to indicate how lost, insignificant or ignored one may be in a large city such as London or New York. In The Bourne Identity (2002), and in fact all of the “Bourne” films, the extreme long shot is used to represent the idea that Bourne is “lost” or at least indistinguishable from the “law abiding” masses; agents of the CIA and other security forces are as indistinguishable and ignored as everyone else. The Bourne Identity uses the extreme long shot at an angle to produce the feeling that we are viewing the action from CCTV cameras. The feeling we are viewing Bourne’s movement from surveillance cameras adds to the sense that the CIA and governmental forces’ are potentially watching everything and everyone. The extreme long shot is an important film technique because it foregrounds an object or characters’ surroundings.

Tape Archive

Recently I mercilessly grabbed part of the soon to be, or recently, destroyed tape archive of the University of Sheffield. Here is what I got away with:

 

Ugetsu Monogatari – Kenji Mizoguchi (1953) Japan

Höstsonaten – Ingmar Bergman (1978 ) Sweden/Norway

Django – Sergio Corbucci (1966) Italy

Precinct 45: Los Angeles Police – Richard Fleischer (1972) USA

Ride Lonesome – Budd Boetticher (1959) USA

Timecop – Peter Hyams (1994) USA

Police – Maurice Pialat (1985) France

The Last of the Mohicans – Michael Mann (1992) USA

Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters – Paul Schrader (1985) USA

Rikya – Hiroshi Teshigahara (1989) Japan

La Muerte de un burócrata, Tomás Gutiérrez Alea (1966) Cuba

Pierrot Le Fou – Jean-Luc Godard (1965) France

The Shining – Stanley Kubrick (1980) USA

Candyman – Bernard Rose (1992) USA

Hellraiser – Clive Barker (1987) UK

Skagerrak – Søren Kragh-Jacobsen (2003) UK/Norway/Germany/France

Martin Scorsese Presents the Blues: Piano Blues – Clint Eastwood (2003) USA

L’Avventura – Michelangelo Antonioni (1960) Italy

Shivers – David Cronenberg (1975) USA

The Charge of the Light Brigade – Tony Richardson (1968 ) UK

Rembrandt – Alexander Korda (1936) UK

Bonjour tristesse – Otto Preminger (1958 ) UK

Riten – Ingmar Bergman (1969) Sweden

Touch of Evil – Orson Wells (1958 ) USA

Die Zweite Heimat – Zeitz (1991) Germany

Death Wish – Micheal Winner (1974) USA

On The Waterfront – Elia Kazan (1954) USA

Drums Along The Mohawk – John Ford (1939) USA

Experiment Perious – Jacques Tourneur (1944) USA

You Can’t Have Everything – Norman Taurog (1937) USA

La Madre Muerta – Juanma Bajo Ulloa (1993) Spain

L’Amour à mort – Alain Resnais (1984) France

The Jackal – Michael Caton-Jones (1997) USA

I know What You Did Last Summer – Jim Gillespie (1997) USA

Yerma – Imre Gyöngyössy & Barna Kabay (1985) Hungary/West Germany

Vámmentes házasság – János Zsombolyai (1980) Hungary/Finland

Mad Max 2 – George Miller (1981) Australia

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome – George Miller (1985) Australia

Ocean’s Eleven – Lewis Milestone (1960) USA

Sommersby – Jon Amiel (1993) USA

American Gigolo – Paul Schrader (1980) USA

Missing – Costa-Gavras (1982) USA

The Shootist – Don Siegel (1976) USA

What Price Hollywood – George Cukor (1932) USA

Miracle In Milan – Vittorio De Sica (1951) Italy

Bicycle Thieves – Vittorio De Sica (1948 ) Italy

Jerry Maguire – Cameron Crowe (1996) USA

A Hungarian Fairy Tale – Gyula Gazdag (1987) Hungary

Stagecoach – John Ford (1939) USA

The Blob – Irvin S. Yeaworth Jr. (1958 ) USA

Groundhog Day – Harold Ramis (1993) USA

The Horse Soldiers – John Ford (1959) USA

Attack – Robert Aldrich (1956) USA

Commando – Mark L. Lester (1985) USA

The Company of Wolves – Neil Jordan (1984) UK

L’Enfant Sauvage – Francois Truffaut (1970) France

Les Deux anglaises et le continent – Francois Truffaut (1971) France

The Asphalt Jungle – John Huston (1950) USA

The Assassination Bureau – Basil Dearden (1969) UK

Neak sre – Rithy Panh (1994) Cambodia/France

For Whom the Bell Tolls – Sam Wood (1943) USA

Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne – Robert Bresson (1945) France

