VOLUME 09 - NUMBER 03 MAY-JUNE 1973

l iS this thought. Polarization is basic to all processes others, and within these, units made up of given of thought and language, as a form of c larification production teams or devoted to creating certain and ordering of the world about us; dynamism genres of film (topical , comedy , epi c , se rial ) . reflects both the ongoing process of thought and- this is most crucial-the essential nature of myth : Whether Warner Brothers or Ufa or the Rus- an obsessive , repetitive conceptualizing of a dilem- sian experimental ists were possessed of \" a common ma or contradiction , the meaning of which is hidden conception of the wo rld \" is a matter for research from the narrator who rather compulsively tells and and study, not for arbitrary pronouncement. But if retells versions of the myth . one can draw upon the kind of intuitive judgment built up from seeing films , this criterion seems likely Structural study consists , then , in breaking down to be met. One would have to allow for the syncretic many versions of a myth into significant elements, forces that affect all communities in the modern arranging these in the polarized patterns natural to world (Lang travels to Hollywood, Kubrick to En- myth , and noting clusters of relations . One discovers gland), but the gestalt ambiance of a community the core of the myth only upon an ex am ination of is more frequently reflected in films than not. Before all of the individual analyses. What the myth is leaving th is topic it is worth underlining Levi- \" about \" usually proves to be something quite dif- Strauss's statement that a myth may be \" any mani- ferent from its surface meaning. If its content were festation \" of the social or mental activities of a not hidden from the narrators, they would have no community . By this token , the publicity and life-style reason to obsessively reshape it, retell it, and accord of a film community (say Hollywood in the Twenties) it such significance in their lives . Once a myth has would qualify as versions of its myth or myths . been penetrated and understood , it dies; it no longer functions as an expression of a dilemma or contra- A second major criterion that films would have diction . The nonliving mythologies of the world are to answer in order to qualify as bona fide myths fossilized dynamic thought which has been discard- is that they must arise out of a \" dialectical system ed because it was resolved , outgrown , or made of contrasts and correlations \" that is logical , con- irrelevant by events or cultural evolution . The analyst sistent, and demonstrably typical of the community begins his task on the same footing with the creator under study. Such systems in the myths Levi-Strauss of myth-in a condition of ignorance . If he is assidu- analyzes are usually zoological , botanical , or made ous he can read the riddle at the center of the myth up of tangible qualities (the raw and the cooked). and see how al l of its versions are related . Levi-Strauss 's major contribution to myth may be the insight that abstract ideas can be conveyed Th is is all general and abstruse and can only be through the manipulation of such \" empirical cate- clarified through specific applications to film . I wi.11 gories. \" Modern societies no longer employ taxo- take up the most provocative of Levi-Strauss's in- nomic schemes made up of plants and animals, but Sights in the general o rder of their importance and we do employ comparable schemes of many sorts. breadth of application . We will then be in a position Films are especially rich in schemes constructed of to assess the achievements of current auteur-struc- physical objects (clothing , parts of the body, fur- tural studies and to suggest further uses that might nishings, topography) or of qualities (beauty-ugli- be made of the structural approach . ness, darkness-light) . These systems function in myths as codes: one must discover, frequently Before films can be equated with myths they must through interview or research , the meaning or fulfill one fundamental condition: they must origi- significance accorded a land tortoise by a primitive nate in a community possessed of a \" common community before one can \" read \" a myth in which conception of the world .\" Only in such a community it appears; similarly one must discover the can the sort of dialectical system typical of myth significance accorded a monocle in Hollywood in be coherent. Given th is criterion , myth may be \" any the late Twenties or a black shirt in the early Thirties manifestation of the mental or social activities of to \" read \" the appropriate character traits of Von the communities under consideration. \" \" Let us Strohe im or Tim McCoy . Certainly films , with their measure film against this primary criterion . Film almost compulsive and fetishistic attachment to history is usually written as an analysis of communal physical objects, reveal many codified schemes blocks of art, defined as national schools or styles upon even casual analysis. And such schemes can , (German expressionism , Italian neo-realism) , as in- with discernment, be found in lighting , camera , ternational movements (Surrealism , the New Wave) editing , and acting styles , as well as musical scores or as studio-centered styles ( Biograph , Ufa , (the codification of music begins early with the Warner Brothers). Such tidy bins always do violence K i n o t h e k s ). to the dynamic, creative interplay of art history, but they are probably no less arbitrary than the \" com- Whether these codes are part of a careful , logical munities\" that Levi-Strauss defines for study. And system can only be established through research . they do reflect the fact that films are generally My own preliminary attempts at analysis suggest that produced as communal efforts. Hollywood at its they are-but that they are affected by many more zenith resembled a complex social structure not contingencies than appear in Levi-Strauss 's myths . unlike the family-clan-village structures that Levi- With myths one must contend with the abilities of Strauss works with . Within the larger community narrators, lapses of memory , all sorts of disruptive called Hollywood there existed the distinctive cul- cultural forces (although Levi-Strauss virtually ne- tures of Warners , MGM , Paramount , Republic , and gates all of these by treating ind ividual myths as FILM COMMENT 49

\" found objects\" ); whereas with films one must con- and compulsively consumed (\" they 're showing four sider physical as well as artistic and cultural forces Clint Eastwoods at the Drive-In \" ). This dreamlike -that is , accidents that affect the achievement of repetitiveness points unerringly to their mythic the screen image (casting , change of script, cen- character. In Levi-Strauss 's terms , a myth is the sorship , loss of a shot, and so forth ) and of the embodiment of a dilemma or contradiction ; and its conceptual schemes of the writer and / or director. repetitiveness , which grows out of its compulsive Perhaps these problems are no more inhibiting for nature , functions to make its structure apparent. Or structuralism than fo r any form of film criticism ; but to make the same point in applied terms , the hero we cannot treat films as found objects , because we who is central to the detective action film is an know too much about how they are made. embodied dilemma: if th is dilemma were resolved by filmmakers and viewers the hero would cease The study of codes central to periods of film , to attract them. That is, I believe, an extremely studios , genres, even individual directors could also seminal insight . It can be applied to individual char- illuminate the logical systems of directors who react acter types, to entire plots, to genres of film , to series against traditional codified systems or work subver- or \" runs \" (Andy Hardy, motorcycle films) and so sively within them (Truffaut, Godard , Bufluel , Sirk). forth. The dioscuric union of filmmakers and their I am not implying something as simple as a study audience produces a strange Janus of art-myths of how Hollywood thugs wear hats in order to made by myth makers that are only certified as true footnote the image of the hired killers in SHOOT THE or untrue after they have been created . Perhaps the PIANO PLAYER (we don 't need analysis of what is best index to authentically mythic films , then , is the already an implicit analysis), but rather a study that yearly box-office ratings . would help us comprehend the ambiguous tensions Truffaut maintains between traditional and novel Two more of Levi-Strauss's stipulations deserve images, gestures, or musical effects-those details brief consideration . The first is that every myth is of the film which may lead us to the central myth only a limited application of the pattern that emerges that Truffaut expresses . If the meaning of a myth as the analysis of a body of myths proceeds. This is hidden from its creator , Truffaut's film is neither means , quite simply , that many films must be ana- an homage to or a satire on Hollywood (even if-or lyzed before a valid structure can be discerned . especially if-these definitions satisfy Truffaut). The Presumably, one must analyze a substantial quantity myth it embodies will be discovered through analysis of De Mille epics o ( Republic Westerns before sub- of the \" bundle of relations\" that constitute the entire stantive discoveries will be made. Or if one is focus- film , and comparison with analyses of other French ing upon a given studio or era, one would have to New Wave films . consider films of many genres. Before leaving the subject of the codes that The second stipulation brings us to the end of constitute the \" dialectical system of contrasts and this discussion and can serve as a bridge back to correlations \" in films , we should note one important the subject of auteur-structuralism. It is that figures distinction between films and the narratives that in myths have meanings only in relation to other Levi-Strauss analyzes. To put the distinction figures. They cannot be assigned set meanings, as aphoristically: anyone in a community can tell a myth , is typically done in an archetypal or Freudian analy- but only MGM can make a movie. The codes found sis, nor should they be expected to maintain the in films are closely linked to the creative processes same meaning in so dynamic a thought-form as behind the film : they are narrative, visual , and aural myth . Again we can illustrate the argument better codes of great variety originating often in individual than we can paraphrase it. Jane Darwell is Jung 's minds, often evolved as part of a studio or produc- archetype of the \" Good Mother\" as certainly as tion team style, or even derived from the larger Joan Collins is an \" Evil Anima .\" The Jungian system community that surrounds the filmma~ers (docu- also allows for mixed archetypes , but one way or mentary, locale shooting , expose). Even when another the meaning tends to get fi xed. For a struc- evolved within a film community , they are related turalist , Jane Darwell 's \" meaning \" in , say , THE to the codes of the larger community of filmgoers- GRAPES OF WRATH would be ex pressed as a series or else audiences would find the films incompre- of relations-to other characters, to ideas if she hensible. The most accessible film codes, I would functions allegorically, or expressed in terms of suggest, are those intrinsic in the script, in the contrasting camera treatments, musical leit motifs, visuals , and in the music, especially when it is or mimetic styles. The search is not for what she through-composed or thoroughly cut to the film (as resembles or for what she symbolizes, but rather were the best Kinothek scores for silent films) . Films for the meaning of the myth in which she is one seem to meet the criteria discussed so far , although figure entering into many relations. the analyst's task is undeniably comple x . The issue of how figures are to be interpreted The next requirement, that the meaning of a myth takes us to the heart of the whole enterprise I have be hidden from its narrator, seems less problem- characterized as auteur-structuralism . Each of the atical. Perhaps no other major art form is so charac- authors mentioned earlier employs a unique critical teristically opaque to its creators and consumers method , although each is nomin ally a structuralist. as is the cinema . The dominant metaphor for the Which of them most closely approximates the meth- film experience from Melies to Fellini has been a od elaborated by Levi-Strauss? Nowell-Smith makes \" dream ,\" and like dreams, films perform magical a careful analysis of relationships in individual films , psychic functions . They are also endlessly repetitive and is especially attentive to the shifting nature of 50 MAY 1973

these relationships and to dialectical progressions. nineteenth-century conception , attuned to the belief But his initial premise is that Visconti developed too much as an artist to make a comparative study of in purposive evolution . The modern study of myth his films possible. He prefers to \" consider the film singly , attempting in the analysis of each to bring has attacked or mitigated against evolutionary out its relationship, hidden or overt, to the rest of Visconti 's work.\" The absence of a thoroughly com- schemes and has substituted synchronic studies of parative method not only qualifies his structuralism , it raises the profound issue of whether or not the motifs, types, and forms . The reaction has undoubt- body of films produced by an individual director over a period of years can quality as a \" set\" of myths . edly been extreme . We must use judgment in decid - Let us return to this question at the end of the discussion. ing to what degree a director conforms to Renoir'S Kitses does analyze the canon of a director's definition and invites a mythic analysis; and we must works as a single body of myth , but his individual figures are defined in archetypal and iconic terms ; anticipate that an apparent evolution in style and their meanings are traditional rather than dependent upon relat ionships within each film. Only his em- theme may only mask what is recurrent in a body phasis upon the dynamic interaction of the figures and their tendency to form anti nomic pairs resem- of work. bles Levi-Strauss 's analysis. Lovell 's method is ex- tremely close to Kitses, employing a mixture of The structuralist method , considered in all of its archetypal and structural inSights. potential applications , will probably be productive Of all the critics, Peter Wollen shows the closest familiarity with Levi-Strauss's writings . His analysis in proportion to the discretion and intelligence with of Hawks and Ford , though only intended to be exploratory and suggestive, is less attuned to ar- which it is applied. Its promise , however, is undeni- chetypes, is thoroughly directed at \" bundles of relations\" and is founded on the premise that \"it able: the cinema, after sensationalist and arty be- is only the analysis of the whole corpus which permits the moment of synthesis when the critic ginnings, took over the communal myth-making returns to the individual film \" (page 104). functions of a variety of dramatic, literary and oral It would seem, then , that there are two betes noires roaming the domain of the current auteur- forms-and all but supplanted them. And it came structuralists: the questions of how figures are to be interpreted , and of the degree to which an to serve as a vehicle for more private mythologies , auteur's works possess the same unity to a commu- nal body of myth. The laying of the first beast was like those of Cocteau , Bufluel, and Bergman . What Levi-Strauss's primary task in \"The Structural Study of Myth \": \" If there is a meaning to be found in is more problematical is the pursuing of studies that mythology, it cannot reside in the isolated elements which enter into the composition of a myth, but only depend upon long-term access to or possession of in the way those elements are combined \" (page 206). So much , it appears, for father-figures , tradi- large numbers of films. My own experience is that tional icons , and Henry Nash Smith 's wilderness and garden . The acceptance of such set meanings may only third , fourth and fifth viewings of films bring not only blind us to important shifts of relationship , it may also commit us to the surface meaning of the intimate familiarity required for structural analy- the myth-to the narrator's rationalized account of what his story is about, or the critic 's overlay of sis . But for those who can surmount this obstacle, fossilized myth upon a living structure. Of course, traditional meanings may well emerge from the there remains much to be done beyond what current process of analysis ; but the point is that they will be discovered rather than established a priori. auteur-structuralism has suggested . 11111111 The question of the degree of unity in an auteur 's ' Screen has recently published a translation of Cahiers ' very impor- work is less easily resolved , although two reflections tant collective analysis of Ford 's YOUNG MR . LINCOLN . In the intro- come to mind: Renoir's opinion that a director ductory remarks Cahiers characterizes structural analysis as the spends his life making one film ; and Elizabeth \" dissection of an object conceived of as a closed structure , the Sewell 's contention that every artist creates the myth cataloguing of progressively smaller and more 'discreet' units ,\" by which he is to be interpreted . Both buttress the ignoring their use by the filmmaker and \" the dynamic of the main premise that is implicit in the auteur theory : inscription \" (Screen , 13, No . 3, page 6) . This reflects early attitudes that a director's body of work possesses unity. The of Althusser, Cahiers ' principal mentor, toward all forms of intellec- alternative notion , that an artist evolves through tual effort conceived within bourgeois ideologies which show little disparate stages of thought and technique , is a more or no consciousness of their own premises and restrictions. But in his 1968 essay , \" Lenin and Philosophy,\" Althusser acknowl- edged that philosophy in the future has a true object- \" pure thought,\" and then added : \" ... what else is Levi-Strauss up to today , on his own admission , and by appeal to Engel 's authority? He , too , is studying the laws, let us say the structures of thought\" (Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays , trans. Ben Brewster, New York, 1971 , page 59) . I interpret this as a validation of Levi-Strauss 's objectives and his method: a Marx ist reading of myth must also comprehend the structures that the mind creates and. imposes upon all art; it will simply see more and different structures (see Alt- husser's reading of the temporal structures of Bertolazzi and Brecht in On Marx). ' Luchino Visconti (1967 ; New York, Doubleday and Co ., 1968) , page 10 . ' Signs and Meaning in the Cinema (Indiana University Press , 1969), page 81 . ' Horizons West (1969 ; Indiana University Press, 1970), page 7. ' ''Robin Wood~A Dissenting View, \" Screen, 10, No. 2 (Mar. / Apr. 1969), pages 47-48 . ' Robin Wood , \" Ghostly Paradigm and H.C.F.: An Answer to Alan Lovell ,\" Screen , 10, NO. 3 (May / June, 1969) , pages 35-47 ; Alan Lovell , \"The Common Pursuit of True Judgement ,\" Screen , 11 , No . 4 / 5 (Aug .l Sept. , 1970) , pages 76-88 ; John C. Murray, \"Robin Wood and the Stru ctural Critics, \" Screen , 12, NO. 3 (Summer , 1971 ), pages 101-110; Ben Brewster, \" Structuralism in Film Criti- cism ,\" Screen, 12, No . 1 (Spring , 1971), pages 49-58 . ' In Structural Anthropology, trans . Claire Jacobson and Brook Schoepf (1958; New York, Doubleday and Co ., 1963). ' Trans . John and Doreen Weightman (1964; New York, Harper and Row , 1970), pages 1-32. ''' Structural Study, \" page 207 . \" See Levi-Strauss's analysis of the Oedipus and \" Zuni emergence\" myths in \" Structural Study,\" and his article \" Le Triangle culinaire ,\" L 'Arc, No . 26 (Ai x-en-Provence, 1965), pages 19-29. The latter serves as an introduction to the analysis employed throughout the three published volumes of Mythologiques. The best interpretation is that of Edmund Leach , Claude Levi-Strauss (New York , Viking Press , 1970) . \" \" Structural Study,\" page 221 . \"\"Overture,\" page 8. FILM COMMENT 51

