University International
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University Microfilms International 300 N. ZEEB ROAD, ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106 18 BEDFORD ROW, LONDON WC1R 4EJ, ENGLAND 8022289 H il l w ig , Ja c k L e o n a r d FILM CRITICISM: ITS RELATIONSHIP TO ECONOMICALLY SUCCESSFUL FILMS AND AN APPLICATION OF RHETORIC TO IMPROVING THE CRITIC’S METHODS The Ohio State University PH.D. 1980 University Microfilms International300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 18 Bedford Row, London WC1R 4EJ, England FILM .CRITICISM: ITS RELATIONSHIP TO ECONOMICALLY SUCCESSFUL FILMS AND AN APPLICATION OF RHETORIC TO IMPROVING THE CRITIC'S METHODS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Jack Leonard Hillwig, B.A., M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 1980 Reading Committee: Approved By Dr. Robert W. Wagner Dr. William R. Brown Dr. Paul V. Peterson Dr. Robert Monaghan QerUQjCS bs. Adviser \$ VITA October 3, 1947 . B o m - McKeesport, Pennsylvania 1969 B.A., Bethany College Bethany, West Virginia 1972 M.A., The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 1975-1978 Instructor, School of Journalism Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 1978-1980 Assistant Professor, College of Journalism, University of South Carolina, Columbia, S.C. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Fields: Communications, Journalism, Photojournalism, Photography and Cinema Undergraduate raaj'ors in English and Communications M.A. in Journalism, Photojournalism Ph.D. fields: Communications, Photography and Cinema ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page VITA ....................................................... ii LIST OF TABLES ............................................. iv LIST OF FIGURES............................................ vii INTRODUCTION ................................... ..... 1 Chapter I. PHILOSOPHIES OF CRITICISM........................... 6 II. A COMPARISON OF CRITICAL REVIEWS; BOX OFFICE SUCCESS; AND FILM AWARDS, 1960 THROUGH 1975 26 III. INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS............................. 96 IV. FILM CRITICISM; A COMMUNICATION PROCESS MODEL; AND KENNETH BURKE'S RHETORICAL METHOD................. 112 V. A CASE IN POINT: THE GRADUATE........................ 141 VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS................. 151 APPENDIXES A. Publications and Critics in the Study................. 156 B. Critical Samples ........ 158 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................. 181 iii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. 1960 - Positive and Negative Reviews.......................... 32 2. 1960 - Aw a r d s ..............................................33 3. 1960 - Critical Reaction by Critic and Publication....... 34 4. 1961 - Positive and Negative Reviews.....................36 5. 1961 - A w a r d s ............................................... 37 6. 1961 - Critical Reaction by Critic and Publication....... 38 7. 1962 - Positive and Negative Reviews.................... 40 8. 1962 - Aw a r d s ..............................................41 9. 1962 - Critical Reaction by Critic and Publication....... 42 10. 1963 - Positive and Negative Reviews......................44 11. 1963 - Awards ..............................................45 12. 1963 - Critical Reaction by Critic and Publication...... 46 13. 1964 - Positive and Negative Reviews..................... 48 14. 1964 - Awards ..............................................49 15. 1964 - Critical Reaction by Critic and Publication....... 50 16. 1965 - Positive and Negative Reviews..................... 52 17. 1965 - Aw a r d s ............................................. 53 18. 1965 - Critical Reaction by Critic and Publication...... 54 19. 1966 - Positive and Negative Reviews..................... 56 20. 1966 - Awards ...................................... 57 21. 1966 - Critical Reaction byCritic and Publication............ 58 iv Table pa8e 22. 1967 - Positive and Negative Reviews....................... 60 23. 1967 - Awards ................... 61 24. 1967 - Critical Reaction by Critic and Publication........ 62 25. 1968 - Positive and Negative Reviews. ................... 64 26. 1968 - Awards .............................................65 27. 1968 - Critical Reaction by Critic and Publication........ 66 28. 1969 - Positive and Negative Reviews...................... 68 29. 1969 - A w a r d s ............................................ 69 30. 1969 - Critical Reaction by Critic and Publication.... 70 31. 1970 - Positive and Negative Reviews...................... 73 32. 1970 - Awards ............................. 74 33. 1970 - Critical Reaction by Critic and Publication......75 34. 1971 - Positive and Negative Reviews. ................... 77 35. 1971 - Awards ......................... 78 36. 1971 - Critical Reaction by Critic and Publication..... 79 37. 1972 - Positive and Negative Reviews......................81 38. 1972 - Awards ......... 82 39. 1972 - Critical Reaction by Critic and Publication..... 83 40. 1973 - Positive and Negative Reviews......................85 41. 1973 - Awards ............................................ 86 42. 1973 - Critical Reaction by Critic and Publication.... 87 43. 1974 - Positive and Negative Reviews......................89 44. 1974 - Awards ............................................ 90 v Table Page 45. 1974 - Critical Reaction by Critic and Publication....... 91 46. 1975 - Positive and Negative Reviews..................... 93 47. 1975 - A w a r d s ...........................................94 48. 1975 - Critical Reaction by Critic and Publication....... S3 49. Critics Reviewing Ten or More Films ..................... 99 50. Number of Reviews in Largest Publications ............... 99 51. Positive and Negative Reviews by Top Ten Position ....... 100 52. Films Winning Awards...................................... 102 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. A Filmic Model ............................. 115 vii INTRODUCTION - PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Cinema, as a concept and as an area of study, may be explained as an art, a craft, an experience, a phenomenon, or as a societal entity. It may be examined historically, technically, aesthetically, theoreti cally, or critically. It can be studied as a general process— conception, writing, shooting, directing, editing, viewing— or each idea, concept, film technique, film maker, and audience may be examined by itself. It is not easy to describe exactly what cinema is. Andrew Sarris has noted the difficulty by saying that "cinema, unlike painting and sculpture, is only partly visual. Like music, cinema exists in time, but only partly. Like literature, it is locked in language, but only partly. It is like photography, but only partly."1 To understand this complex field requires complete knowledge of its multitudinal aspects from the total process of creating a motion picture, to the images themselves, to those who view the film, to those factors which enter into its being viewed. True "film literacy" requires a recog nition of filmic images and the form and function of those images in re lation to such things as sound, movement, and society. Cinema is a way of communicating and can best be studied and ex plained in terms of the communication process. The study of this process is conducted largely by educators, theorists, social scientists, and a class of journalists known as critics. This dissertation begins with an 2 examination of this journalistic group— critics— and their resulting work— film criticism. The critical appraisal of feature films has, or at least should have, two distinct aims. First, criticism is designed to ii pub lic awareness and knowledge about selected films to better e public to make intelligent decisions and choices about the qualx f the films