High praise

Sir,—Much as I have grown to admire your critical page, probably—I can think of no present rival—the most literate in the country, much as I approve of AMB's notice of the refurbished Lovely War (more I can hardly say, since I was a member of the original cast) there is one point I must take up with him. He observes that at St. James's Theatre, the slides Average Life Of A Machine Gunner Under Attack . . . Four Minutes elicited amiable laughter and he states that this did not happen in November. 1965. at the Paramount. Alas, it did, 27 times in 29 performances; your critic must have attended one of the two exceptions. I particularly remember this, since Tim Eliott and I, awaiting entrances, exchanged glances of stupefaction for the first week, after that of resignation. Thus when, on two nights, there was the stunned silence we had always thought appropriate, we were pretty stunned ourselves.

Bruce Mason.

Bergman defence

Sir,—Can one say that unmoving problems treated in an unexciting way are considerable? Rex Benson did in his criticism of Bergman. I cannot claim to have seen any of the early films e.g. Crisis (1941) or to have read Cowie's criticism, but I did see all the films in the Bergman festival and base my criticism of Rex Benson's article on this.

Firstly his English style is to quote Benson "crapulent". His combination of words makes the possibility of taking the article as valid criticism impossible, yet the article must have been intended as such. What do such phrases as "The sexual high jinks of the underlings, for instance, are quite superfluous and about as tittilating as cold suet pudding," or "The distinguished man becomes a mouthpiece for a choice selection of religious platitudes." or "The whole thing smacks of catch-penny Freud" mean, or add to any criticism? As Benson said 'Comment is superfluous."

In regard to his criticism of Cowie. Cowie is entitled to his opinions, and they need not influence anyone. Whether Bergman's themes are original or not is irrelevant as is whether or not he first made the world aware that the film was an art. These principles do not alter the value of the films. Sarcasm is not criticism especially when in Benson's case it has no meaning.

"The Virgin Spring" we are told is an "Uncompromising film" which settles at an uneasy compromise," "Immediately compelling because of its dramatic potential." yet the human qualities are "negated." The summary comment to these observations is "it is not a memorial film." He states that the film assumes that sins are "expiated" through "sufficiently attractive offerings to God." Such comment is typical of Benson's style of attack which appears to be taking portions of the films out of context and implying anything but what Bergman meant. "Wild Strawberries" is a "better film." In reply to Benson I say Bergman made a film of the comment "You are guilty of guilt." The statement is not redundant: one does not by definition suffer guilt if one is guilty. Benson's point is. to quote again, "certainly tiresome." That Benson found certain portions blatant and was not impressed is not criticism worth printing, if he cannot give good reasons.

On "The Magician." he is reduced to comment that "The narrative does not flow quite smoothly enough." What would be smoothly enough?

Can it be said that Bergman films lack human warmth and are unmoving? Mr. Benson. Bergman has not got me "stupefied," but you do in your writing strike me with "awe." Is not your article, as you put it. "a trifle exaggerated?"—Glenys Forans.

Reply:

In Her Comments on the Bergman review, Miss Forans states that Bergman has not got her stupefied, yet she seems sufficiently agitated by my remarks to misconstrue most of them. If she has another look at the Cowle section Miss Forans will find stated quite explicitly that I did not intend this to have any bearing on my own opinions about Bergman. It was indicative of the kind of nonsense that is written about him by his admirers. Mr. Boyes has stated elsewhere, and I agree with him in this respect, that every review of a Bergman film should open with the words "Bergman is the most overrated director in the world."

It is difficult to criticise Miss Forans's letter as much of it consists of quotations from the review, mostly without attached comment. However, I cannot really see what is so unfathomable about a phrase like "the sexual hijinks of the underlings are quite superfluous." Perhaps Miss Forans would wish to ascribe some metaphysical significance to these portions of the film. She would have many eager companions in this pursuit. And phrases like "catch-penny Freud" seem to me to be quite clear.

Miss Forans accuses me of "taking portions of the film out of context," failing to notice that she had just taken out of context phrases of the review when implying a contradiction between "uncompromising" and "compromise." According to her peculiar criteria I would doubtless be committing this crime if I should take any individual item for discussion. It seemed to me quite clear that in the last sequence of The Virgin Spring, the father was more concerned with the killing of the three brothers than the death of his daughter.

In her remarks on Wild Strawberries, Miss Forans writes: "The statement is not redundant: one does not by definition suffer guilt if one is guilty." If she examines the review carefully she will find that what I actually wrote was "when one suffers guilt one is, by definition, guilty" which is exactly the opposite. Miss Forans then describes my criticism as not worth printing if reasons are not given for finding portions of the film "blatant." How could one Justify an assertion that "X is blatant" when writing about a film? Suffice to say that if Miss Forans finds Bergman's symbolism subtle and imaginative, then she is indeed a true disciple.

Miss Forans then asks, referring to the narrative flow of The Magician, "what would be smooth enough?" Well, the excision of the "sexual hijinks of the underlings" would be a good start. She then asks, "Can it be said that Bergman films lack human warmth and are unmoving?" Yes, indeed. If Miss Forans reads the review carefully she will find that I have said it. If she Is asking whether or not this can be said justifiably, then I can only answer that any assertion of this kind is determined by a basic emotional attitude to his films—a response which is capable of some rationalisation but not much analysis. Perhaps Miss Forans would like to propose an entirely objective criteria for film criticism and film aesthetics. This would be a monumental step, and I gather from the tone of her letter that she feels quite capable of it.

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?