Structuralism 1 Linguistics, Structuralism, and Semiology Approaches to the cinema, with a bibliography by John C. Hanhardt and Charles H. Harpole John Hanhardt and Charles Harpole are graduate cultural expressions-his \"systemic texts.\" Semiol- students in the Department of Cinema Studies at ogy, on the other hand , is concerned with specific New York University. codes rather than the establishmment of an innate or universal structuring common to all texts or In recent years, structuralism and semiology have systems. Christian Metz makes the distinction clear received much attention as methods for analyzing when asked , in film study, if semiological analysis and interpreting film. But access to the full range is the \" Iogified description of the mass of codes\" of the literature of structuralism and semiology is that can be identified as \"specifically cinemato- difficult at present, especially to those whose only graphic\" : , reading language is English. The very fact that these terms have become fashionable has encouraged the That is indeed the object of the semiotics of the glib use of methods and ideas that have not been cinema. But it is not that of the structural analysis sufficiently resolved. Structuralism and semiology of film . The object of the latter is the particular are relatively new endeavors-born of the twentieth structure of each film taken as a whole: we must century, like the cinema, with no fully accepted then take into account all the codes that appear jargon or notational systems. in the film under consideration , and whether they are specific to the cinema or not. These, it seems Accordingly , in the following text, we introduce to me, are two fundamental approaches: related, definitions, problem areas, and central issues relat- complementary, and yet distinct, because they do ed to the development and use of the terms struc- not both obey the same principle of pertinency. One turalism and semiology. We also discuss (in prefer- can trace a single code through several texts; one ential order) works central to the linguistic, can grasp a single text through all its codes. The structural, semiotic, and arts- and cinema-related first approach is the study of codes (a code always aspects of the fields. A collected selective bibliog- appears in several texts) , and the second is the study raphy follows which offers a comprehensive list of of texts (a text always involves several codes).1 readings that should guide the individual who wishes to approach, in a more than tentative fashion , Structuralism and semiology do have some the roots and complexities of structuralism and affinity. First, much semiological study has used semiology-specifically as related to cinema studies. structuralist methodology (as in Metz and Peter Wollen) . And structuralist investigations have fre- Despite the current frequent use of the terms quently involved work with signs and sign systems . together there is a distinct difference between the In fact , the interrelated deployment of structural and meaning of the terms structuralism and semiology. semiological concerns that has occurred so often Structuralism rejects the interpretation of man 's in the relatively infant stages of such studies has social organizations and cultural artifacts as a histo- created much of the misunderstanding voiced when ry of unique events and manifestations which should scholars and students , especially of the cinema, be analyzed individually in order to highlight the gather. Of course, the fact that studies of struc- differences. It replaces this study of surface events with a method which attempts to analyze compara- turalism and semiology have grown together does tively the deep structures, thus locating those dis- not mean that they are necessarily the best pattern tinctive features common to all of man 's social and for inquiry. Actually, it may well be that a thorough questioning of this teaming will yield as much or more than the kind of work already done. Secondly, structuralism and semiology share, if 52 MAY 1973

not their origins , at least their roots in the science of the application of structural linguistic approaches of linguistics. Linguistics, a \" discipline\" long before to anthropology (naming Levi-Strauss particularly) structuralist and semiological concerns took names, is based upon the limitations of phonological analy- saw the rise both of structuralism within itself (as sis . ~homsky says: structural linguistics) and of semiology, which , ac- cording to Ferdinand de Saussure, should encom- The achievement of structuralist phonology was pass linguistics in its general study of all signs. to show that the phonological rules of a great variety Indeed , linguistic research is so important to our of languages apply to classes of elements that can topic that further detail is necessary at th is point. be simply characterized in terms of these features : that historical change affects such classes in a Linguistic study yields two \" basics\" that are also uniform way: and that the organization of features at the bottom of both the structuralist method and semiology. These seminal foundations are the be- plays a basic role in the use and acquisition of liefs that making patterns-structuring-is basic and common to all human minds, and that language is language. This was a discovery of the greatest the \" outering\" of that mental pattern-making which importance, and it provides the groundwork for can serve as the point of access for study of lan- much of contemporary linguistics. But if we abstract guage (or other) structuring . away from the specific, universal set of features and the rule systems in which they function , little of any Historically , much concern in linguistics has been significance remains2 focused on determining those properties common to all languages on a syntactic, phonolog- Chomsky rejects other investigations based upon ical , and semantic level. The Prague Circle of Lin- the patterns developed for structural study of pho- guists , led by Roman Jakobson and N. S. Trubetz- nology because, \" the structure of the phonological koy , have done pioneering structuralist research in system is of very little interest as a formal object.' ' 3 linguistics. The current studies being done in struc- However , his criticism of phonological analysis does turalism and film reflect the great influence of the not necessarily apply to structural formalistic studies structural linguists, particularly Jakobson (and in of other fields such as anthropology , psychology anthropology, Claude Levi-Strauss). and cinema. For example, Levi-Strauss's wish to examine the formal properties of structures (such Recently, however, the writings of Noam as kinship systems , political ideology, mythology, Chomsky and his followers have created a revolution ritual , art) could well be of interest and value in in linguistic studies , have influenced other fields and themselves (unlike phonology) as formal entities. perhaps necessitated new ones-like psycholin- guistics, where the search for the universals of Nevertheless, the general thrust of Chomsky's language extends to the neurological foundations. findings are of singular consequence. He rightly The effect of Chomskian linguistics on structuralism notes, for example, that structural analysis of lan- and semiology , as they pertain to cinema and other guage is yielding less than his transformational / fields , is currently only tentative but is likely to reveal generative systems. He concludes by saying: some of the more profound problems with earlier work. Chomsky's research questions whether struc- ... then one cannot expect structuralist phonol- turalism and semiology should continue to evolve ogy, in itself, to provide a useful model for investi- within, or break away from , linguistic guidelines gation of other cultural and social systems. In gen- which now serve as a master pattern for general eral, the problem of extending concepts of linguistic sign and system study. structure to other cognitive systems seems to me, for the moment, in not too promising a state, al- Thirdly, certainly structuralism and , by extension , though it is no doubt too early for pessimism. ' semiology have developed through the anthro- pological research of Levi-Strauss. The basically Chomsky's work is of particular importance in an binary structural methodology from Jakobson 's lan- introduction to structuralism as it applies to cinema guage studies appears strongly in Levi-Strauss 's studies. Although one may take issue with Structural Anthropology, a seminal structuralist Chomsky's rather sweeping criticism of Levi-Strauss work and the most influential source of structural and structural linguistics as a model for other study, practices today. Levi-Strauss's-and the Anglo- there is little question that research in cinema has American cinema studies described by Charles suffered from oversimplistic reference to and use Eckert in the preceding article-develop along the of linguistic models and terminology. This has been binary model from linguistics. For example, from his particularly the case with British and American stud- observations, Levi-Strauss sets up binary opposi- ies. With the work of Christian Metz in semiotics tional pairs of headings, such as \" Raw and Cooked\" and structuralism , however, a more modest and less or \" Natural and Cultural,\" under which he then dogmatic case is made ; Metz does not claim the groups and compares qualities of the structure of appropriateness of wholesale importation of linguis- the culture , myth , or whatever that he is studying . tic and language-specific models and systems of Edmund Leach on Levi-Strauss is a good source analysis. It should also be noted that , just as for an introduction to the characteristics of struc- Chomsky's seminal Syntatic Structures extended tural binarism on Levi-Strauss 's contribution in the Jakobsonian model to the generative / trans- general to structuralism . formational system , today's systemic scholars are now looking to Chomsky for further developments The most profound challenge to the structuralist on the binarism of Jakobson and Levi-Strauss. method comes from Noam Chomsky. His criticism Chomsky's criticism is directed mainly toward structuralism , since semiology is not so rigidly tied to the goals within the discipline of linguistics (such FILM COMMENT 53

as establishing phonological universals) . In its con- Part I: Linguistics cern with specific codes within texts rather than The readings selected from the field of linguistics innate or universal structures common to all coded te xts , semiology is likely more useful than structur- are of particular importance to structuralism and alism in c inema study at its present stage of maturi- semiotics. We have attempted to achieve some ty. The limitations noted above have hampered balance , but it is essentially a list of those works structural analyses of film because the visual , tem- from the other fields most often cited and referred poral , and aud itory facets of the film texts have not to. It in no way reflects the great scope of all shown a correlation to language and its semantics, linguistic study but rather reflects only linguistic syntax , or phonology. In establishing the unique concerns in traditional structuralist and semiologi- qualities of specific codes, the more modest under- cal studies. taking of semiology offers more hope for progress- although (as Metz has said) all such work is very The Saussure lectures form the first and defining tentative and exploratory. volume in Linguistics-cum-semiotics. The Trubetz- koy and Jakobson writings are the primary Prague Nevertheless, structural and semiological appli- school works dealing with phonological universals cations in film study remain ultimately promising , and the definition of terms which are crucial to the we believe, even if such work only shows what film vocabularies of all later studies. Benveniste and is not. But, given the we ight of the history of the Hjelmslev are important theorists who have in- na'fve but persistent search for a \" film language ,\" fluenced European , most particularly French , semio- and the circumscribed but solid observations of logists and structuralists. Harris, a teacher of Noam Christian Metz, a hopeful vision of future studies Chomsky , is one of the major proponents of structu- in this area is not out of order. Semiology, with its ral linguistics. The works of Chomsky have been possibility of establishing the diverse codes of film- given particular emphasis here because they cover such as pantomime and gesture in the silent film , a wide range in his thinking and because of his sounds (natural and artificial), editing rhythms, profound influence on linguistics and other disci- color, and plot devices within genres-offers plines. His influence on semiology is rather tentative structuralist endeavors the potential of founding at present but will almost undoubtably grow in the interrelations of larger systemic te xts. In film , if direct future . The Chomsky interview, \" Language and Pol- correlations to linguistic approaches cannot be itics,\" has been included because it gives a reveal- found , then other structures which rule the forma- ing background to Chomsky's thinking , and outlines tion of filmic expression must be sought, perhaps some of his ideas on man 's social systems as reflec- in the broader and developing field of general sign tive, perhaps, of the same mechanism guilding his study (semiology). Charles Eckert's apt division of linguistics systems. The Fodor and Katz anthology cinema studies into those of \" linguistic structures is a valuable collection of writings in the Chomsky in narrative ,\" \" semiological study of the 'language ' school of linguistics. The volume by John Lyons of cinema,\" and of the binary structural auteur- and serves as an adequate introduction to Chomsky . myth-related researches is a fair indication of work to date. Eckert's concentration on the latter ap- Part II: Structuralism proach , however , should not lead us to believe that For beginning general reading in structu ralism , the published Anglo-American research is the extent of the work in the field ; as the following bibliography Michael Lane 's editing of Introduction to Structur- indicates , there is much of value in the work printed alism is excellent, with essays by Barthes, Saussure, in French , German , and Italian . The whole field may Leach , Jakobson , Levi-Strauss, and Lane's own fine be in its infancy, but with understanding and applied introductory section . Also outstanding are two other scholarly rigor, we can expect more work of long- anthologies of structural ist writings from literature, term value. folklore, linguistics, psychology-a broad range of cross-fertilized disciplines-titled Style in Language This bibliography offers a selection of readings (edited by Sebeok ) and Structuralism (edited by Ehr- pertinent to background and current practices in mann). linguistics, structuralism , semiology, and how these approaches pertain to cinema study. As a guide to Comprehensive reading in structuralism should this literature, our four-part introduction to the bibli- include (in order, historically) Saussure, Levi- ography singles out those entries ( marked with an Strauss, and Piaget. Also , Leach gives a sparklingly asterisk ) which serve to introduce the reader to the clear running commentary on the work of Levi- fields and the major works. Part I is Linguistics, a Strauss. Roman Jakobson can not be ignored-his discipline of singular importance to structuralism work is most accessible to English-language readers and semiology; here we note a body of work felt in the anthologies of Sebeok and Lane and in the to be crucial to understanding their roots and sup- volume from Mouton, a beautiful piece of scholar- ports. Part II consists of primary readings in structu- ship , written with Lawrence Jones . It is an ex cellent ralism and structural approaches to arts other than structural commentary on the art of poetry. Also cinema . Part III is comprised of basic readings in related to structuralism and the arts are the articles semiology and semiological approaches to the other by Todorov, Barthes, and Michelson . (Other work arts. The final section , Part IV , notes the major that might be especially sought out as examples of writings in structuralism and semiology as applied the structuralist approach as applied and changed to cinema studies. in diverse fields is by Lacan , Foucault, Bourbaki, Hjelmslev, Shklovsky, Husserl, Ingarden, and Mer- l e a u - P o n t y .) 54 MAY 1973

F Bibliography The letters following eac h entry refer Part III: Semiology The best introduction to the wide range of re- to the basic nature of each work as follows : S/ semiology, STI structuralism , search being done today in this country and Europe Ll linguistics, and C / cinem a. Asteri sks in semiology is to be fou nd in two excellent antholo- mark primary works. gies: J. Kristeva , et al. Essays in Sem iotics and A. J . Greimas , et al. Essays in semiotics and A.J . Alsleben , Kurd . Asthetische Redundanz. Greimas, et al. Sign-Language-Culture. The range Quickborn , 1962 . 5 and diversity of material contained in these two volumes will offer the attentive reader a wide ranging Apra , Adriano and Martelli , Luigi. \" Pre- and interesting introduction . messe sintagmatiche ad ' un analisi di Viaggio in Italia di Rossellini. \" Cinema Two volumes of Roland Barthes available in En- e film , No.2 (Spring 1967), 198-207. glish offer a good introduction to his thinking which 5,C has been most influential. By way of offering histori- cal background we recommend Peirce, Morris , and Ayfre , Amedee . Conversion aux images? Saussure. Paris, 1964. S There is much research being done in semiology Bally, Charles . \" Qu 'est-ce qu 'un signeT today and so for such a diverse field we feel the Journal de Psychologie normale et best that a reader can do is examine the two anthol- pathologique , XX XVI , No. 3-4 (April- og ies cited here. From these anthologies we recom- June 1939), 161-174.5 mend reading the authors cited there and in this bibliography. Barthes, Roland. \" Le bleu est a la mode cette annee ; note sur la recherche In conclusion it should be noted that semiology des unites significantes dans Ie vete- and linguistics are closely related . We once again ment de mode.\" Revue Fran c;ais de refer the reader to the above anthologies which sociologie, 1(1960), 147-162 . 5 detail the close relationship of the fields . As an historical introduction to linguistics as part of the Barthes. Critical Essays. Trans. Richard general study of signs, we offer the Saussure book. Howard. Evanston , Illinois: Northwest- ern University Press , 1972. 5 Part IV: Structuralism and Semiology in Cinema Structuralist work on the cinema does not fre- Barthes. \" Elements de semiologie .\" Communication s, No. 4 (1964), 91- quently appear unmi xed with considerable sem io- 135. 5 \" logical considerations. However, investigations that are distinctly structural and are related to the cinema Barthes. Elements of Seminology,\" Trans . are the G. Nowell-Smith and Pryluck articles and Annette Lavers and Col in Smith . New the Kitses monograph . Peter Wollen 's Signs and York : Hill and Wang , 1967. 5 Meaning in the Cinema is the best English language introduction to semiological and structural investi- Barthes. \" Entretien avec Philippe Pi lard gations of the cinema. Sol Worth 's essasy actively et Michel Tardy .\" Image et Son, No. explores the notion of a semiotic of film . Some of 175 (July 1964), 42-45 . 5 , C the most interesting and fruitful work is being done in Europe and we cite Bettetini 's Cinema: lingua e Barthes. \" Entretien avec Michael Dala- scrittura (soon to appear in English ) and an essay haye et Jacques Rivette. \" Cahiers du by R. Barthes wh ich has rec ently been translated Cinema , XXV , No. 147 (September into English by Richard Howard , \" The Third Mean- 1963), 20-31 . 5 , C ing : Notes on Some of Eisenstein 's Stills.\" Perhaps the most influential contributor to the field is C. Metz Barthes. \" Introduction a I'analyse struc- and we include two collections of his essays in turale des recits. \" Communications, French . However, it should be noted that much of NO. 8 (1966), 1-27. 5P this material is expected to be translated and made available in English . A most interesting collection Barthes. \" Le message photographique .\" of essays is available to those who read German Communications,- No. 1 (1961 ), 127- in Semiotik des Films by F. Kn illi. 138. 5 The above selection of writings offers a stimulat- Barthes. Mythologies. Paris: ed. du Seuil , ing and variated collection of ex plorations in struc- 1957. (English translation by Annette turalism and semiology especially related to cinema Lavers. New York: Hill and Wang , studies. This material, along with the individuals 1972.) 5 discussed in Ecke rt's article , offers the best intro- duction to this developing area of scholarship . Barthes. \" Pour une psycho-sociologie de I'alimentation contemporaine .\" An- 'Christ ian Metz, \" Entret ien sur la semiologie du Cine ma ,\" tra ns. nales, No. 5 (September-October Fran k Fogarty , Sem io tica , IV, No . 1 (197 1). 1961 ), 977-986 . 5 ' Noam Chomsky, Language and Mind. (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World , Inc ., 1968) , pag es 65-66 . Barthes. \" Le probleme de la signification ' Ibid. au cinema. \" Revue internationale de ' Ibid. la Filmologie, No. 32-33 (January- June 1960). 5, C Barthes. \" Rhetorique de I'image.:' Com- munications, NO . 4 (1964), 40-51 . 5 FILM COMMENT 55

