film Q&As
sharon1997
PaulineKael.pptxPauline Kael
“Circles and Squares”
Pauline Kael
Kael starts by examining the last part of Sarris’ “Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962.” She questions his word choice (internal meaning as opposed to meaning; essentially feminine and virile) and then goes on to note how “we would never get anywhere with Sarris if we tried to examine what he is saying sentence by sentence.” (13)
Pauline Kael
Kael posits that auteur theory is not exceptional because “in every art form, critics traditionally notice and point out the way that artists borrow from themselves (as well as from others) and how the same devices, techniques, and themes reappear in their work.” (13)
She argues that “repetition without development is decline.” (13)
She explains that the way auteur theory has been explained is reductive; it’s basically a formula.
Pauline Kael
Her explanation of what critics do is educational: “Critics use a full range of intelligence and intuition, rather than relying on formulas. Criticism is an art, not a science, and a critic who follows rules will fail in one of his most important functions: perceiving what is original and important in new work and helping others to see.” (14) Also “it takes extraordinary intelligence and discrimination and taste to use any theory in the arts, and that without those qualities a theory becomes a rigid formula.” (14)
How do you feel critics function today?
Pauline Kael
Technical Competence
Kael delineates that Sarris’ first premise is shaky. “Sometimes the greatest artists in a medium by-pass or violate the simple technical competence that is so necessary for hacks.” (14)
“An artist who is not a good technician can indeed create new standards.” (14)
“Great new directors are very likely to be condemned precisely on the grounds that they’re even good directors, that they don’t know their ‘business.’” (14)
How does “knowing their business” change when directors are not white men?
5
Pauline Kael
“The director must be judged on the basis of what he produces – his films – and if he can make great films without knowing the standard methods.” (14)
Her frustration is that auteur critics seem enthralled with the routine material of directors.
Pauline Kael
Distinguishable Personality
Kael feels that this idea is not plausible. For example, we often notice a director’s style when the film is bad. She argues that Hitchcock had a “personal theory of audience psychology” more than personal style. And she thinks this demonstrates his contempt for audiences.
Note on Hitchcock.
Pauline Kael
She also notes who the auteurs dismiss
John Huston (see Graham Petrie)
She finds it problematic that Sarris then calls some of Huston’s good films “actors’ classics.”
For Kael, this category is a “cult of personality.” (17)
Pauline Kael
Interior Meaning
The auteur critics downgrade writer-directors (remember Sarris) because there is no tension between the director’s personality and the material.
Interior meaning is simply mystique.
For Kael, this type of formula seems to be desirable if the goal is to eliminate the critic.
However critics should “transmit their knowledge and enthusiasm for art to others.” (21)
Pauline Kael
She shows how this type of work is anti-art.
It can be dangerous because it doesn’t give new artists something to strive for in order to be unique.
And its definitions are lacking.. “you know it when you see it.”
