Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient: Victoria University Students' Paper. Vol. 29, No. 10. 1966.

Mr. Benson replies to Mr. Boyes (Salient 9):

Mr. Benson replies to Mr. Boyes (Salient 9):

In Reply, Mr. Benson says: Thanks to Mr. Boyes for his comments on my "extraordinarily one-eyed" review of Bande a Part. By "one-eyed" I presume he means that the views expressed did not coincide with his own. I would agree that judgment of a film cannot be divorced from the environment and times in which it was made, but I cannot accept his conclusions. Mr. Boyes comes perilously close to the auteur theory of film criticism (beloved of Movie, NY Film Bulletin, Film Culture and many of the Cahiers du Cinema critics) which holds that a film must be judged not as an independent entity but in the light of the director's past work and his reputation. I reject this approach because it has led to some pretty absurd conclusions, for example the suggestion that, say. Hatari is a better film than The Manchurian Candidate, merely because Hawks is an "auteur" and Frankenheimer is not. or the exaltation of such "in" directors as Preminger, Walsh. Hitchcock and Hawks, at the expense of Wyler, Stevens, Kazan. Zinnemann and other great American directors.

The fact that Godard "is one of the most, important, most talked - about film-makers in the world" does not impress me in the least, nor do I feel that this should somehow excuse his making such a poor movie as Bande a Part. And while a discussion of the "nouvelle vague", the films it has spawned, and the distribution problems they face in New Zealand, would be suitable for a general article, I do not see that, these considerations are relevant to a criticism of Bande a Part as a film and a work to which normal criteria of worth can be applied. "C" of Truth is quite entitled to impart information about the nouvelle vague if he feels like it. but I can hardly see any onus on my part to do so. I simply did not think it was relevant.

What did impress me about Bande a Part was that it was singularly unimpressive. I do not criticise the film because it is "self-indulgent", "original" (was it?) and shows cinematic "in-jokes". I criticise it because it is not entertaining self-indulgence or "originality", and the in-jokes are pretty feeble. And speaking of in-jokes. I don't think I like cliquish films. When writing of Muriel I hinted at the need for the "picture on two levels". and this need is even more urgent today. What is needed, and what Bande a Part is not,modem are films that are acceptable and pleasing to the average moviegoer while at the same time, on another level, give pleasure to another kind of people who feel they have greater subtlety of perception.

Mr. Boyes' final comment strikes at the very heart of the matter. I would maintain that film criticism is rationalisation of a base response. When watching a film one develops an emotional response to it, and then afterwards sets out to explain or rationalise the attitude in terms of style, technique, act - ing. script etc. These considerations in themselves will be judged with the base response as the reference point. This is why two critics may have opposing viewpoints on a film and use exactly the same individual items to back up their respective opinions. Richard Mallett, film critic of Punch, has written "I judge empirically always, my first consideration is whether or not I enjoyed the film (or particular parts of it) myself." I really could not think of a better starting point when sitting down to write a piece of film criticism — can Mr. Boyes?

Left To Right: Ross Jolly, Gay Davison and John Smythe from the cast of The Sort Of My Mad Mother which was the most recent production of the V.U. Drama Club. The play which is by Ann Jellicoe, author of The Knack, deals with teenagers in London. The photo shows three of the cast getting in the swing of things. A review appears in this issue of Salient.

Left To Right: Ross Jolly, Gay Davison and John Smythe from the cast of The Sort Of My Mad Mother which was the most recent production of the V.U. Drama Club. The play which is by Ann Jellicoe, author of The Knack, deals with teenagers in London. The photo shows three of the cast getting in the swing of things. A review appears in this issue of Salient.