Barthes. \" Le Troisieme sens. Notes de Bochenska, J. \" Obraz filmowy jako znak Chomsky. \" On the Notion ' Rule of Gram- recherche sur quelques photo- (The Film Picture as a Sign) .\" Wstep mar.' \" Twelfth Symposium in Applied grammes de S.M. Eisenstein. \" Ca- do badania dziela filmowego (Intro- Mathematics, ed. Roman Jakobson . hiers du Cinema, No. 222 (July 1970), duction to Research on a Work of Film Providence, Rhode Island: American 12-19 . (English translation by Richard Art) . Warsaw, 1966. S, C Mathematical Society , 1961 . L Howard. Artforum, XI , NO . 5 (January 1973), 46-50 .) S, C':' Bourdieu , Pierre. Zur Soziologie der sym- Chomsky . Review of B.F. Skinner's Ver- bolischen Formen. Frankfurt! Main , bal Behavior. Language, XXXV Barthes. \" Les unites traumatique au cin- 1970. L,S (1959) , 26-58 . Reprinted in Fodor and ema. \" Revue internationale de Filmo- Katz , The Structure of Language: logie, X, No. 34 (July-September Bremond , Claude . \" La logique des possi- Readings in the Philosophy of Lan- 1960). S, C bles narratifs.\" Communications, No. guage. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: 8 (1968), 60-76. S Prentice-Hall , 1964. L Barthes. Writing Degree Zero and Ele- ments of Semiology, Trans. Annette Bremond . \" Le message narratif. \" Com- Chomsky. SyntactiC Structures. The Lavers and Colin Smith. Boston : Bea- munications, No. 4 (1964), 4-32 . S Hague: Mouton , 1957. L ':' con Press , 1970. S':' Brewster, Ben. \" Comment. \" New Left Re- Chomsky. Topics in the Theory of Gener- Bassin , J . \" Die Semiotik Uber Darstellung view, 55 (May-June 1969), 70-73 S, C ative Grammar. The Hague : Mouton , und Ausdruck der Kunst. \" Kunst und 1966. L Literatur, No. 12 (1965), 1259ff. S Brewster. \" Structuralism in Film Criti- cism .\" Screen, XII , No . 1 (Spring Communications, Numbers 4 (1964); 8 Baudry, Jean-Louis. \" Cinema: effets 1971), 49-58 . ST, C (1966) ; 10 (1967); 15 (1970) ; 16 ideologiques produit par I'appareil de (1970) . Each of these issues is devot- base .\" Cinetique, NO . 7-8 (1970), 1-8. Brondal , Viggo. Essais de linguistique ed to structural and / or semiological S,C generale. Copenhagen: Munksgaard , studies . ST, S XII , 1943. L Bellour, Raymond . \" Les Oiseaux de De George, Ricard T. and Fernande M., Hitchcock: analyse d'une sequence.\" Burch , Noel. Pra xis du cinema . Paris : ed . The Structuralists From Marx to Cahiers du Cinema , No. 216 (October Gallimard, 1969. (In English transla- Levi-Strauss. Garden City, New York: 1969), 24-38 . S, C tion , Theory of Film Practice. New Anchor Books, 1972. ST York : Praeger Publishers , 1973 .) S, C Bellour. \" Pour une stylistique du film .\" Derrida, J. \" Semiologie,\" Informations Revue d 'Esthetique, XIX , Fasc. 2 Burnham , Jack. The Structure of Art. New sur les sciences sociales, No. VII-3 (April-June 1966), 161-178. S, C York : George Braziller , 1971 . ST (1968). S Benoir, Lery J. \" Note sur Ie role de Buyssens, Eric . Les langages et Ie dis- Dreyfus, Dina. \" Cinema and Language.\" I'image dans la civilisation contem- cours. Brussels: Office de Publicite Diogenes, No. 35 (Fall 1961), 23-33 . poraine.\" Bulletin du centre interna- (Collection Lebegue), 1943. S S,C tional de la photographie (Paris) , No. 3 (1965), 1-6. S Caws, Peter . \" What Is Structuralism?\" Ducrot, and Todorov, Sperber, Safouan, Partisan Review, XXXV , No. 1 (Winter and Wahl. Qu 'est-ce que Ie structur- Bense , Max. Semiotik, Allgemeine 1968), 75-91 . ST alism? Paris, 1968. ST Theorie der Zeichen. Baden-Baden , 1967. S Chomsky, Noam . Aspects of the Theory Dumont, Jean-Paul and Monod , Jean . Le of Syntax. The Hague: Mouton, 1964. foetus astral. Paris: Christian Bour- Bense. Theorie der Texte. Eine Ein- Reprinted Cambridge : MIT Press, gois ed ., 1970. ST, C fuhrung in neuere Auffassungen und 1965 . L ':' Methoden . K61n : Verlag Kiepenheuer Eco, Umberto . \" The Analysis of Struc- & Witsch , 1962. S Chomsky. Cartesian Linguistics: A ture .\" Times Literary Supplement Chapter in the History of Rationalist (September 27 , 1963), 755-756 . ST, C Benveniste, Emile . \" Nature du signe lin- Thought. New York: Harper and Row, guistique. \" Acta Linguistica. Copen- 1966. L ':' Eco. Appunti per una semiologia delle hagen, 1 (1939) , 23-29 . L communicazioni visive . Florence , Chomsky. Current Issues in Linguistic 1967. S, C Benveniste. Problems in General Linguis- Theory. The Hague: Mouton , 1964. L tics, Trans. Mary Elizabeth Meek. Coral Eco. \" Articulations of the Cinematic Gables, Florida: University of Miami Chomsky. \" Finitary Models of Language Code. \" Cinematics, No. 1 (January Press, 1971. L\" Users,\" with G. A. Miller. \" Formal Prop- 1970). S, C erties of Grammars.\" \" Introduction to Benveniste . \"Semiologie de la lang age .\" the Formal Analysis of Natural Lan- Eco \" Economique , ideologique, for- Semiotica, No. 1-2 (1969). S guages,\" with G. A. Miller. Handbook mal .. .\" Cinethique, NO . 3 (1970 ). S, C of Mathematical Psychology, ed. R. D. Bertin, Jacques. Semiologie graphique. Luce, Bush , and Galanter, Vol. 2. New Eco. \" II cod ice cinematografico .\" La Paris and The Hague: Gauthier-Villars York: John Wiley, 1963. L struttura assente. Milan: Bompiani and Mouton, 1967. S ed. , 1968, 149-160. (In German trans- Chomsky. \" The Formal Nature of Lan- lation , \" Die Gliederungen des filmis- Bettetini, Gianfranco. Cinema : lingua e guage .\" The Biological Foundations of chen Codes .\" Sprache im technischen scrittura. Milan: Bompiani , 1968. Language, Appendi x A, Eric Lennen- Zeitalter, Stuggart, No . 27 , 1968.) S,C (Soon to appear in English as Lan- berg. New York: John Wiley, 1967. L guage and Technique of Film . The Eco. \" Semiologie des messages visuels.\" Hague: Mouton, 1973.) S, C':' Chomsky Language and Mind. New York: Communications, No. 15-16 (1970) . S Harcourt, Brace and World , 1968. L\" Bettetini . /I segno, dalla magia fino al Eco. La struttura assente. Milan : Bom- cinema . Milan , 1963 . S, C Chomsky. \" Linguistics and Politics-Inter- piani , 1968. ST, S view .\" New Left Review, No. 57 (Sep- Bettetini. L 'indice del realismo. Milan : tember-October 1969), 21-34. L\" Ehrmann , Jacques, ed. Structuralism. Bompiani , 1971. S, C New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovano- Chomsky . \" On Certain Properties of vich , 1968. (Anchor paperback re- Bizet, Jacques Andre . \" Les structu- Grammars.\" Information and Control, print. Garden City, New York: Double- ralisties , la notion de structure et 11(1959), 137-167. Reprinted in R.D. day, 1970.) (Reprint of Yale French I'esthetique du film. \" La Pensee, No. Luce , Bush , and Galanter, Readings in Studies Special Issue , 1966.) ST':' 137 (February 1968), 38-50 . ST, C Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 2 . New York: John Wiley, 1965. L 56 MAY 1973

Erlich , Victor. Russian Formalism: Histo- Ingarden , R. \"Poetics and linguistics. \" Key: 5 ! semiology , 5T ! structuralism , ry-Doctrine . (Vol. IV in Slavic Printings Poetics, ed . D. Davie , et al. Vol. I. The Lllinguistics, and C ! cinema and Reprintings, ed. Cornelis H. Van Hague : Mouton , 1961. L, 5 Schooneveld), S-Gravenhage: Mou- Know Hon , J.Q. A Socio- and Psycho-Lin- ton & Co ., 1955 . 5, 5T Jakobson , Roman , and Levi-Strauss, guistic Theory of Pictorial Communi- Claude. \" Charles Baudelaire's 'Les cations. Bloomington: Indiana Univer- Fieschi , Jean-Andre and Oilier, Claude. Chats, ' \" Trans. K. Furness-Lane. In- sity Press, 1964. L \" Der Film : Sprache oder Ausdruck? Ein troduction to Structuralism , ed. M. Kritischer Dialog .\" Akzente, No. 3 Lane. New York : Basic Books, 1970, Koch , Christian. \" Review of Peter Wol- (1968), 227-234 . 5, C 202-221 . 5T len 's Signs and Meaning in the Cine- ma and Robert Richardson 's Litera- Fodor , J.A. , and Katz , J.J., ed . The Struc- Jakobson . Child Language, Aphasia and ture and Film,\" Cinema Journal, IX , ture of Language: Readings in the Phonological Universals. The Hague: No.2 (Spring 1970), 51-53. 5, C Philosophy of Language. Englewood Mouton , 1968. L ':' Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall , Koch . \" Understanding Film as a Process 1964. L \" Jakobson . \"Concluding Statement: lin- of Change: A Metalanguage for the guistics and Poetics. \" Style in Lan- Study of Film. \" Unpublished Ph .D dis- Foucault, Michel. The Order of Things. guage, ed. TA Sebeok. Cambridge, sertation. University of Iowa, August, New York : Pantheon, 1970. (French Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press, 1960, 1970. 5T,5,C edition: 1966.) 5T 350-377. L Kondratow , A. \" Semiotik und Kunst- Francastel, Pierre . La figure et Ie lieu . Jakobson . \" On Russian Fairy Tales.\" In- theorie. \" Kunst und Literatur, NO. 5 Paris: Gallimard , 1967. 5 troduction to Structuralism , ed . M. (1964). 5 Lane. New York: Basic Books, 1970, Francastel. La realite figurative . Paris: 184-201.5T Kowzan . Tadeusz. \"The Sign in the Gonthier, 1965. 5 Theatre : An Introduction to the Se- Jakobson , et al. Poetics, Vol. II. The miology of the Art of the Spectacle.\" Friedman , Georges. \" Une rhetorique des Hague : Mouton, 1966. L, 5T Diogenes, No. 61 (Spring 1968), 52- symboles. \" Communications, No. 7 ·(1966) , 120f. 5 Jakobson . \" Poetry of Grammar and 80. 5 Grammar of Poetry. \" Poetics, Vol . I, Gardner , Howard . The Quest for Mind: ed . D. Davie , et al. The Hague: Mou- Kristeva, Julia. \" Cinema, pratique analy- Piaget, Levi-Strauss, and the Structur- ton , 1961 . L, 5T tique, pratique revolutionnaire.\" Cine- alist Movement. New York: Knopf, thique, No. 9-10 (1971) , 71-79 . C 1972.5T Jakobson. Selected Writings (Vol . I of Phonological Studies and Vol. II of Kristeva and Rey-Debove, J. and Umiker, Garroni, Emilio. Semiotica ed estetica; Slav Epic Studies). The Hague: Mou- D.J. Essays in Semiotics ! Essais de se- L 'eterogeneita del linguaggio e il lin- ton , 1967. L, 5T miotique. The Hague: Mouton ,1971 .5 ':' guaggio cinematografico. Bari: Ed. Laterza, 1968. 5, C Jakobson and Jones, Lawrence. Shake- Kristeva. \"L'expansion de la semiotique .\" speare 's Verbal Art in \"Th 'expence of Information sur les sciences sociales, Genette , Gerard . \"L'Homme et Ie spirit.\" The Hague: Mouton , 1970. 5F No. VI-5 (1967), 169-181. 5 signes.\" Critique, (1965), 99-114 . 5 Jakobson . \"Two Aspects of Language Kristeva. \"Le geste, pratique ou com- Greimas , A. Julien . \"Conditions d'une and Two Types of Aphasic Distur- muncation. \" Langages, No.1 0 (1968), semiotique du monde natural. \" Parti- bances. \" Fundamentals of Language, 48-64. 5 ques et langages gestuels, in Lan- ed. Jakobson and Halle. The Hague: gages, No. 10, Paris : Didier et Mouton , 1956. L\" Kristeva. \"Narration et transformation. \" Larousse, 1968, 3-35.5 Semiotica , NO. 4 (1969) , 422-448 . 5 Jakobson . \"Verfall des Films?\" Sprache Greimas. Introduction to \"Le Langage, im technischen Zeitalter, 27 (1968), Kristeva. \"Pour une semiologie des para- une introduction. \" Paris: Editions de 185-191 . (Translated from the Czech grammes.\" Collection \"Tel-Quel, \" No. Minuit, 1966. L \" Upadek filmu? \" in \" Listy pro umen( 2. Paris: Ed . du Seuil. 5 a Kritiku?\" I, Praha.) C Greimas. Semantique structurale. Paris: Kristeva. \" La semiologie comme science Larousse, 1966. 5T Kasperski , E. \" Elementy semiologii (Ele- des ideologies. \" Semiotica, No. 2 ments of Semiology),\" Kulturai Spo- (1969). 5 Greimas and Jakobson , R. et al., ed. leczeflstwo 4 (1965). 5, C Sign-Language-Culture. Janua Lin- Kristeva. Semeiotike Recherches pour guarium, Series Major 1. The Hague: Katz, Jerrold J. The Underlying Reality of une semanalyse. Collection \"Tel- Mouton , 1970. (note especially arti- Language and Its Philosophical Im- Quel. \" Paris : Ed. du Seuil , 1969. 5 cles by Bystrzycka , Jackiewicz, Metz, port. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1971 . L Kupier, John B. , Jr. \" An Analysis of the Mruklik and Sieminska.) 5, L* Four Silent Films of Sergei Mikhailo- Kepes, Gyorgy, ed . Sign, Image and Sym- vich Eisenstein.\" Unpublished Ph.D . Harris, Zellig S. Structural Linguistics. bol. London : Studio Vista, 1966. 5 dissertation, University of Iowa, 1960. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 5T,C 1951 . L \" Kitses , Jim . Horizons West. Bloomington: Indiana University Press , 1970. 5T, C':' Kurylowicz, Jerzy. \" Derivation lexicale et Hjelmslev, Louis. Essais linguistiques. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Knilli, Friederich . Deutsche Laut- aderivation syntaxique , contribution Copenhague. 12, (1958), 1-271. L sprecher, Versuche zu einer Semiotik des Radios. Stuttgart: J.B. Metz- la theorie des parties du discours. \" Hjelmslev. Outline of G/ossematics, A lersche Verlagsbuchandlung, 1970. 5 Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique Study of the Methodology of the Hu- de Paris, XXXVII (1936), 79-92. L manities with Special Reference to Knilli. \" Praliminarien zur Kinosemiolo- Linguistics. Copenhagen: Cercle Lin- gie. \" Sprache im technischen Zeit- Lacan , Jacques. Ecrits. Paris: Seuil , guistique de Copenhague , 1957. L\" alter, 27 (1968), 181-184. 5,C 1966. 5T Hjelmslev. Prolegomena to a Theory of Knilli , ed. Semiotik des Films. Munchen : Lacan . \" The Insistence of the Letter in Language. Trans. Francis J. Whitfield. Hanser, 1971 . 5, C'\" the Unconscious. \" Structuralism, ed. Madison: University of Wisconsin Jacques Ehrmann. New York: Dou- Press, 1963. L bleday Anchor Books , 1970, 101 - 137 5T FILM COMMENT 57

