Psycho. #20

On different ways to arrive at cinema.

I have to assume that you have, at some point in your life, read Andrew Sarris's The American Cinema. If so, what is your evaluation of his central thesis and why do you think that his attempt to apply a similar critical framework to acting was less successful?

As I always, always say: “Don’t assume… it makes an ‘ass’ out of ‘u’ and ‘me’!! As it happens, I have not read Andrew Sarris’s “The American Cinema.” Not to sound too much like Jesse Eisenberg’s character from The Squid & the Whale, who performs a Pink Floyd song at his school concert under the pretence of having written it, and when found guilty of lying, says, “I thought I could’ve written it, so the fact that it was already written is more of a technicality” — but I feel like at this stage of my life I don’t particularly need to read Sarris, as I’ve pretty much taken in his writing by osmosis. He’s the auteur theory guy, right? Yeah, I’ve got auteur theory nailed, I’ll get to him some day if I’ve got nothing better on. 

My view is that the most important things for a critic are to: 1) watch films; 2) love films; 3) practise writing a lot; and 4) read a great deal. Sarris’s ideas are important, but reading him isn’t essential to an appreciation of cinema, or to good writing: instead, writers could engage with the way Sarris’s work has permeated criticism as it now stands, in establishing a certain canon of directors and popularising the idea of the director as an author of their work, with recognisable hallmarks, etc etc. Your question is good (if a little bit Comic-Book Guy from The Simpsons if I may say so!) because it points up the varying ways in which people arrive at cinema. I don’t think there’s one way to come at film, or any set texts that are essential. Let me take you through my entry point, and subsequent progress in film! Perhaps we’ll learn something along the way!