Details. article: Circles and Squares; author(s): Pauline Kael; journal: Film Quarterly (01/Apr/); issue: volume 16, issue 3, pages ; DOI. Circles and Squares. Pauline Kael. FILM QUART, Vol. 16 No. 3, Spring, ; ( pp. ) DOI: / Pauline Kael. Find this author on Google. A rejection of Sarris’ auteur theory Learn with flashcards, games, and more — for free.
|Published (Last):||1 February 2017|
|PDF File Size:||17.56 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.73 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
South Yorkshire England View all posts sqquares A. Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. The auteur critic, according to Kael, prefers products made out of inferior products: They want a simple answer, a formula; if they approached a chef they would probably ask for the one magic recipe that could be followed in all cooking.
Kael goes on to add: It is squarrs insult to an artist to praise his bad work along with his good; it indicates that you are incapable of judging either To Kael, Sarris concentrates on what is established, unoriginal in a work and ignores new ideas, one-offs and innovations. Really like the sqaures, this has been a lot of help with my dissertation thank squades.
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. He is not necessarily a bad critic if he makes errors in judgment. Kael proceeds by exploring the three premises or criterion of judgement that Sarris sets out.
What Kael seems circes be asking is whether this is really a good criterion for the critique of film. The smell of a skunk is more distinguishable than the perfume of a rose; does that make it better?. I read your posts for quite a long time and should tell you that your articles are always valuable to readers. It takes circkes intelligence and discrimination and taste to use any theory in the arts, and that without those qualitites, a theory becomes a rigid formula which is indeed what is happening among auteur critics.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. There must be another circle that Sarris forget to get to – the one where the secrets are kept. Kael goes on to add:. 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.
And the greatness of a director like Cocteau has nothing to do with mere technical competence: But how does this distinguishable personality function as a criterion for judging the works? I will indicate where I feel both critics have got things right and got things wrong.
Film Quarterly () – Circles and Squares – The Alfred Hitchcock Wiki
In essence Kael is arguing that the distinguishable personality of a director is a poor choice for criterion of judgement. Post was not sent – check your square addresses! You are commenting using your Facebook account.
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 oael not, indicate the better director between the two. The smell of a skunk is more distinguishable than the perfume of a rose; does that make it better? As Kael notes artists have always re-used older material. Jan Feb Mar Apr. Often the works in which we are most aware of the personality of the director are his worst films – when he falls back on the devices he has already done to death.
Infallible taste is inconceivable; what could it be measured against?
A Couple of Squared Circles, Sarris and Kael – Part II
The distinguishable personality of the director as a criterion of value. Introductory Readings2nd Edition, Oxford: 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. This is not so far from the way the auteur critics work, either.
The technical competence of a director as a criterion of value. Film aesthetics as a distinct, specialized field is a bad joke. Oct Nov Dec Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here 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.
The greatness of critics like Bazin in France and Agee in America may have something to do with their using their full range of intelligence and intuition, rather than relying kqel formulas.
A Couple of Squared Circles, Sarris and Kael – Part II – The Motley View
You are commenting using your Twitter account. Those, like Sarris, who ask for objective standards seem to want a theory of criticism which makes the critic unnecessary. You are commenting using your WordPress. Fill in your details below squarees click an icon to log in: These critics work embarrassingly hard trying to give some semblance of intellectual respectability to a preoccupation with mindless, repetitious commercial products.
And it is very difficult to explain to such people that criticism is exciting just because there is no formula to apply, just because you must use everything you are and everything you know that is relevant, and that film criticism is particularly exciting just because of the multiplicity of elements in film art.
Notify me of new comments via email. 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. The Inner Circle The third and ultimate premise of the auteur theory is concerned with interior meaning, the ultimate glory of the cinema as an art.