Key: S / semiology , ST I structuralism , Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. \" The Film and Michelson,Annette. \" Art and the Structur- 1Ilinguistics, and C / cinema the New Psychology. \" Sense and alist Perspective. \" On the Future of Non-Sen se, Trans . Hubert L. and Pa- Art, Sponsored by The Solomon R. Lachat, Pierre. \" Film und Linguistik\", tricia A. Drefus. Evanston , Illinois: Guggenheim Museum. New York: Vik- Cinema , (Adliswil l Schweiz .) 13.Jg., Northwestern University Press , 1964 , ing Press , 1970 . ST'\" No . 4 (Winter 1967), 758-766 . L, C 48-59. C Mitry, Jean. \" D'un langage sans signes.\" Laffay, Albert. Logique du cinema. Paris, Metz, Christian . \" Apropos de I'impres- Revue d 'Esthetique, 2-3 (1967), 139- 1964. C sion de realite au cinema .\" Cahiers 152. S du Cinema , No. 166-167 (May-June Lane , Michael , ed . Introduction to Struc- 1965), 74-82. S, C Morgan , Douglas. \" Icon, Index, and Sym- turalism . New York: Basic Books, bol in the Visual Art. \" Philosophical 1970 . (Published in England as Struc- Metz. \" Bibliographie pour une specialisa- Studies, VI , No . 4 (1955) , 49-54. S turalism: A Reader. London: Jonathan tion approfondre en semiologie du Cape , 1969.) ST'\" cinema .\" Filmkritik, No. 184 (April Morris, Charles. \" Esthetics and the 1972), 199-203 . S, C Theory of Signs.\" Journal of Unified Leach , Edmund R. Claude Levi-Strauss. Science, VIII (1939-40) , 131-150. S Modern Masters Series. New York: Metz. \" Le cinema : langue ou langage .\" Viking Press , 1970. ST'\" Communications, NO . 4 (1964), 52-90 . Morris. \" Foundations of the Theory of S,C Signs.\" International Encyclopedia of Leach , ed . Structural Study of Myth and Unified Science, I, No. 2 Chicago: Totemism . London: Tavistock, 1967. Metz. \" Le cinema moderne et la narr- University of Chicago Press, 1938. S ST ative.\" Cahiers du Cinema, No . 185 (December 1966), 42-69 . C Morris. Signs, Language and Behavior. Lebel , Jean-Patrick. Cinema et ideologie. New York : Prentice-Hall , 1946. L, S, Paris : ed . Sociales , 1971 . C Metz. \" Considerations sur les elements ST'\" semiologiques du film .\" Nuovi argo- Legarra, Michel. \"Cinema et semiologie.\" menti, No. 2 (1966) , 44-61. S, C Mounin, Georges. \"Les systemes de Cinethique , No . 7-8 (1970) . S, C communications non-linguistiques et Metz . \"Le dire et Ie dit au cinema. \" Com- leur place dans la vie du vingtieme Levaco , Ronald , ed . and trans. \"Kule- munications, No. 11 (1968), 22-57 . S, C siecle .\" Bulletin de la Societe de Lin- shov and Semiology: Selections from guistique de Paris, LlV (1959) , 176- Lev Kuleshov's Art of Cinema.\" Metz . Essais sur la signification au cine- 200 . S Screen, XII , NO.4 (Winter 1971-72), ma. Paris : Ed . Klincksieck , 1968. 2nd 103-1 21 . S, C Ed. 1971 . S, C':' Mukarovsky, J. \" L'art come fait semiolo- gique .\" Actes du huitieme congres in- Levi-Strauss , Claude . The Raw and the Metz . \" Une etape dans Ie refle xion sur Cooked, trans . Hohn Weightman and Ie cinema .\" Critique, No. 214 (March ternational de Philosophie a Prague, Noreen Weightman . New York: Harper 1965), 227-248. S, C and Row , 1969. ST 2-7 (September 1934). Comite d'or- Metz. \" An Exerpt from the Fourth Essay ganisation du congres a Prague, Levi-Strauss . The Savage Mind. Chicago: of Language in Cinema .\" Cinema 1936, 1065-1072. S University of Chicago Press, 1966. ST (U .S.), VII , No. 2 (Spring 1972), 43-44. MukarovskY. \" Strukturalismus v estetice S,C,ST Levi-Strauss . Structural Anthropology, ave vede 0 literature.\" Kapitoly z trans. Claire Jacobson and Brooke G. Metz . \" La grande syntagmatique du film Schoepf. Garden City, New York: Dou- narratif.\" Communications, No. 8 ceske poetiky. dil I. Obecne veci bas- bleday Anchor Books , 1967. ST'\" (1966) , 120-124. S, C nictivi 20 , Nakaldatelstvi Svoldada, Prague, 1948. ST Levi-Strauss. \" Le Triangle Culinaire. \" Metz. \" Image et polysemie.\" Media Mulder, J.W.F. and Hervey, S.G.J. Theory L 'Arc, No . 26 (1965) , 19-29. (In En- (Paris , Revue de I'institute Pedagog i- of the Linguistic Sign. The Hague: glish in New Society, London , De- que National), I, No. 3 (April 1969), Mouton, 1973 (in preparation) . L, S cember 22 , 1966, 937-940 .) ST 17-20. S Murray, John C. \" Robin Wood and the Structural Critics.\" Screen , XII , NO . 3 Lewicki , B.W. \" Formula struktury este- Metz. \" Images et pedagogie .\" Communi- (Summer 1971), 101-110. ST, C tycznej filmu (Formula of Aesthetic cations, No. 15 (1970), 162-168. S Structure of the Film).\" Zeszyty Nau- Nodelman, Sheldon. \" Structural Analysis kowe Uniwersytetu toolzlziego, I, Metz. Langage et cmema. Paris: in Art and Anthropology .\" Yale French Book 43 , Lodz , 1966. C Larousse, 1971 . S, C \" Studies, (1966) , 36-37. (Reprinted in J. Ehrmann , Structuralism. Garden Lewicki. \" Percepcyjne unwarunkowanie Metz. \"' Montage ' et discours dans Ie City, New York: Doubleday Anchor estetykli filmu (Perceptive Condition- film .\" Word, XXIII , No. 1, 2, 3 (April- Books, 1970, 79-93 .) ST ings of Film Aesthetics) .\" Kwartalnik December 1967). S, C Film 0 wij, No . 2 (1958) . S, C Nowell-Smith, Geoffrey. \" Cinema and Metz. \" Orientation Bibliographique pour Structuralism.\" 20th Century Studies, Lovell ,Alan . \" The Common PursuitofTrue une semiologie des images.\" Commu- 3 (May 1970), 131-139 . ST, C\" Judgment. \" Screen , XI , No . 4 / 5 (Aug- nications, No. 15-16 (1970), 222-232 . ust/ September 1970), 76-88 . ST, C S,C Nowell-Smith. Luchino Visconti. New York : Doubleday, 1968. ST, C Lovell. \" Robin Wood-A Dissenting Metz. \" Un probleme de semiologie du View.\" Screen, X, No. 2 (March i April cinema .\" Image et son, No. 201 Panofsky , Erwin . Meaning in the Visual 1969), 47-48 . ST, C (1967) , 68-79 . S, C Arts. Garden City, New York : Double- day Anchor Books, 1955. S Ludwig, Eberhard and Gansera, Rainer. Metz. \" Probleme der Denotation im \" 'Semiotik des Films ' von Knilli. \" Film- Spielfilm .\" Sprache im techrischen Panofsky. Studies in Iconology: Human- kritik, No. 10 (1971) , 524-527 S, C Zeitalter, No. 27 (1968) . S, C istic Themes in the Art of the Renais- sance. New York: Harper and Row, Lyons , John. Introduction to Theoretical Metz . PropOSitions methodologiques 1967. S Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge pour I'analyse du film . Bochum: Uni- University Press, 1968. L versitatsverlag Bochum , 1970. S, C Panofsky. \" Style and Medium in the Mov- ing Pictures.\" Film : An Anthology, ed . Lyons. Noam Chomsky. Modern Masters Metz. \" Quelques points de semiologie du Daniel Talbot. Berkeley and Los An- Series. New York : Viking Press, 1970. cinema. \" La Linguistique, No. 2 geles: University of California Press, L ':' (1966) , 53-69 . S, C 1967. C Martinet, Andre. Elements in General Lin- Metz. \" Les semiotiques ou semies.\" Com- guistics, Trans. E. Palmer. London : munications, No. 7 (1966), 146ft. S Faber & Faber, 1964 and Chicago: University of Chicago Press , 1964. L Metz. \" Specificite des codes et specificite des langages.\" Semiotica, I, NO.4 (1969) , 370-396. S 58 MAY 1973

Pasolini , Pier Paolo. \" The Cinema of Po- Ricardou , Jean . \" Page , film , recit. \" Ca- Key: 5 / semiology , 5T I structuralism , etry.\" Cahiers du Cinema in English, hiers du Cinema, No . 185 (December Lllinguistics, and C / cinema No . 6 (December 1966), 34-43. (Also 1966), 71-74. 5, C in Cahiers du Cinema , No . 171 , Oc- aTodorov. \" De la semiologie la rhetori- tober , 1965, 55-64 . And in Uccellacci Ricardou . Problemes du nouveau roman . Collection \" Tel-Quel. \" Paris : ed . du que .\" Annales, No. 6 (1967) , 1322- e Uccellini, Milan: Garzanti, 1966.) 5, C Seuil , 1967. 5, C 1327.5 Todrov. Litterature et signification. Paris: Pasolini. \" Discours sur Ie plan-sequence Ricoeur , P. \" La structure , Ie mot, I'evene- Larousse, 1967. 5T,5 ou Ie cinema comme semiologie de la ment. \" Esprit (May 1967), 801-821 . 5T Todorov. \" Perspectives semiologiques.\" realite .\" Text of an address to the Pe- Communications, No. 7 (1966) , 139ff. 5 saro Film Festival , Cahiers du Cinema Rohdie , Sam . \" Signs and Meaning in the Todorov. \"Structural Analysis of Narra- No . 192(July-August 1967), 26-30. 5, C Cinema .\" New Left Review, No. 55 tive .\" Novel, III , (Fall 1969), 70-76 . 51'\" (May-June 1969), 66-70 . 5, C Trabant, JUrgen . Zur Semiologie des li- Pasolini. \" Entretien avec Jean Louis Co- terarisches Kunstwerk. MUnchen, molli et Bernardo Bertolucci.\" Cahiers Rudner, Richard . \" On Semiotic Aesthet- 1970. 5 du Cinema , No. 169 (August 1965), ics.\" Journal of Aesthetics and Art Trubetzkoy , N.S. Principles of Phonology, 22-25 , 76-77. 5, C Criticism, 10 (1951) , 67-77 . 5 Trans . A.M. Baltaxe. Berkeley : Univer- sity of California Press , 1969 . L ':' Pasolini. \" The Semiology of the Cinema: Rudner. \"Some Problems of Non-Semio- Tynjanov, J.M. \"Uber die Grundlagen des The Pesaro Papers.\" Cinim, 3 (Spring tic Aesthetic Theories. \" Journal of Films.\" Poetica (MUnchen) , (July-Oc- 1969), 6-11 . 5, C Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 15 tober 1970), 510-570. C (1956), 298-310. 5 Wallington , Mike. \"Pasolini: Structuralism Pasolini. \" Die Sprache des Films .\" Film , and Semiology.\"Cinema (British) , No. No.2 (1966), 49ff. 5, C Ruesch, Jurgen. \" The Social Control of 3 (June 1969), 5-11. 5T, 5, C Symbolic Systems .\" The Journal of Wallington. \" Towards a New Aesthetic.\" Peirce, Charles Sanders. Collected Communication, XVII , No . 4 (De- Cinema (British), No.2 (March 1969), Papers, ed. Charles Hartshorne and cember 1967), 276-301. C 27-30 . C, 5T Paul Weiss . Cambridge: Belknap West, Frank. \" Semiology and Cinema.\" Press of Harvard Un iversity Press , Russian Formalist Criticism. Trans. with Working Papers on the Cinema : Soci- 1960-1965. 5, 5T\" an introduction by Lee T. Lemon and ology and Semiology, ed . Peter Wol- Marion J. Reis. Lincoln , Nebraska: len. London: The British Film Institute Pierce, Selected Writings, ed. J. Buchlev. University of Nebraska Press, 1965 . Education Department, n .d. 5, C New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 5T Wilden , Anthony. System and Structure: 1940.5,5T Essays in Communication and Ex- Saussure , Ferdinand de. A Course in change. New York: Harper and Row, Piaget, Jean . Structuralism, Trans. and General Linguistics, Trans. W. Baskin. 1973 (and London : Tavistock , 1972 .) ed . Chaninah Maschler. New York: New York: Philosophical Library, 5T Harper Torchbook, 1971. (Originally 1959. L ':' Wollen , Peter. \" Cinema and Semiology: published in French by Presses Uni- Some Points of Contact. \" Working versitaries de France, Paris, 1968, and Schapiro, Meyer. \" On Some Problems in Papers on the Cinema: Sociology and first in English by Basic Books , 1970) the Semiotics of Visual Art: Field and Semiology, ed . Peter Wollen . London : 51'\" Vehicle in Image-Signs.\" Semiotica, I, the British Film Institute Education ·No . 3 (1969) , 223-242 . 5 Department, n .d. 5, C Pike , Kenneth L. Language in Relation to Wollen . Signs and Meaning in the Cine- Schefer, Jean-Louis. Scenographie d 'un ma . Bloomington : Indiana University a Unified Theory of the Structure of tableau. Collection \"Tel-Quel.\" Paris: Press , 1969. 5, 5T, C':' ed . du Seuil , 1969. 5 Wollen , ed. Working Papers on the Cine- Human Behavior. 3 Vols . Glendale, ma: Sociology and Semiology. Lon- California: Summer Institute of Lin- Schlowskij, Viktor. Schriften zum Film. don : British Film Institute Education guistics, 1954-1960. L Frankfurt: Ed . Suhrkamp , 1966. C Department, n .d. (from a B.F.I. Semi- Poetika kino. Moscow and Leningrad, nar of January 18, 1968). 5, C 1927. (For Italian translation see: I Sebeok , Thomas A. , and Hayes, Alfred Wood, Robin . \" Ghostly Paradigm and formalisti russi nel cinema. Milan: S., and Bateson , Marcy C., ed . Ap- H.C.F.: An Answer to Alan Lovell. \" Garzanti , 1971 .) C proaches to Semiotics. The Hague: Screen, X, No. 3 (May I June 1969), Prieto, Luis. Messages et signaux. Paris: Mouton, 1964. (Transactions of the 35-47 . 5T, C P.U.F., 1966. 5 Indiana University Conference on Worth , Sol. \"The Development of a Se- Propp, Vladimir. Morphology of the Folk- Paralinguistics and Kinesics .) 5 miotic of Film.\" Semiotica, I, No. 3 tale. The Hague: Mouton , 1958. 5T (1969), 282-321. 5, C Pryluck, Calvin. \" Motion Pictures and Sebeok. Semiotics: A Survey of the State \"Zeichensystem Film / Versuche zu einer Language-A Comparative Analysis.\" of the Art. The Hague: Mouton , (in Semiotik ,\" ed . Friedrich Knilli . Journal of the University Film Associa- preparation). 5 Sprache im technischen Zeitalter, No. tion, XXI , No.2 (1969) , 46-51 . 5, C 27 (July-September 1968). 5, C Pryluck. \" Structural Analysis of Motion Sebeok , ed . Style in Language. Cam- Zolkovsky, Alexander K. \" La poetica Pictures as a Symbol System .\" Audio- bridge , Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press , generativa di S.M. Eisenstein .\" Cine- Visual Communications Review, XVI , 1960. (note especially Sebeok and ma e film, No.3 (Summer 1967) 267- No. 4 (Winter 1968), 372-402 . 5T, C Zeps' abstract, and Sebeok's \"De- 280 . C Pryluck . Structure and Function in Edu- coding a Text .. . \" ) L, 5T, 5 ':' cational Cinema . Final Report, U.S . Zurbuch , Werner. \" Die Linguistik des Department of Health, Education , and Silverstein, Norman. \"Film Semiology.\" Films .\" . Sprache im technischen Welfare , Project No. 7-E-081. Wash- Salmagundi, 13 (Summer 1970), 73- Zeitalter, No. 27 (1968), 191-204, L, C ington, D.C.: Office of Education , 80.5,C Bureau of Research , 1969. C, 51'\" 111 11 111 Pryluck and Snow, Richard E. \" Toward Stack, Oswald, ed and interviewer. Paso- a Psycholinguistics of Cinema.\" lini on Pasolini. London : Indiana Uni- Audio- Visual Communications Re- versity Press , 1969. 5, C view, XV (Spring 1967), 54-75 . L, C Redeker, Horst. \" Die Bedeutung des ky- Symposium sur /'etude structurale des bernetischen Modells fUr die Asthe- systemes de signes. Ed . Acad. de tik .\" Filmwissenschaftliche Mitteil- I'URSS , Moscow, 1962 , 150ft . 5T, 5 ungen, No. 4 (1967), 128ff. C Thompson, Richard . \"Introduction: The Metz is Coming .\" Cinema (U .S.), VII, No.2 (Spring 1972),38-42. 5, C Todorov, Tzvetan . \"Bibliographie semio- tique 1964-1965.\" Information sur les sciences sociales, No. 2 (1967). 5 FILM COMMENT 59