Mister Roberts – John Ford & Mervyn LeRoy (1955) USA

The Great Ziegfeld – Robert Z. Leonard (1936) USA

Arena Profile: Kurosawa – Adam Low (2001) UK

Bonnie and Clyde – Arthur Penn (1967) USA

Gosford Park – Robert Altman (2001) UK

Hangmen Also Die! – Fritz Lang (1943) USA

The Boy With Green Hair – Joseph Losey (1948 ) USA

Teaserama – Irving Klaw (1955) USA

Storyville: A Small Town In Poland – Marian Marzynski (1999) UK

Blood on the Moon – Robert Wise (1948 ) USA

Cheyenne Autumn – John Ford (1964) USA

Rookie of the Year – Daniel Stern (1993) USA

Angels in the Outfield – William Dear (1994) USA

Twelve Monkeys – Terry Gilliam (1995) USA

Summer Stock – Charles Walters (1950) USA

Lonely Hearts – Paul Cox (1982) Australia

Shane – George Stevens (1953) USA

Citizen’s Band – Jonathan Demme (1977) USA

Je vous salue, Marie – Jean-Luc Godard (1985) France

La Grande bouffe – Marco Ferreri (1973) France/Italy

The Book of Life – Hal Hartley (1998 ) France/USA

Se7en – David Fincher (1995) USA

Ponette – Jacques Doillon (1996) France

Paint Your Wagon – Joshua Logan (1969) USA

To Live and Die in Tsimshatsui – Wai-keung Lau & Jing Wong (1994) Hong Kong

Ed Wood – Tim Burton (1994) USA

The Sicilian – Michael Cimino (1987) USA

Borderline – ???? (1994) Germany/UK

Der Dibuk – Michal Waszynski (1937) Poland

Xanadu – Armitage Film Poem (1996) UK

Boogie Nights – Paul Thomas Anderson (1997) USA

Breaking the Code – Herbert Wise (1996) UK

Aux yeux du monde – Eric Rochant (1991) France

Blade Runner (original cut) – Ridley Scott (1982) USA

Alive – Frank Marshall (1993) USA

Hets – Alf Sjöberg (1944) Sweden

Crooklyn – Spike Lee (1994) USA

Logan’s Run – Michael Anderson (1976) USA

Le Sang d’un poète – Jean Cocteau (1930) France

La Marseillaise – Jean Renoir (1938 ) France

The Long Voyage Home – John Ford (1940) USA

Force majeure – Pierre Jolivet (1989) France

RoboCop 2 – Irvin Kershner (1990) USA

Le Grand chemin – Jean-Loup Hubert (1987) France

Akahige – Akira Kurosawa (1965) Japan

La Sirène du Mississipi – François Truffaut (1969) France

Bitter Moon – Roman Polanski (1992) UK/France

The Passion of Joan of Arc – Carl Theodor Dreyer (1928 ) France

La Jetée – Chris Marker (1962) France

Safe House – Eric Steven Stahl (2000) USA

Shizukanaru ketto – Akira Kurosawa (1949) Japan

The Kentuckian – Burt Lancaster (1955) USA

Divine Madness! – Michael Ritchie (1980) USA

L’Appartement – Gilles Mimouni (1996) Italy/Spain/France

The Seven-Ups – Philip D’Antoni (1973) USA

BASEketball – David Zucker (1998 ) USA

Down by Law – Jim Jarmusch (1986) USA/West Germany

The French Connection – William Friedkin (1971) USA

Le Beau Serge – Claude Chabrol (1958 ) France

Baby Doll – Elia Kazan (1956) USA

Farinelli – Gérard Corbiau (1994) Belgium/France/Italy/USA

The Man in the Iron Mask – James Whale (1939) USA

La Fille de d’Artagnan – Bertrand Tavernier (1994) France

Misery – Rob Reiner (1990) USA

Longtime Companion – Norman René (1990) USA

Battleground – William A. Wellman (1949) USA

French Connection II – John Frankenheimer (1975) USA

Les Nuits fauves – Cyril Collard (1992) UK/Italy/France

The FBI Story – Mervyn LeRoy (1959) USA

Cover Girl Killer – Terry Bishop (1959) UK

Ma nuit chez Maud – Eric Rohmer (1969) France

Rikos ja rangaistus – Aki Kaurismäki (1983) Finland

Poetic Justice – John Singleton (1993) USA

Al Capone – Richard Wilson (1959) USA

Under Milk Wood – Andrew Sinclair (1972) UK

The Punisher – Mark Goldblatt (1989) Australia/UK

Here Come the Waves – Mark Sandrich (1944) USA

Gumshoe – Stephen Frears (1971) UK

Holiday – George Cukor (1938 ) USA

Les Bonnes femmes – Claude Chabrol (1960) France/Italy

Les Amants – Louis Malle (1958 ) France

So Red the Rose – King Vidor (1935) USA

The Magnificent Seven – John Sturges (1960) USA

The Young Stranger – John Frankenheimer (1957) USA

Sarraounia – Med Hondo (1986) Burkina Faso/Mauritania/France

Bon Voyage – Alfred Hitchcock (1944) UK

Aventure malgache – Alfred Hitchcock (1944) UK

Jungle Fever – Spike Lee (1991) USA

 

 

Basic Film Techniques: Slow Motion