Fll mFAV s the silliest scenes , but the critic 's time is better spent with more substantial stuff. Trying to analyze the JOJeph mc~nde Cukor touch in ROCKABYE would be like studying a master pianist 's performance on an out-of-tune on piano . WhoiPrice ~dywood? WHAT PRICE HOLLYWOOD?, the story of an alcohol- ic director who makes a star of a Brown Derby Joseph McBride, whose books Orson Welles and waitress, is the \" rough draft\" of Cuko r' s 1954 mas- Focus on Howard Hawks were published recently, terpiece A STAR IS BORN and of the intervening version of A STAR IS BORN directed by William Well- is also the co-author of a forthcoming book on John man in 1937 (David O . Selznick produced both WHAT Ford. He plays a film critic in Welles ' new movie PRICE HOLLYWOOD? and the Wellman film). The basic plot has the Pygmalion figure committing suk:ide THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND. when his drinking and profeSSional eclipse threaten the career of his protegee. The Wellman version There is no disputing the fact that George Cukor's turned the director into an actor ; the Cukor remake career has been a highly erratic one; no question turned the waitress into a nightclub singer. Probably that his frequent dependence on faulty scenarios one reason Cukor wanted to return to the story was and his admitted lack of writing ability have put him the opportunity it gave him to make up for a major at a disadvantage compared with , say , Howard flaw in the construction of WHAT PRICE HOLLYWOOD? Hawks, whose ability to shape a script has given Although the dialogue is consistently sharp and his career greater cohesion and consistency. \" Give intell igent-the source is a story by Adela Rogers me a good script ,\" Cukor once remarked , \" and I'll St. John , and among the people who worked on be a hundred times better as a director.\" Conven- the script were John Barrymore's biographer Gene tional critical terminology, largely borrowed from Fowler and the director Rowland Brown-the rela- literary criticism , tends to emphasize faults of story tionship between Maximillian Carey (Sherman) and construction and go dumb before Cukor's general- Mary Evans (Constance Bennett) is poorly devel- Iy-agreed-upon brilliance with actors. Note that I oped after a promis ing beginning. Carey is largely used the neuter rather than the fem inine-there are absent from the middle section of the film , which many fine male performances in Cukor's movies, chronicles Mary 's rise to stardom as \" America 's though his range with men is comparatively circum- Pal \" and her unhappy marriage to playboy Lonny scribed . To counteract the image of Cukor as strictly Borden (Neil Hamilton ); his descent into an unem- a \" woman 's director,\" I'm going to center my atten- ployed lush occurs off-screen, and his absence is tion on his direction of a male performance, Lowell not only a dramatic distraction but also a belittling Sherman 's in WHAT PRICE HOLLYWOOD? But first a of Mary's character-her lack of concern for Carey few general remarks on the film itself and on the in this crucial period makes her seem callously career of Lowell Sherman. self-centered, contrary to the impression of the performance, and makes the scenes after Carey's One need only compare WHAT PRICE HOLLYWOOD? death superfluous. When the script feebly recon- with Cukor 's two other 1932 movies, A BILL OF ciles Mary and Lonny, forgetting about Carey, the DIVORCEMENT and ROCKAB YE, to appreciate the lev- viewer feels deeply insulted . erage he is given by a good , if not entirely success- ful , script. A BILL OF DIVORCEMENT is based on a By contrast, some of the greatest scenes in dreadful \" problem \" play whose only merit is that Cukor 's A STAR IS BORN (written by Moss Hart) occur it allows some bravura father-daughter histrionics in the period of James Mason 's decline and Judy between John Barrymore and Katharine Hepburn. Garland 's desperate attempt to nurse him back to Cukor's handling of the other parts, notably those health. Their relationsh ip is much more complex of Bill ie Burke and David Manners, is not much than that of Carey and Mary Evans; not only do they better than the material. ROCKABYE is a fatuous become man and wife (one wonders about the weepie which forces Cukor to resort to some fancy absence of sexual attraction between director and work with a roomful of balloons in order to draw actress in WHAT PRICE HOLLYWOOD? ), but the Garland attention away from the characters' banal intrigues. character gains immeasurably in stature as she finds There are lucid moments, needless to say , in even Mason a job (which he pridefully rejects) and finally decides to sacrifice her career to care for him . The scene of Mason sobbing quietly in the darkness of the beach house as he overhears Garland telling Charles Bickford that she is going to quit the screen is the kind of dramatic interchange that is missing from WHAT PRICE HOLLYWOOD? An almost totally forgotten figure today , Lowell Sherman was much in demand for sophisticated lecher roles in the Twenties and early Thirties (he's the city slicker who seduces Lilli an Gish in Griffith 's WAY DOWN EAST), and he was beginning to make a name for himself as a director when he died shortly 60 MAY 1973

after the start of shooting on BECKY SHARP in 1934 in-the-rough of A BILL OF DIVORCEMENT to the spar- Left: Gregory (the film was finished by Rouben Mamoulian , who kling actress of MORNING GLORY , made only a year Ratoff, Lowell scrapped Sherman's footage) . He ranks in the \" Ex- later, with one wildly erratic performance (in Dorothy Sherman and pressive Esoterica \" section of Sarris 's The Ameri- Arzner 's CHRISTOPHER STRONG) intervening. Constance can Cinema on the strength of Katharine Hepburn 's Bennett. Right : performance in MORNING GLORY and Mae West 's in After seeing MORNING GLORY, I thought Sherman Neil Hamilton SHE DONE HIM WRONG: \" Both as an actor and as a might be one of the last important directors in need and Constance director, Sherman was gifted with the ability to of rediscovery. Unfortunately, after seeing three of Bennett. All express the poignancy of male lechery when con- his earlier films , I' m not so sure that he wasn 't cut photos: fronted with female longing . His civilized sensibility off just at the point when he was becoming a major Museum of was ahead of its time, and the sophistication of his director (could it have been the experience of work- Modern Art / sexual humor singularly lacking in malice.\" ing with Cukor which explains his surprising growth Film Stills in 1933?). THE PAY-OFF (1930), THE ROYAL BED , and Archive SHE DONE HIM WRONG (1933) is the best of the HIGH STAKES (both 1931) are visually very clumsy Mae West cycle (with McCarey 's BELLE OF THE NINE- and dramatically very stilted , though one can detect TIES a close second), but not so much for her a directorial touch beginning to surface in HIGH performance as for the unusually rich gallery of male STAKES, a high-comedy piece about an aging alco- bit players, impeccably cast and wittily directed , holic playboy (Sherman), which seems much more from the raffish saloon types to the vulpine prison congenial material for him than THE PAY-OFF, a tepid inmate who escapes to plug Ms. West for her infidel- gangster film , and THE ROYAL BED , a gruelingly un- ity. MORNING GLORY (also 1933) contains a remarka- funny bit of pseudo Lubitsch about a cuckolded king ble scene of Adolphe Menjou apologizing for his (Sherman) and his flapper daughter (Mary Astor). seduction of Hepburn to her boyish admirer, Doug- Sherman directed eight other films, three of them las Fairbanks, Jr., and also has a touching per- after MORNING GLORY-BROADWAYTHROUGH AKEYHOLE , formance by C . Aubrey Smith as her elderly protec- BORN TO BE BAD , and NIGHT LIFE OF THE GODs-and tor. But the really striking thing about MORNING if they could be unearthed it might still be possible GLORY is Sherman's delicate, tactful handling of to move him up a notch from \" Expressive Esoterica \" Hepburn as Eva Lovelace, the moony small -town into \" The Far Side of Paradise.\" girl who evolves into a Broadway star, a role which is written on the edge of cliched embarrassment One of the real coups in WHAT PRICE HOLLYWOOD?, (and teeters over the edge in Sidney Lumet's heavy- the contrast between Max Carey's clumsiness in handed remake STAGE STRUCK, with Susan Stras- society and his assurance on the set , is clearly berg) , but emerges as the equal of anything Hep- attributable to the shrewd casting of an actual direc- burn has attempted since. tor in the role (the film 's working title was THE TRUTH ABOUT HOLLYWOOD). In Gavin Lambert's superb in- There 's no space here to detail the finesse with terview book On Cukor, the director gives Selznick which Sherman guides Hepburn through Eva's early credit for the tone of the film : \" Most of the other scenes of pretentious gaucherie without stooping Hollywood pictures make it a kind of crazy, kooky to mock the character; when she earnestly declares place, but to David it was absolutely real , he believed that she is going to become a great actress some in it. I think that's why WHAT PRICE HOLLYWOOD? was day, you believe her, and when she knocks a roomful one of the few successful pictures about the place, of Broadway cynics cold with a tipsy rendition of in the face of a tradition that they never succeed. \" the ROMEO AND JULIET balcony scene , you can actu- Movies about the making of movies usually seem ally see Eva / Hepburn becoming a great actress. curiously unreal and evasive when it comes down Cukor usually receives all the credit for developing to showing what actually transpires on the set. her, but it is a considerable way from the diamond- Perhaps the problem with such scenes is that the FILM COMMENT 61

director doesn 't fee l the aud ience is suffic iently surpris ing depth and subtlety of express ion. The interested in the fine points of moviemaking tech- studio boss (Gregory Ratoff, whom Ben Hecht aptly nique to sit still for realistic documentation . characterized as \" hysterical \" ) leaps up and pro- nounces her a star. Preposterous scene from a In WHAT PRICE HOLLYWOOD? , though , Cukor and strictly literary pO int of view. The script says some- Sherman are able to use Carey's directing of Mary thing like, \" Awkward girl muffles screen test; the Evans for something more than \" atmosphere\"; like next test reveals star quality.\" This is impossible to the scenes of Professor Higgins training Eliza 's make convincing in words , so Cukor doesn 't try to voice in MY FAIR LADY , the moviemaking scenes are do it-in words. a meticulously observed process of character trans- formation . After watching Carey mold Mary Evans Playing a drunk seems to have been part of from a clumsy neophyte into a polished performer, Sherman 's stock in trade , but it is remarkable how we feel the tragedy of his later loss of control much much more convinc ing his drunkenness is in WHAT more acutely than we would if the scenes on set PRICE HOLLYWOOD? than in , say , HIGH STAKES . In the had been conventional and perfunctory. films he directed , Sherman often taxes the viewer's patience with his theatrical mannerisms (and make- In addition, these scenes give us some insight up ; in THE PAY-OFF , his eyebrow liner and lip rouge into the way Cukor himself extracts a performance. make him look more like a drag queen than a Fittingly for the purposes of auteur criticism , the gangster). In HIGH STAKES, the incessant repetition dialogue for Mary's test scene is pretty awful. The of the bobbing head , the slowly wagging index movie Carey is making (PURPLE FLAME) is evidently finger, the rolling eyes, the pursing lips, etc. , etc., a joking reference to the hairy drawing room stuff makes one overly conscious of an actor exercising Sherman often found himself saddled with , both his repertoire. Cukor makes creative use of Sher- before and behind the camera . In Mary 's scene , a man 's tendency toward hamminess by making it stiff in a tu xedo is waiting at the foot of the inevitable comment on the character. staircase for her to walk down and say, \" Hello, Buzzy-you haven 't proposed to me tonight! \" Ben- The way, fo r instance, that Cukor varies the nett shrills the line, flounces her arms, fairly hops meaning of Sherman 's characteristic cigarette man- down the stairs . The stiff is no problem-Sherman nerism-twisting his wrist around and around as he just walks over, leans his elbow against the railing , talks , then performing an elaborate rolling wrist flip says , \" Uh , Mr. Reed-will you , uh, stand here lightly, to position the cigarette in his mouth . The gesture like ... y'know? . .. limp, y'know?\" Bennett needs quickly becomes boring in HIGH STAKES because it a lot of coaxing and cajoling , and Sherman guides is nothing more than a device to demonstrate a her through a rehearsal the way Cukor likes to do drunk's ridiculous over-elaboration of movement. it, with a steady stream of chattering commentary, But in the scene of Ratoff warning Carey that drink alternating diplomatic suggestion and authoritative is endangering his career, Cukor plays on the ges- sarcasm . He walks her down the stairs (there is a ture to indicate a whole complex of emotional atti- photograph of Cukor doing the same thing with tudes. As Carey listens to the harangue, he holds Audrey Hepburn for the ballroom scene of MY FAIR his left (noncigarette) hand to his cheek, trying to LADY): \" Look . Now, when you come down the stairs , seem blase , casts a private glance off-screen with- come down easily-gracefully-see?\" A couple of out changing his pose, and then , just before the steps, that 's all ; he doesn 't try to act it out for her, fade-out, lifts the cigarette to chest height, flicking just starts her off with a hint. \" Lightly there. Now the wrist up and in the same smooth motion flicking don 't put your hand on the railing . You ' re sober.\" the ash down to the floor as the screen begins to darken around him. There's something very devil- Sensing that she is getting flustered , Sherman may-care about the gestu re , its tone of contemp- teasingly buoys up her confidence, flatters her in tuous amusement, its combination of phYSical grace earshot of the \" audience \" of crew and extras: \" Now and emotional curtness, which seems to sum up look here, you remember, you ' re-you ' re a pretty the character in a flash. girl and this poor sap is going to propose to you . So give it some zip, some animation. Now come The notion has got around in some circles of on .\" He snaps his fingers, beginning to orchestrate criticism that Cukor is a genteel fellow with , yes , the rhythm of the scene. \" All right, try it once again . charm , good taste, and all that, but he can 't be Now come on . (Snap) No no, not on your heels, trusted with really heavy stuff. The locus classicus and don 't clench your hands that way-this is a love is Pauline Kael 's condescending statement: \" Give scene, not a fight. (Snap)\" It would be a point for Cukor a clever script with light, witty dialogue, and auteurism if one could report that Bennett is instant- he will know what to do with it. But I wouldn 't expect ly transformed into a swan . However, she stinks , more than glossy entertainment. \" As is her wont, and Sherman curtly dismisses her. Miss Kael doesn 't bother to back up the claim with specifics, just listing a bunch of Cukor titles which That night, she practices on the staircase at home are supposed to be obvious evidence of his frivolity. (Cukor believes in work , distrusts \" improvisation \"). Next day, she is seen on a projection room screen , But if Cukor's forte is .'glossy entertainment\" with in close-up , a completely soignee profess ional. A \" light, witty dialogue ,\" why is he so fond of dealing beautiful cinematic device here: the first thing we with the messy, uncomfortable subject of alcohol- see on the screen is the staircase shot , which is ism ? Besides WHAT PRICE HOLLYWOOD? and A STAR adequate but not remarkable , then there is an unex- IS BORN , Cukor films with memorable drunkards pected cut into the close-up , wh ich we hadn 't seen include DINNER AT EIGHT, SYLVIA SCARLETT, HOLIDAY, them working on and which instantly reveals a EDWARD MY SON , WILD IS THE WIND , THE CHAPMAN 62 MAY 1973

REPORT , and JUSTINE. Why is it that Cukor' s drunks Mary and Lonny send him to bed . All of th is is are not the cheap caricatures we might expect from presented as jolly high jinks. a purveyor of \" glossy entertainment\" ? Gary Carey is helpful on this point: \" In the drunk scenes , Sher- Suddenly , in the middle of the night, Max barges man retains an air of refinement and sensitivity. He into the couple 's bedroom , climbs onto Mary's bed , plays totally without self-pity and without asking for sits at the side , and tries to tell them something in sympathy .... \" In order to bring out the squalor a blurred , hoarse voice . Basically, it's still a funny and humiliation of an emotional state like alcohol- scene because of Lonny's outraged bolting out of ism , the actor and director must take pains to bed and Carey 's brazen disdain for the privacy of maintain control and distance. If the actor overplays the marital chamber. But Carey's boorishness has either the pain or the giddiness of alcoholism, he 'll a more disturbing side, and Cukor has his face lit quickly become a monotonous drag. And on the from below (implausibly, since there 's no conceiv- other hand, if he's too cautious, too genteel , the able light source) to make him look drawn and torment won 't be convincing . The element of con- manic. Underneath the couple 's bickering , he is trast is all- important: Sherman 's infectious gaiety in saying: \" Mary, do you mind , both of you , if I become the early sections intensifies the effect of his in- serious for a moment? I-I have something of great creasingly grave demeanor in the later sections. To importance to tell both of you .. .. Mary, I want to see this dapper high-comedy actor turning into a give you some good advice .. .. \" We never learn bearded stumble-bum is far more shocking than it what the advice would have been , because Lonny would be to see a more sobersided actor in the part. stomps out of the room (en route to divorce , actual- ly) as Max mutters \" Nothing 's funny to that bird\" The fi rst real indication of Carey 's desperation and Mary sits on the edge of the bed, her back to emerges in a sequence which begins as \" glossy Carey and the camera, sobbing helplessly. The entertainment. \" He is seen stumbling into the gar- sequence ends with a fade-out on her back, visually den of Mary's mansion, striking a match on a dimly consigning Carey to off-screen oblivion. lit object at the corner of the screen . The camera draws back abruptly as he realizes that the object The suicide sequence is a masterpiece of acting is the rump of a statue of Venus. The lighting (by and direction . Carey lies in Mary's bed , completely Charles Rosher, master photographer of SUNRISE sober after being sprung from the county jail. His and once house photographer to \" America's calm , deliberate voice and movements, the illusory Sweetheart,\" Mary Pickford) is delicate, whimsical , warmth and cleanliness of the bed, and Mary's eager slightly fantastic : the smoke from the cigarette is solic itude combine to give an impression of tran- back-lit to make it into a brilliant cloud , and the quillity, resignation, and regret: \" I'm not the Max statue 's face shines brightly out of the gloom . After Carey that you once knew. I'm all burned out, Mary. Carey tosses pebbles at the bedroom window and Don 't you see I'm dead inside? I should feel lights a newspaper to \" burn your house down ,\" ashamed-degraded-but I just can't feel anything. \" Rather than cutting to Mary's reaction as Carey Neil Hamilton, Constance Bennett and Lowell Sherman. FILM COMMENT 63

speaks, Cukor holds the shot of Carey and lets the on the table . The delay is suspenseful ; it allows us audience provide the reactions. Carey's expressions qualify the meaning of his words : as he speaks the time to contemplate the photo and anticipate his word \" degraded ,\" his eyes roll slightly inward , rem- iniscent of the way they 'd roll , painfully, when he reaction . His eyes wander down from the mirror to took a stiff jolt of booze; and when he says , \" I just can 't feel anything ,\" he leans his head back on the the photograph , and we see it in close-up . He looks pillow in exhaustion , tired of feeling too much. back up at the mirror, the camera shooting over Mary tries to cheer him up with brave talk about returning to work . Shaking his head slowly, he his shoulder toward his anguished reflection , the replies , \" I've stopped kidding myself, Mary. I'm washed up in pictures. Done for .\" His voice is slow photograph out of the shot. The cigarette falls from and matter-of-fact. He purses his lips slightly, nar- rows his eyes in a half-wink , and wags his index his mouth and he pushes the photograph away, finger back and forth , scoldingly. \" I haven't got it any more .\" He taps the finger to his chest. \" It's all Cukor cutting back to the wider shot. Again and gone in here. I know.\" After a few more inconse- quential stabs at cheeriness , Mary snaps out the again , this insistence on critically distancing us from light, wishes him goodnight, and walks toward the door. In ·the semi-darkness , lying perfectly still , he an emotion , rather than just building an effect of raises his hand and lets the sash of her dress trail through his fingers . It is the slipping-away of every- hysteria; Carey has never been so sober in his life. thing he cares about. The hand lingers a moment in the air and drops to the bed . He calls her name No longer a stumbling buffoon , he is now dignified softly, and she stops at the open door. Like Mason in A STAR IS BORN asking Garland to sing as he walks and deliberate, moving toward death almost cere- out of the beach house toward the sea, Carey wants to fix her image in his mind for the last time : \" I just moniously, almost as if he were directing someone wanted to hear you speak again , that 's all. \" else in the scene , analyzing the actions with a calm, She shuts the door and he sits for a few moments in the gloom , barely visible as he covers his face critical eye. with his hand , blinks his eyes, looks off left, closes his eyes, looks right, and climbs out of bed . Cukor With the last trace of his old self (the photograph) cuts to a shot inside the adjacent room , heavily shadowed , the perspective vaguely distorted by the gone, Carey is left with nothing but his twisted lighting: we see a door at the right of the screen and expect it to open straight toward the camera, alcoholic image, and Cukor cuts, for the first time, but when it does open we see that it is actually at an angle to the camera. The mise-en-scene makes to a shot framed completely within the mirror, the us share Carey's feeling of dizziness and confusion . He takes a drink, his eyes open in a terrible stare , face fuzzy and distorted as Carey regards it in and he walks away, tilting his head to one side as if to re-establish his sense of direction . horror. Low-angled images of his earlier days as Looking for a match to light his cigarette, he opens a poised director and a debonair social drinker a drawer and , in a close-up taken from his point of view, the camera discovers a revolver. Cukor cuts dissolve over his face as the sound track resonates back to a full shot of Carey slowly looking up from the gun , his face lit by moonlight from the window, with a deafening throbbing noise. Jail bars swim over the rest of the room dark ; the effect is more disturb- ing than if Cukor had done the conventional thing his face , his eyebrows arching grotesquely. He has and cut to a huge close-up of Carey reacting to the gun. This way we first share his feelings by no will power now-Cukor cuts to a close-up of seeing the gun in close-up , and then are distanced from his feelings by the cut to full shot; the space Carey 's feet as they move mechanically into the around him in the frame keeps him situated firmly in reality , implying that the suicide is a conscious , other room . As if disembodied , his hand , in close-up, rational decision rather than the impulsive emotional reaction it would seem if the screen contained raises the gun to his chest and pulls the trigger. nothing but his face. Several more images of the past flash by in a CloSing the drawer, Carey shuffles into yet an- other room, this one even more heavily shadowed, subliminal montage before Carey, seen from a low and stops before a mirror to light the cigarette. At first , as he looks into the mirror, he doesn't notice angle, sinks toward the camera in slow motion . a framed photograph of himself, suave and assured , George Cukor , I submit, is the cinema 's greatest realist. His settings may be stagey, his stories whimsi- cal and contrived , his interest in society and the natural world perfunctory; but no other director, not even Renoir or Bergman , can bring out so many nuances in an actor and capture an emotional state with such precision . The reason it is difficu It to define \" Cukor themes\" or \" the Cukor point of view\" is that his films are not about themes or ideas, but simply about people , in all their irreducible com- plexity. WHAT PRICE HOLLYWOOD? is not about Hol- lywood , alcoholism , or suicide , but about an actor named Lowell Sherman. 11111111 What Price Hollywood? 1932, RKO , 87 minutes. Distributed in 16mm by Films, Inc . Director George Cukor; producer David 0 . Selznick; screenplay Jane Murfin and Ben Markson , from an adaptation by Gene Fowler and Rowland Brown of a story by Adela Rogers St. John ; photography Charles Rosher; music Max Steiner; sets Carroll Clark; editor Jack Kitchen ; montage effects Slavko Vorkapich . CAST Lowell Sherman Maximillian Carey Constance Bennett Mary Evans Neil Hamilton Lonny Borden Gregory Ratoff Julius Saxe Louise Beavers Bonita Eddie Anderson James 64 MAY 1973

CRITICS John Simon , and historians like Georges on science fiction films , \" The Imagi- Sadoul , Jean Mitry , and Lewis Jacobs. nat io n of Disaster,\" in many important RAYMOND DURGNAT The Explorers, a more Dionysian group, respects .) by Jonathan Rosenbaum are relatively cranky, kinky and eclectic: Jean-Luc Godard , Manny Farber, Robert As Robert Mundy points out in the Raymond Durgnat was born in London Warshow, and Raymond Durgnat are four American Cinema (Spring 1972), Durgnat of Swiss parents in 1932. He stud ied eminent examples. \" is often at his best writing about mo- English literature at Cambridge, was a ments , rather than about films or direc- staff writer for the British Elstree Studios, If the Hunters are mainly concerned and did research in film at the Slade with what Farber has called White Ele- tors.\" He can also be quite strong on School of Fine Art . He currently is head phant Art-monoliths , like Kubrick 's, that individual aspects of films , as the follow- of General Studies at St. Martin's School leave lasting traces-the Explorers are ing sampling of quotes demonstrates: of Art. In 1963, he cited Jerry Lewis and more drawn to Farber's contrasting cate- Clara Bow as his favorite movie stars and gory of Termite Art, wh ich \" goes always \" One craves, perhaps, a venture into published Nouvelle Vague : The First Dec- forward eating its own boundaries , and , those dark interiors where the fantasies ade (Motion ), an analysis of the films of likely as not, leaves nothing in its path of THE THIEF OF BAGDAD interpenetrate th irty-four French directors that has long other than the signs of eager, industrious, with those of PEEPING TOM . Whence their been out of print, and wh ich remains the unkempt activity.\" centrifugality? The comparison with the most thorough single work ever done on director of THE CITADEL is pertinent. Vidor, the subject, in English or French . For the last ten years or so , Durgnat intellectually, perhaps, less cagey and has remained the most active and far- sophisticated than Powell, has retained Seven more books on film by Durgnat reaching Explorer in British criticism . He an authenticity of emotional excess have been published over the last dec- is something of a wandering troubadour which endows his films with their genuine ade ; by the time this article reaches print, in his profession-in the variety of publi- mysticism, founded on human energy. his study of Jean Renoir for the Studio cations that he writes for, the range of But Powell lived in a class , and a country , Vista series may also have appeared . He subjects that he takes on , and even in and a generation which suspects, fears has also written an uncountable number the wayward drifts and occasionally and undermines emotion. Thus his diver- of uncollected articles and reviews, in- strangled clauses of his prose style , a sity of qualities rare ly find their holding cluding a first-rate appraisal of si x von dense th icket of uncertainly placed centre .\" (A Mirror for England , Faber & Sternberg films for Movie # 13 (under the commas and quotation marks that only Faber.) name of O. O. Green, which permits rarely seems to do justice to the speed Durgnat to quote appreciatively from his and rhythm of his thought. \" [Emil] Jannings allowed himself to own work twice), an indispensable genre stray as far from 'realism ' as comedians survey (\" Paint it Black : The Fam ily Tree His penchant for Surrealism and soci- do-one can speak of 'slow' expression- of the Film Noir,\" in the English Cinema ology has made his critical approach ism , like Janning 's and 'fast ' expression- 617), and a book-length study of Hitch- much closer to that of the French maga- ism , like Chaplin ' s (or Jerry Lewis 's) . The cock that appeared serially in Films and zine Positif than to the general orientation middle term between them is exemplified Filming (February-November, 1970). In of Films and Filming , a slick English fan by Catherine Hessling in Jean Renoir 's 1969, he listed as his ten favorite films magazine where he has presided as NANA (1926), where she gives what is both house intellectual for over a decade. But the best and worst performance in the QUAI DES BRUMES , LA RONDE , VAMPYR , MIRA- in fact , his idiosyncratic methods and history of the French cinema. With her CLE IN MILAN , DUEL IN THE SUN , THE SAGA manners place him well beyond the pale petal-light limbs flung out into Napoleonic of any established school of critical postures , her bee-sting mouth pouting in OF ANATAHAN , Oskar Fisch inger 's ALLE- thought. In a letter replying to an unfairly her heart-shaped face, her eyes nar- GRETTO , DUCK SOUP , Powell 's THE THIEF OF abusive review of his book Films and rowed till the pupils disappear under a BAGDAD , and FRENCH CANCAN ; and as his Feelings (M.I.T. Press) in Sight and palisade of lashes, her fluttering precoci- ten favorite directors Len Lye , Norman Sound, Durgnat asserted at one point, ty and jagged stances, this awkward McLaren , Te x Avery , Murnau , Pabst, \" I'm out to follow an argument , not se- blend of Chaplinesque quicksilver and Dreyer, Sternberg , Renoir, King Vidor, duce people .\" Walking alone, he tends marionette fixity comes , if only the spec- and Tony Conrad . to cast a long shadow. tator will adapt his response , to make at least as much sense as modern Method- 2 An essential aspect of his wanderlust ism .\" (Films and Feelings.) Many (if not all) film critics tend to fall is that he rarely stays with anyone sub- into two categories , which might be ject for long , at least not in the rigorous, In HELLZAPOPPIN : \" Hell , by an atmo- called the Big Game Hunters and the methodical way that characterizes Andre spheric pun , is a combination of the tradi- Explorers. The Big Game (read : master- Bazin , Warshow, or Wood . Even when he tional Hell (devils with horns roast blonde piece) Hunters are basically out for tro- devotes a book to a single figure, like angels trussed to spits), and of a modern phies to possess , stuff, and hang on their BUlluel or Franju (each in the Movie factory, where devils pedal away at grind- walls; the Explorers usually poke around Paperback series), his characteristic ap- stones and produce 'Canned Guy ' and simply to see what they find . The Hunters proach is multilayered and varied , a con- 'Canned Gal' Gust at this time , of course , are a relatively Apollonian group-disci- tinual shift of strategies, rather than the America was arming for war, and soon plined , academic , and generally tradi- systematic pursuit of any single argu- to draft people into munitions factories).\" tional in their aesthetic values : immediate ment. On the few occasions when he (The Crazy Mirror. ) examples that come to mind are Robin does stick to one procedure-as in his Wood , James Agee, William Pechter, study of character traits in JOHNN Y GUITAR Of course , not all of Durgnat's Stanley Kauffmann , Dwight Macdonald, (in Films and Feelings) and his sociologi- strengths can be observed in short quo- cal commentary on Panama and Frank's tations . It is his special knowledge of and L' IL ABNER (in The Crazy Mirror: Hol- sensitivity to the Surrealist trad ition in lywood Comedy and the American France , for instance, that makes his study Image , Dell)-the results are usually of Franju particularly valuable, and richly somewhat flat and academic . (A more evocative in a way that most Anglo-Amer- successful example , also in Films and ican criticism of Franju is not. And on a Feelings, is his extended psychological- few occasions, when Durgnat grasps a political analYSis of THIS ISLAND EARTH , film as the meeting ground of several which anticipates Susan Sontag 's essay interconnecting influences, traditions and social forces , he is able to treat it as a comple x but homogeneous unity: his FILM COMMENT 65

FOCUS ON FILM essays on KISS ME DEADLY (\" The Apotheo- Durgnat isolates mythic and archetypal sis of Va-Va-Voom ,\" in Eros in the Cine- structures that bind the two into an indis- is an extremely useful, ma, Calder & Boyars) and JUDEX (in the soluble whole. If film-watching suggests entertaining and sometimes Franju book) are probably the best things the back-and-forth movement of a tennis stimulating British film that have been written on either film . game , Kael 's eye is on the players , while magazine, firmly established Durgnat's is on the court. as an important source of Finally, one can value Durgnat for the original research into subjects wealth of movies that he's seen, and the 4 and areas of film history unknown delights that he often brings to Durgnat's unwavering hatred for the largely ignored elsewhere. our attention . While I find it difficult to elitist and middlebrow stances of Sight Past issues have included share his enthusiasm for L' LlL ABNER- and Sound, which crops up periodically studies of: The American B particularly since nothing he says about in his work , has probably provided his Film , John Barrymore, Sergei it even remotely convinces me to go back career with as much sustained focus as Bondarchuk, Rowland Brown to it-I can only applaud his frequent Robin Wood 's admiration for F. R. Leavis Lon Chaney, Robert Donat, ' allusions to such unjustly neglected has unified the thrust of Wood 's work. Clint Eastwood, Douglas works as HER MAN , THE 5000 FINGERS OF The striking contrast between Durgnat Fairbanks, John Ford, Sidney DR . T ., IT' S IN THE BAG , and the cartoons and Wood , who are quite likely the two Franklin, Alec Guinness, Henry of Tex Avery, even if none of these has most ambitious English film critics in Hathaway, Bob Hope; Edward received the extended treatment from their generation , is a remarkably comple- Everett Horton, Ken Hughes, Durgnat that one would hope for. mentary one in many respects. The Per Lindberg, James Mason, somewhat explicit relationship of Wood Oswald Morris, Walter 3 to Freud is balanced by the more implicit Newman, Suzanne Pleshette, When Durgnat attacks Pauline Kael's (but equally crucial) link of Durgnat to Fritz Rasp, Donald Ogden \" Fantasies of the Art House Audience \" Jung . In a certain sense , Freud I Wood Stewart, Monica Vitti , Tuesday at some length in Films and Feelings for seek to civilize the unconscious by ex- Weld, Susannah York. its puritan assumptions, one feels the posing its mysteries and terrors to the confrontation of two critics on a common light of day, while Jung I Durgnat are more Each study has been fully turf. Quite simply, Kael and Durgnat are bent on achieving a truce and partner- documented (usually by two of the most accomplished sociologi- ship between night and day, mystery and filmographies) and richly cal film critics since the death of Robert logic . illustrated, usually providing Warshow, and the differences between ' This sharp division was particularly the most thorough available their approaches is instructive. It is fre- evident when conflicting reviews of BELLE material on each subject. quently said of Kael that she reviews DE JOUR by Durgnat and Wood were print- audiences as much as films ; one might ed side by side in Movie # 15. Durgnat's Each issue of FOCUS ON add to this that her moral evaluations of response to the film is characteristically FILM has 68 pages in a each tend to precede her analyses. In sympathetic: distinctive landscape format; Durgnat's case, analysis of what theoreti- \"By liberal standards , the film is a fairy- and all numbers are currently cally takes place between the film and tale , its psychology is strange indeed. But available price $1 .25. Binders audience comes first, and any moral its serene indifference to liberal notions and an index to issues 1-8 are evaluation of this occurrence is usually is the condition of its insidious freshness . also on sale . Write for either postponed or suspended. Within It can treat a psychopathic case in the individual copies and further the terms of Durgnat's sociology, con- Lubitsch style because bourgeois man- information to The Tantivy cepts of good and bad, right and wrong ners are psychopathic anyway. \" Press, 108 New Bond Street, are relatively nonexistent-or at least Wood concludes, on the contrary, that London W1 Y OQX, England . nonessential. This is not to suggest, of \" For an adherent of an '-ism ' explicity course, that Durgnat doesn't evaluate dedicated to revolution , Bunuel, on the Subscribe to FOCUS ON FILM films, or that he avoids moral judgments: evidence of his films, seems remarkably through FILM COMMENT. he periodically makes his tastes and pref- defeatist, steering his characters towards Four issue (one year) erences known , and some of ·his judg- their preordained hopelessness by elim- subscriptions cost $5 and ments-like his notorious dismissal of inating any possibilities of health. \" Earlier checks should be made Godard-are couched almost exclusively in the review, he states: payable to Film Comment and in moral terms: \" I don't think Bunuel feels anything sent to Box 686 , Village \" Godard wears dark glasses to hide much for Severine as a human being ; if Station , Brookline, from the world the fact that he's in a the film evokes no disgust for her, it Massachusetts 02147. permanent state of ocular masturbation , evokes no compassion or affection ei- rubbing himself off against anything and ther. What one does take away is an If you are seriously interested everything on which his eye alights. The impression of a pervasive nastiness.\" in the study of film, find out flickering glance of his camera is the Wood 's rejection of BELLE DE JOUR about FOCUS today. constant dribble of premature ejacula- seems partially a function of the cal- tion . It is an unseeing stare . Godard lousness with which he feels other peo- FOCUS ON FILM keeps babbling on about the world being ple, including Durgnat, respond to it; in absurd because he can 't keep an intel- a recent FILM COMMENT, George Kap- 66 MAY 1973 lectual hard-on long enough to probe for lan attacks the potato-sack sequence in any responsive warmth. \"\" FRENZY with a similar iittitude. Speaking But while Kael discusses contem- for myself, I was revolted by the audi- porary films as interactions and en- ence 's reactions to the murders in THE counters between screen and audience, GODFATHER when I saw it, and disliked the film at the time for its capacity to elicit \" \" Asides on Godard ,\" in The Films of Jean -Luc these responses. But are such judgments Godard (Praeger Film Library). It is worth mention- really legitimate to the films themselves, ing that later, in the same collection , Durgnat as opposed to how an audience chooses comes to the defense of Godard in his essay on ONE PLUS ONE.