Slow motion is the technique through which time appears slowed down. The slow motion technique regularly used in cinema is the process of “overcranking” which entails a camera capturing an image at a rate faster than it will be projected. The slow motion technique used in sports replays tends not to use this method, as it requires cameras set up to film entirely in the slow motion method. Slow motion replays tend to be regularly recorded footage replayed at a slower speed. Films use the “overcranking” method because of the clarity and superior image reproduction. The aesthetic quality of the “replay” method is much lower however much more adaptable and sensible for live television. The logistical efforts required to use the “overcranking” method make it non-viable financially however cricket has occasionally used the “overcranking” method to analyse a bowlers or batters technique in depth. This slow motion analysis has revealed the extent a bat spins in the hands of the batsman when they strike a cricket ball and has come as a great surprise to many cricket coaches. The slow motion technique has been adapted and used in many films to produce contrasting readings concerning similar ground. I noted that one distinct reading is found in Cross Of Iron (1977) ‘The hyperbole of violence, normal in all war films, is brought to the foreground… by the repeated use of slow motion’. The film’s use of slow motion ensures ‘we as viewers are not permitted to ignore the ignoble truth of every bullet’. Slow motion in Cross Of Iron is used to produce an anti-war message; slow motion is used to critique violence. The technique of slow motion however is often used for converse reasons as indicated in many action films, one such film I looked at was The Defender (1994). ‘The technique of the slow motion is used not to expose the violence as shocking but rather so that the audience can wonder and understand the fast movements and skillful attacks’. The slow motion technique in The Defender ‘produces a sense of invulnerability and brilliance in the one character who continuously dishes out punishment rather than receives it’. Slow motion is used to facilitate enjoyment and wonder at the brilliance of the central protagonist – a reading contrary to that which is intended in Cross Of Iron. The slow motion technique can be used for numerous readings. The technique highlights physical movements facilitating the audience to concentrate on such things as the underlying horror of an action or the brilliant or exceptional abilities of a character.

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas from the Motley View and happy holidays etc!

I’ll be drinking lots of Port and beer. Have a good one!

Basic Film Techniques: The Dissolve

The dissolve is a common film technique which is often used as an indicator of a passage of time; therefore the dissolve often falls under the umbrella of the elliptical editing techniques. The dissolve technique is a transition between two shots where shot (q) gradually disappears while the succeeding shot appears. The dissolve is a soft cut and is therefore an integral part of a film maker’s toolbox. The dissolve technique negates the harshness of cutting between two graphically unmatched images or the change to an awkward camera angle and is consequently often used in the continuity editing system. The dissolve is most commonly used to indicate a significant change of time. A shot of a setting sun may dissolve into the night sky to indicate several hours passing. The dissolve technique dissipates the dislocating nature of transition from one spatial or temporal environment to another. Because of this it is sparsely used in action films because these films require fast, energetic transitions to imitate and communicate the film’s dramatic and adrenaline-soaked nature.

December

As you may or may not have noticed this journal has been quiet for the month of December. I have been piled under work again – the mentally and physically draining type – but I have just appropriated part of a film archive/library which includes some rare and expensive films which will help this journal no end. The number of films is somewhere in the region of 70-90 films but I will have to sort it out before I can be sure on the number (plus I need to build a self!). Although Christmas is always a busy time I am free enough t0 be able to get back to writing and editing pieces etc soon. (hurrah)