to take them? Wood asserts that in BELLE faces (or, to cite an analogy from the film , FILM'73 DE JOUR, \"there is no attempt ... to ex- the X-ray of Avery 's torso): it highlights at The plore the potentialities of life ; there is no details that are already actively present. New School sense of what normality is, or, more im- portant could be .\" But surely the film Wood seems somewhat aware of this Summer program begins June 11! does attempt to explore at least some of aspect of the film , and shows much sen- life's possibilities; and a sense of what sitivity towards certain manifestations of William K. Everson's Film Series 17: normality both is and could be is precisely it; but his Leavis-inspired concern for Screenings of rare and valuable films what Bunuel conveys , in his treatment of moral centers ultimately leads to a taming 1920-1945, highlighted by the first Severine's acceptance of her mas- of the film 's subversive implications. After showing in years of Hitchcock's ochism . It is hardly necessary to agree noting persuasively that the basic cre- \" Murder\" and a rare screening of the with Bunuel's definitions of normality in ative tension in Ray 's work is between uncut British version of Hitchcock 's order to accept the film. Real people are \"conscious, rational control \" and \" the \" Young and Innocent. \" Tuesday not the size they assume on large movie promptings of spontaneous, anarchic im- evenings. screens, and music doesn 't accompany pulse,\" he minimizes this tension by our lives in quite the same way as sound avoiding the film's anarchistic thrust, vir- Zoetrope 6: The films of Richard track scores; birds are not intent on de- tually turning Ray into a safe social dem- . Lester-A complete retrospective. stroying mankind, and many of the spatial ocrat. \" It would be quite wrong to see and temporal conditions of life in ONLY BIGGER THAN LIFE as a simple endorse- Thursday evenings. (Seminar, 6 P.M.; ANGELS HAVE WINGS are patently unreal ; ment of the American bourgeois family,\" Retrospective , 8 P.M.) if Wood can accept these and countless he soberly states , in a tragicomiC under- other conventions-including , say, the statement that brutalizes the film's mean- Zoetrope 7: The films of Stanley brutal sexist assumptions of KLUTE-why ing (does he consider it a comple x en- Kubrick - A complete retrospective. can't he accept the compassion that dorsement?). To say this about one of the Wednesdays. (Seminar, 6 P.M .; Bunuel so visibly displays towards his most scathing portrayals of the American Retrospective , 8 P.M.) heroine, by having her deepest desires bourgeois family that the cinema has gratified?\" \" given us! Turning away from the film 's Film Cycle 5: Directions for powerful negativity and despair in his the Seventies. Monday evenings. For Wood, the discovery of what he search for \"an impulse towards the for- Films by young American directors, considers to be positive moral values in mation of human norms,\" he reaches for including Altman , Allen , Bogdanovich, a film is a prerequisite to his appreciation the unconvincing closing scene of family Coppola, Ritchie and Williams. of it-a requirement that Durgnat seems reconciliation-an ending that, as we (Seminar, 6 P.M. ; Retrospective , in no way bound to . When Wood finds learn from Ray 's interview in Movie # 9, 8 P.M .) what he's looking for, he can take hold was composed hastily just before it was of a film with a precision that few other shot, and is completely unsatisfactory to Intensive Filmmaking Workshop. critics can master, conveying its total Ray himself. Wood then concludes that 6 days each week for 6 weeks. impact with a passionate clarity that the film 's \" message (in so far as a com- 7 hours per day. seems well beyond Durgnat's range. But plex work of art can be said to have one) when he confronts films whose \" positive is not 'Be satisfied with what you 've got' Film Production Workshop. values\" are problematical, at least from but ' Work with what you've got, empiri- a traditional standpoint, it often appears cally and realistically. And know your- Film Editing Workshop. that he either dismisses these films un- self. ' \" But does BIGGER THAN LIFE really justly-as he does with BELLE DE JOUR-Or offer us the lUXUry of such Sunday school Michael Mayer on \"Film and the supplies them with moral resonances that lessons? One could probably summarize Entertainment Industries.\" they don't have; which I think he does, two of Mr. Wood's other favorite films with even more damagingly, with Nicholas equal justice by saying that MARNIE Film Writing Workshop. Ray's BIGGER THAN LIFE (in the Sep- teaches us that \" Honesty is the best tember-October 1972 FILM COMMENT). policy ,\" while RIO BRAVO'S message is \"A Plus many other courses. friend in need is a friend indeed.\" BIGGER THAN LIFE is a profoundly up- The New School Film Faculty setting exposure of middle-class aspira- The weaknesses and strengths of any includes : William K. Everson , James tions because it defines madness- critic are likely to be bound up with one Monaco, Arnold Eagle, Bud Avery's drug-induced psychosis-as another: without Wood 's moral piousness Wirtshafter and Michael Mayer. taking these values seriously. Each em- and liberal squeamishness, or Durgnat's blem of the American dream implicitly occasional solipsisms and unwieldy Write for catal ogue now. honored and worshiped by Avery in the structures, one suspects that the talents opening reel is systematically turned on of each would be less than they are. Yet For current film information, call its head, converted from dream to night- the feeling perSists that these two gentle- mare, by becoming only more explicit in men could learn a lot from each other. 11111111 I -\"The New School Newsline, 741-0707. his behavior. The dramatic function of his incurable disease and his taking of corti- Apologia and Auto-Critique The ,. J: sone, carrying the respective promises of by Raymond Durgnat death and superl :re , is to act on the slick New School NS magazine ads that Avery and his wife try Raymond Durgnat was sent the pre- to inhabit in much the same way that ceding review of his criticism, and A....,.'o.·. F',.•• U\"'••\".'f.Jr 10,. Adulf. expressionist lighting works on actors ' responded with these \" footnotes. \" Itali- cized quotations are from the Rosen- 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,66 WEST 12 ST. NEW YORK 10011 OR 5·2700 \" The words of a traditionalist critic might be helpful baum article. I The New School I here._Sam uel Johnson has argued that anyone I 66 W. 12th St., N.Y. 10011 I entenng a theater can imagine that a couple of Biography and bibliography. I was a chairs and fake pillars are, say, Ancient Egypt: staff writer for Associate British Pictures I Please send me announcements about The I \" Surely he who imagines this, \" Johnson wrote at Elstree Studios, did postgraduate re- I New School film programs and courses. I :'can imagi.ne more.\" Why, then , couldn·t he imag~ search in film at the Slade School of Fine Ine that Sevenne attains fulfillment at the end of Art, and lectured in film at the Royal I Name I II Address II BELLE DE JOUR? ILC-ity_ _ _ _ _ _S_ta_te-_--_-Z_ip_____ ..JI FILM COMMENT 67

GIII.A College of Art . My Renoir book will be Surely I often talk morally , even in the STUDIIS published by the University of California case of THIS ISLAND EARTH. Press; Studio-Vista has announced Sex- AT ual Alienation in the Cinema for April of Godard 's ocular masturbation. This TIB this year; and Faber & Faber is publish ing passage of mine was rude so that the riL. a thorough revision of the Films and Film- reader wouldn 't take it too solemn Iy as SCIOOL. ing Hitchcock series as The Strange a moral point. At that time, the consensus World of Alfred Hitchcock this autumn . was taking Godard as a sort of sage of The Film School at th e Orso n We ll es Com- As for the Movie Sternberg piece , I'd solipsism . I wanted to say that his films lex off e rs a co mpre h e nsive p rog ra m i n ci n- been asked by another interested party weren 't just about triumphs over the me- em a stu d ies. to write for Movie anonymously only, so dium, but about a predicament too absur- what looks like nutty self-indulgence was dist to be trag ic in the traditionally A v ar ie ty of semin ar s explore fo re ign f il m my only way of getting a credit out of it. dignified way . And , after all , he did right- , and the wide spect rum of ba ck g rou nd s that or rather left-about turn intellectually ch a racter i ze A merican film - from exper- Punctuation. \" Uncertainly placed soon afterwards. This sort of Portnoy's ime nta l d ir e cto rs like Ed Emschwille r a nd commas \" -I can 't proofread- \" and quo- Complaint of the bourgeois intelligentsia Bruc e Co n ner to n ew movement d i r ec to rs tation marks\" -this was the result of an is the shadow side of the \" reflective hesi- like Bob Ro fel son and Mo nte Hell m a n. unhappy early compromise between my tation\" I was advocating earlier-hence academic bent and journalistic con- the suddenly violent metaphor! Besides, Fo r th e prod uc tio n-o riented , ou r 16 MM straints. Quotation marks were meant to those same \" Asides\" do describe Go- Pro duc tion Lo b is a I-ye a r program fo r a imply \" I know this is a loose use of the dard 's first two features as \" master- ca reer in fil mma king . You' ll stu d y cin e- word , but it has sense.\" Now I either pieces ,\" which is high praise , surely. ma tog rap h y, ed iting, sou nd, scr ipti ng, film define it or don't, and trust the reader busine ss a nd la w. to get the idea. \" Ourgna t isolates mythic and archetyp- al structures that bind the two into an , - - - - - - - - - ,Summer semester begins June 25th. School of thought. I was close to Posi- indissoluble whole.\" The danger is of tif, especially in its 1960-' 67 period . Sure- binding them into an over-schematized, I rill CATALOG: ly Positif is an established school , and stylized whole-merely a set of conven- I (817)881-3900 surely I'm within their pale , albeit writing tions. But the alternative sense, of \" base- I Name from an Anglo-Saxon tradition (nearer line possibilities \" with in which each aud i- I.A. Richards than F.R. Leavis). ence reacts differently, is neatly sug- I Addre'-s - - - - - - - gested by your \" court\" metaphor. Shifting strategies vs. systematic pur- II City_ _ suit. The business of criticism seems to \" Kae/'s eye is on the players, while me to be \" matters arising ,\" and naturally Ourgnat's is on the court.\" I wonder if I State_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ..zip_ _ varies from film to film. I'd rather be wrong three subjects for moral judgment are but open up a perspective than be pre- being telescoped here : (1) the moral im- I Phone maturely right, i. e., dismiss opportunities pact on an audience of a film (what real for the full intellectual, sensual, emotional spectators , in groups , make of it. in fact) ; I Send to: experience of reflective hesitation- (2) the moral assumptions and conclu- which seems to me to be of the essence sions of a film when fully and correctly I of art, as opposed to brusquer communi- apprehended by a kind of ideal spectator, I cation (e.g. , moral saws, the human an ami inconnu ; and (3) Durgnat's own I 1001 Mass. Ave. sciences). moral attitudes. Obviously, they intercon- IL _C_am_brid_ge_, Ma_ss._0213_8 ...J nect in his writing . But so far as (1 ) is Convincing the reader to \" go back to \" concerned , Durgnat's moral polarity re- MOVIE POSTERS LI ' L ABNER . Is \" going back to it\" the only volves around the question of honesty response a critic can hope for? I had a and insight (good) as against mystifica- PRESSBOOKS-STI LLS -PROGRAMS different end in view : to spell out some tion and easy cliche ( bad). Thus, Wilder 's Actual Posters Used By Theatres of the ways in which comedy calls on STALAG 17 is a better description of capi- Thousands of Titles Available reality. Lawrence Alloway, of a.l l people , talist processes than Stevens' GIANT. But couldn 't understand what I was trying to nihilist or Fascist films may be good inso- CATALOG $1 .00 (Refunded with order) do in the not dissimilar piece on THIS far as they undermine everyone else 's ISLAND EARTH , a film which I've no particu- complacencies, and state uncomfortable The Cinema Attic. Department GT lar enthusiasm for, either. I was out to truths. P.O. Box 7772 • Phila., Pa. 19101 show that there are more meanings in ordinary meanings-of the shallow type Ourgnat's \" unwavering hatred\" for Monthly lists of scarce cinema required for entertainment-than usually Sight and Sound. I'd say \" consistent dis- books & magazines sent spotted by critics, who imagine that only agreement\"; I hope I don 't read as if I'm airmail - $5 .00 yearly. important art can involve people and negative and rooted in hatred . It's true make poetic and ideological points. I'm that Sight and Sound has often given me A. E. COX, 21 Cecil Road, Itchen, looking at movies which are run-of-the- a useful chopping block, and that it did 50uthhampton 502 7HX, mill yet saturated with something too deserve attack , if only because it was ENGLAND. shallow really to be myth (in the full both so generally accepted , and itself so sense), but too ambivalent to be merely extremely destructive and dismissive, \" .. .all at most reasonable prices.\" cliche . I'm trying a kind of micro-criticism, during its very bad period (1956-' 68 , International Film Guide. more concerned with the molecules of a roughly) . Probably there isn 't any sus- film 's meaning than with the implications tained focus for my work , in the sense of its meaning. of an overriding preoccupation , because , like your traditional liberal humanist, I'm \" Nonessential\" concepts of good and interested in everything to do with art- bad, right and wrong. No, they ' re essen- and with art because it has to do with tial , but no more so than some other human experience. Nihil humanum alien- non-moral spiritual axes . Does my work um a me puto, if my rusty Latin is correct. really give an impression of amorality? 68 MAY 1973

I try to follow where films go, and prefer think that there is just one tradition of out knowing Robin Wood was writing films which persuade me that they are positive values in our culture? Then how right and I was wrong in my initial reflexes do you square , say, George Eliot, about it too, and remain unconvinced, about them . Inevitably, the tone of my \" moral judgment\" is somewhat muted, Nietzsche, Kafka, Bessie Smith? I'd have along Rosenbaum 's lines. not to say mellowed . thought that one of our problems was precisely the cynicism induced by our Yet the feeling persists that Rosen- Freud-Wood and Jung-Durgnat on multitude of conflicting moral and spiri- BELLE DE JOUR . I know the contrast is only tual cultures, and the very great difficulty baum 's real interest is his \" friendly an analogy, but I'm nearer Freud than of creating a synthesis which is neither Wood in my pessimism about moralistic weak nor narrow. enemy \" relationship with Wood , and that rationalization , and about any hope of civilizing the unconscious. Wood , like Rosenbaum on Wood on BIGGER THAN the Durgnat bit is a framework around it! F.R. Leavis , is Puritanical , and I'm not; out it's worth remembering that Puritan- LIFE . Oh , I obviously must see BIGGER Perhaps Durgnat disappears behind his ism is only one moral position , and a THAN LIFE! minority one. I suspect that BUrluel 's mix- own eclecticism , and even the critical ture of Jesuitical casuistry, inverted Wood 's \" Sunday school lessons.\" Marxist \" pessimism of the intelligence,\" Perhaps Wood does take some moral as persona can 't be seen-or seems rela- and the Surrealist inversion of Freud is a precondition of a film 's being morally beyond the capabilities of the Puritan satisfying , but he does distinguish the full tively sloppy and boring. I'd hate to think position , however evolved. To under- experience from the moral summary stand BUrluel , you have either to be inno- thereof. it really was! 11111111 cent of Puritanism , or to have taken it beyond the point where its internal inco- Wood and Durgnat \" could learn a lot BOOKS herences appear. Otherwise, you either dismiss it or just goggle at the shock and from each other.\" I've disagreed with FEMMES CINEASTES, riddle of it all. Robin Wood throughout my Hitchcock ou Ie triomphe de la volonte book. I hope I've done so in a way that by CHARLES FORD \" It is hardly necessary to agree with shows how much I respect him, and how Denoel / Gonthier, Paris, 1972; Bufwe/'s definitions of normality in order much I've learned from him-which is a paperback $5 .25 in U.S.A .; index. to accept the film .\" I agree with you , but lot. Critics presumably hope to be learned your tone implies that normal people can from (or else why write?) and to learn (or REVIEWED BY HELEN SHANNON hardly be expected to agree with BUrlu- else why read?). It would be interesting Helen Shannon is involved in research el's definitions of normality. I think many to know whether Robin Wood has ever normal people would . We know that his learned anything from Raymond Durgnat, on the portrayal of minorities and women \"normality\" involves a fullness of pas- or whether he thinks Durgnat is as moral- in American film. sion, an amour fou , a \"real \" ization of the ly sick as Rosenbaum 's account implies essence of dream-life, as against hypo- he ought. Certainly another neo-Leavi- \" She \" picks up the book with justifiable chondriacal notions of emotional de- site, David Holbrook, thinks Durgnat is apprehension: a history of women film- corum. If you can accept Marlene Die- revolting (\"d for dirt, or Durgnat, sec- makers written by a man, who in his in- trich ' s saloon girl in DESTRY , or Norman tion \" ). I wrote about BELLE DE JOUR with- troduction does not thank one woman Mailer on the wisdom of prostitutes, you for her assistance, who intends to write can accept BUrluel 's Severine. BUrluel's \"in the most objective man ner.\"\" Femmes film is full of saddening ironies, and I'm Cineastes is \" objective ,\" which means sure he knows it. It's sad and intricate that its author is unconscious of his own because we can sense that Severine and biases ; it is an adequate presentation , her husband should accept her re- pressed life-and they don't, forcing her DOing is at the heart of the learning experience in our intensive to live it out in that imperfect, indeed training program. Develop your skills in camera work, erliting, tragic , way . BUrluel is inviting us to con- directing, production, scriptwriting under the guidance and sider the myopia, errors, and cowardice direction of a faculty of working professionals while earning which everyone in the film shows , at one a Master of Fine Arts degree. time or another-just like us-all tangled up with misdirected hopes and acts of SCHOOL OF THE ARTS • NEW YORK UNIVERSITY courage-just like us-and ending in frus- tration-which is common enough . Please write or telephone for information and applications. Bl:Jfwel has Severine 's \" deepest de- II David J. Oppenheim, Dean, School of the Arts, New sires gratified.\" I don 't quite see her York University, 111 Second Avenue, Box E7, New afternoons as quite so fine as \" deepest\" York, N.Y. 10003 (212) 598-2407 might suggest, although I agree with your general drift. A major reason for art is to When writing to advertisers please mention FILM COMMENT enable us to share-and sensitize our- selves to-both the surface and the struc- ture of experiences existing on tempera- mental and moral coordinates different from our own . It's what you 're slowest to approve of that teaches you most. (I don 't say that whatever you disapprove of is therefore good .) Robin Wood 's \" traditional standpoint\" toward \" positive values.\" Do you really FILM COMMENT 69

but it lacks inspiration; it reflects little raphies, never their personalities, are similar sequence used in 1949 by de Sica sympathy for its subject , yet neither is related to us? There are the exceptional : at the beginning of MIRACLE IN MILAN? there disdain: the work rests in an area Germaine Dulac who from 1916 through Ford 's presentation of Alice Guy is of emotional neutrality. 1930 directed more than fifteen films typical of this work which often misses before she headed the Gaumont newsreel the point and is more frequently oblivious It is not difficult to imagine the genesis department; Thea von Harbou who con- of it. What can be expected of this author of Femmes Cineastes. One day an editor , ceived and wrote the scenario for several who can write, \"The little secretary who , it must be admitted , is a woman , films directed by Fritz Lang including proved that by the force of will and per- decided that the world needs a study of THE NIEBELUNGEN, METROPOLIS, M, and severance a woman , however fragile she women filmmakers. Her motive-schol- THE TESTAMENT OF DR. MABUSE. And natu- may be ...\" arly , mercantile or sororal-will be left to rally there are those whose work leaves be divined. Since this has been a seldom less of a mark. And yet when Ford pre- A comprehensive book on women frequented field of investigation, what sents even the most gifted creators he filmmakers should analyze the subjects easier way to proceed than to commis- reveals a disturbing lack of critical sense. they chose to treat. Germaine Dulac 's sion an already established historian. LA SOURIANTE MME. BEUDET (THE SMILING The job fell upon Charles Ford who has Take Alice Guy who started as a typist MRS. BEUDET, 1923) is a masterly study of contributed, among others, the following for Leon Gaumont at the time when he the wasted potential of the dominated works to French film scholarship: a six dealt only with still photographic equip- wife; her L'INVITATION AU VOYAGE (1925) volume Histoire encyc/opedique du ment. A witness to the Lumieres' first is a subtle expose of 'a married woman projections in 1895, she found them who desires \" Ie voyage \" (an extra-marital Cinema; a Histoire popu/aire du Cinema; repetitious and boring and felt that the fling), but whose impulsiveness never culminates in risk . During its projection a three volume Histoire iIIustree du public would be more interested in stories . at the Cinematheque Fran«aise the Cinema. The result: Femmes Cineastes She offered her suggestion to Gaumont sacrosanct silence was broken by several reads like a collection of excerpts from who agreed to let her tryon one condi- male snickers. Has the caricature of life Ford 's previous histories. tion-that the adventure not interfere with offered to audiences as entertainment her' typing . Her first endeavor, LA FEE AUX corrupted their access to mundane prob- Ford has written a tidy book because CHOUX (THE FAIRY IN THE CABBAGE PATCH, lems? Ford's criticism : \"The film pos- all that would have been unmanageable , 1896), shows a fairy who materializes a sesses almost no action.\" Is it not also uncomfortable, or unconfrontable was baby in a cabbage . Ford wishes us to worth noting that although several women eliminated before hand fell on index believe that the film is simple, a juvenile have made pornographic movies, it is card . It is significant that not one inter- work by a twenty-three year old girl. rare that they deal with belligerent de- view is included . Are real women directors However, is it not simply the screen struction? Only one war film is discussed just as illusory to him as the phantom adaptation of a pre-existent myth prop- and it was directed posthumously by \" woman-Michaelangelo \" he scrupulously agated by many a parent, and was not a avoids conjuring? Who are these women whose biog- THREE NEW 1\" VTR UNITS FROM SONY. FROM CAMERA MART Sony Yideocorder Model EV·320F- A color and monochrome video tape lA\" lh\" I\"~ VTR SYSTEMS recording unit. Features capstan servo electronic editing, with a roo Whether you shoot 1/4\" Black and White or 1\" Color, tary erase head. You can take se· you know that you can depend on CAMERA MART'S quences from tape, off-the·alr, live complete line of VTR equipment and accessories. cameras, etc. and insert them into a pre·recorded tape with perfect VTR Cameras and Zoom Lenses synchronization , VTR Recorders and Playback Decks VTR Monitors (All Sizes) Sony Video Color Pack Model CLP·B Write today for free rental list of our latest VTR equip- - Brings full color record and play· ment or phone Rupert Alberga in our VTR Department. back capability to Sony's EY·310 and PY·120 U Series Videocorder THE CAMERA MART INC. video tape recorders . Excellent sta· bility and color fidelity. 456 W. 55th ST., NEW YORK, N. Y. 10019 • (212) 757·6977 Sony Trinitron Color Monitor/ RENTALS 0 SALES 0 SERVICE Receiver Model CYM·1710-Use with video tape recorders 'and CCTV sys· 70 MAY 1973 terns. Special circuitry and trans· formers all ow input from YTRs, video cameras or any other video signal source.

Julia Solntzeva , Dovjenko's widow, from mate chapter that even in these past coming in FILM COMMENT: his already written script. several years few women have directed King Vidor, a book-length The book that still needs to be written full-length films , then to conclude with study by Raymond will be more than a history. It will also Durgnat; interview with be a critique , a conscious attempt to what the French call \" Ie happy end \" : examine the evolution of certain hereto- Stanley Donen; Leo fore unquestioned practices in the cinema \" The already comfortable list of women McCarey; Woody Allen. industry. Ford's argument that women scriptwriters do not aspire to be directors filmmakers will lengthen in a continuous because they prefer the quiet of the manner , it is certain. \" office to the tumult of the set is hardly We also hope that the future author responsible. will have enough intellectual respect to Women need an author who will not give the dates of the films cited and the be so indulgent as to state in the penulti- vital information of the personalities r.overed . 11111111 \" All translations by the reviewer . HOllYWOOO/1930s The BEST SIXTY YEARS OF HOLLYWOOD comes alive in Film Fan Monthly. in FILM By JOHN BAXTER Interviews, articles, filmographies, photos BOOKS This exciting survey gives the $5 yearl y, 50¢ for sample copy from reader a year-by-year account FFM , 77 Grayson Place, of Hollywood and its movies, Teaneck, N .J. 07666 BARNES from the early Cecil B. DeMille days to the era of change and ~ HOLLYWOOD: THE crises in the late sixties. Vir- GOLDEN ERA tually every film star and direc- 8YQ&V tor of importance is mentioned By JACK SPEARS and evoked in these pages, and FACULTY the pictures have been chosen OF with particular care. A major tribute to the phenomenal Hol- FINE ARTS lywood community. Over 100 SUMMER 1973 illustrations. $15.00 Program in Film A collection of articles about mo- Film: The 20th Century Art FA/FM 140 tion picture history from World INTERNATIONAL A non-historical examination of film as War I to the present, profusely FILM GUIDE 1973 a medium of artistic expression , its use illustrated with over 200 photo- and abuse ; analysis and structure ; graphs. Selections include: the similarities to and differences from the other arts ; problems and powers. movies of World War I ; the In- Edited by PETER COWIE Films , lectures and discussions . dian on the screen, with perform- Film and Filmmaking FA/FM 204 ers suoh as Chief John Big and The 10th anniversary edition of Theoretical and practical introduction to film and filmmaking through Jay Silverheels; the Doctor on the this most highly acclaimed lecture-demonstrations and studio exercises including group production sc reen , n ot forgetting Dr. Kildare, cinema annual contains a bet- of short films. Intended for students not concentrating in production . Dr. Gillespie, and Ben Casey; and ter-than-ever round-up of film TV, Tape and Film FA/FM 219 famous writers, actors, directors, news, fact, and opinion. There Investigations of the established and emerging electronic media, with and producers. A factual presenta- are reports from over 30 coun- special regard to their developing interrelationship with the film medium . tion with many precise references. tries, sections on festivals, ani- Projects include the production of short videotape documentaries and This handsome book will be en- mation, archives, film music, experimentation with film / tape transposition . j oyed by anyone interested in film film schools, and films for young Courses will also be offered in the history -- its influences, growth, people. Over 500 pages and 200 following areas: Dance, Music , Theatre and Visual Arts. and characters. $12.00 illustrations. $3.95 (paperback) For further information write : 1----------------------------------------------------------- Summer Studies '73 Faculty of Fine Arts : A. S. Barnes & Co., Inc., Dept. FC53 YES Centre York University 4700 Keele Street Cranbury, N. J. 08512 Downsview , Ont. M3J 1P3 416 / 667-3636 Please rush me copy (ies) of Hollywood: The Golden Era @ $12.00 ea., copy(ies) of Sixty Years of Hollywood @ $15.00 ea., and copy (ies) of International Film Guide 1973 @ $3.95 ea. Enclosed is my check or M.O. for _ _ _ _ _ Name Address ______________________________________________ City State Zip _ __ 1______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _______ 1 FILM COMMENT 71

BACK PAGE Readers in London and Paris needing back issues of FILM COMMENT may get Available them from Fred Zentner at the Cinema exclusively Bookshop , Great Russell Street, WC1 ; from and Elaine Michaux-Vignes at the rbcfilms Libraire Contacts , 24 Rue de Colisee , 8e . Both these bookstores have all TheLast available back issues in stock. PictureShovv Women and Film-International The Academy of Motion Picture Arts Festival 1973 will be held in Toronto and Sciences is offering a new Ea&yRider from June 8 to June 17. The program information service for film classes , film will include films , video and series and miscellaneous film programs TheKing photographic exhibits. There are no throughout the country. They will categories and the only criteria for provide cast and credits and other of Marvin submitted material is that the major pertinent information on specific films at Gardens contribution be by a woman. Films will no charge (at the present time). The ASafePlace be pre-screened . This will be the first Academy also offers reviews and occasion in Canada to see the collected production notes on many films-they Head work of women filmmakers . The Festival did not specify if there was a charge for will subsequently tour 18 Canadian these-and stills for $2.00 each. They are All of these feature cities . For further information contact planning periodic mailings of packets of films were made by Deanne Taylor or Jill Frayne, Women program notes and request that film BBS Productions and and Film , 9A Charles Street West, programs send in their notes and will be released Se p. Toronto M4 Y 1R4 Ontario , Canada . brochures so that their ideas may be tember 1, 1973 both 41 6 / 964-9562 . shared with other groups. Contact individually and as a Special Projects, Academy of Motion series. For further in· Ovum Ltd. has published a new book, Picture Arts and Sciences, 9028 formation and a free Video in Community Development. It is Melrose Avenue , Hollywood CA 90069 . brochure, contact us a practical handbook for anyone soon. planning a community development Literature/Film Quarterly is a new project with video equipment. The magazine from Salisbury State College . (be filml methods presented in the book have Edited by Thomas Erskine , the proven successful in varying magazine explores the relationsh ip 933 North La Brea Avenue communities and these studies are also between film and literature. It is Los Angeles, Calif. 90038 presented . It is published in a limited published in January, April , July and (213) 874·5050 edition of 1000. Price is £ 4.25 , $9.95 in October and a year's subscription is US-US add $.50 for postage and $6 .00 for libraries, $5 .00 for individuals packing. Write to Timothy Johnson , and $4 .00 for students . All Ovum Ltd ., 22 Gray's Inn Road , London correspondence should be sent to WC1 , England. 01-242 6921 . Literature / Film Quarterly, Salisbury State College , Salisbury MD 21801 . The Animator is a bimonthly newsletter published by the Northwest Film Study International Development Review has Center. The purpose of the newsletter is announced that it is commissioning to reflect the current of thought and articles on media in developing activity relating to film throughout the countries . The articles can focus on an Northwest. The Animator is free to area, a medium or a theme , should be members of the Center. Memberships contemporary and should be from 1500 are $5 .00 for individuals and $10.00 for to 1800 words . An honorarium of $200 families . Contributions are tax is offered. Nonwesterners are preferred. deductible. Northwest Film Study For further information contact Jean Center, 651 NW Culpepper Terrace , Marie Ackermann , International Portland OR 97210.503 / 227-4323 . Development Review , box 756 , Claremont CA 91711 . 714 / 621-4594 . Film Dope, a new British magazine, proposes to list, alphabetically, The films of two Columbian filmmakers, everyone who has ever made an Carlos and Julia Alvarez , are available interesting or important contribution to from Tricontinental Film Center. The film . Each entry includes a filmography films are documentaries depicting the and brief biographical sketch and social and political life of Columbia. The review of the person 's work. Each issue Alvarez' were recently jailed for their will also have a full-length article or radical activities . For more information interview. Published four times a year, contact the Tricontinental Film Center, subscription rates are £ 1.50 in UK , 244 West 27th Street, New York NY $5 .00 elsewhere . Write Film Dope , 5 10001 . Norman Court, Little Heath , Potter's Bar, Hertfordshire, EN6 1HY , England . Back Page deadline for the September-October issue is 15 June 1973. Send to Film Comment, box 686 Village Station , Brookline MA 02147 USA. 617 1782-3323 . 72 MAY 1973

~\" '__ , Call or write MOVIES for FREE catalog : 729 7th Avenue, FOR RENT New York, N.V 10019 (212) 245-6000 Ext. 251 -B-AN.ANAS . ~~ UTn!!~m~sts - -BU.RN- - rransame',ca CorporatIon CASABLANCA --.-- PERSONA --.-- MIDNIGHT COWBOY --.-- ACROSS 110th STREET --.-- -THE-H.OSPITAL THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY --.-- THE WILD CHILD --.-- THE MALTESE FALCON --.-- K-ING-OF.H-EAR-TS FELLINI'S ROMA --.--- EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX and a thousand others. _ b _ ....

~~~~~ _~ .~ \" ~ ji~~~!.l ~\"~~~ (!' ..:., American Directors· Cinema Showcase Stanley Donen John Huston \"Shaper of the modern American Musical\" \"Masculine individualist-Shaping Characters Under Stress\" On the Town (1949) Asphalt Jungle (1950) Royal Wedding (1951) Red Badge of Courage (1951) Singin' in the Rain (1952) Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison (1957) Love is Better Than Ever (1952) Roots of Heaven (1958) Fearless Fagan (1952) Night of the Iguana (1964) Give a Girl a Break (1953) The Bible (1966) 7 Brides for 7 Brothers (1954) The Kreml in Letter (1969) Deep in my Heart (1954) Walk with Love and Death (1969) It's Always Fair Weather (1955) Funny Face (1957) Send for your free catalog describing these films Kiss Them for Me (1957) Two for the Road (1968) Bedazzled (1968) Staircase (1969) Films Incorporated 1144 Wilmette Ave., Wilmette, III. 60091 Att: Nelle Watts