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 they might choose to view. Second, criticism contributes to the building of an aesthetic of film which, in turn, contributes to the development of theories and models of criticism and of film.

The critic writing for publication in a mass medium has both a critical and a journalistic responsibility. His critical philosophy must be well developed and his criticism must be sound according to the philosophical and journalistic boundaries of good critical writing. The critic must adhere to critical writing and not simply to voicing his own biased and unsubstantiated opinions in print. As a journalist the film critic must maintain the responsibility of informing his audience and of communicating in such a way as to have some effect. And that effect should be more than just providing readers some entertaining thoughts about a particular film. Film criticism certainly may be en­ tertaining but that cannot be its sole function. It must intelligently communicate to the readers and to the film industry and in many cases its effect should be reflected in the actions of the readers and, per­ haps less frequently, the actions of the film industry.

In film criticism the effect of the critic as journalist can be readily determined. Film critics are an opinionated group and virtually all critical pieces about particular films can be classified as either 3 positive (or,at least reflecting a positive attitude toward the film makers efforts) or negative toward the film. The film industry itself measures its successes in terms of economics (box office receipts) and

awards.

This dissertation examines film criticism from a number of perspec­

tives. In Chapter I statements are presented concerning the philosophy

of criticism, the development and evolution of serious film criticism,

and the philosophies and methods of some current prominent practitioners of journalistic film criticism. These comments give the reader some background on the current state of the art.

In Chapter II film criticism is examined in relation to 156 economi­

cally successful and award-winning films over a 16 year period. Hypotheses

formulated for this section are:

I. Most film critics writing for national publications will have positively reviewed the top ten economically successful films of any

given year.

II. The higher a film places on a single year's top ten list the more likely that film is to receive a positive review by most critics.

III. The success of a film in winning awards is not determined by

critical appraisal.

An analysis of the relationships which exist between economic suc­

cess, award winning capacity, and critical appraisal in national publica­

tions is done in Chapter III. Through this examination emerges a clearer picture of the place of journalistic film criticism in the minds of the film-going public and of the film industry.

Chapter IV suggests a solution to some current deficiencies of 4 modern film criticism. A communications model is used to point out how film functions in both the film industry and in society. From that model suggestions are formulated on how present and future journalistic critics may improve their own roles as communicators and critics. The rhetorical pentad of Kenneth Burke is also used here as a primary or­ ganizational method for the journalistic critic.

An example of how the"critical methods presented in this dissertation function in a film is presented in Chapter V. The 1968 film The Graduate is analyzed to demonstrate the complete and functional use of the con­ cepts presented. Chapter VI of the study offers a summary of the study as well as conclusions and some recommendations for further research.

This dissertation explores some of the reasons why many of those who call themselves film critics are not in the journalistic, scholarly, theoretical, or even logical sense actually practicing good criticism.

And as an attempt to help solve this problem the study further suggests new thought processes for the present and future journalistic film critic. Because the beginning point of any piece of critical writing is the thought processes that go into analyzing the work being written about it is hoped that these thought processes suggested here may lead to theories and models of film analysis based not upon purely subjective opinions nor on formal, prescriptive procedures, but rather upon a critical examination of the effects of what may be called "the film phenomenon" on the society or the segment of society that will view that film. FOOTNOTES - INTRODUCTION

Andrew Sarris, The Film (Indianapolis, The Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1968) CHAPTER I

PHILOSOPHIES OF CRITICISM

Philosophizing about, defining, and discussing "criticism" has been for many years the sporadic preoccupation of numerous philosophers, theorists, writers, artists, and journalists.

John Dewey eloquently described the critical function as:

the reeducation of perception of works of arij it is an auxiliary in the process, a difficult process, of learning to see and hear. . . .We lay hold of the full import of a work of art only as we go through in our own vital pro­ cess the processes the artist went through in producing the work. It is the critic's privilege to share in the promo­ tion of this active process.1

Rhetorician Donald Bryant has described the critical function as:

the enrichment of understanding and enhancement of response. . . .Until you (the critic) know as completely as possible what the thing is, and what it might be, you are not ready to render the judgment of criticism but only the response to experience— sensitive, perceptive, inspired, and valuable as that response may be.

The act of being a critic is an investigative process. The critic must become for a period of time, in his mind, the creator of the work he is evaluating. He must also become the objective observer of that work.

Like a scientific procedure, good criticism is based on logical in­ vestigative procedures and the result becomes a sensitive, systematic, sophisticated and potentially persuasive form of structured analysis.

The business of the philosophical critic is to first speculate, then to analyze (often using logic and scientific method as a basis), then to

--6 provide intellectual models which may become the basis for further study, and ultimately to theorize.

Logician Theodore Green says that any piece of criticism must have a historic, a recreative, and a judicial function.

The special task of historical criticism is that of determining the nature and expressive intent of works of art in their historical context;. . .of recreative criti­ cism. . .that of apprehending imaginatively, through sen­ sitive artistic responses, what the artist has actually succeeded in expressing in a specific work of art;. . . of judicial criticism. . .that of estimating the value of a work in relation to other works of art and to other human values.3

Green's explanation concurs with Bryant's and Dewey's in terms of seeing the critical function as an orderly, investigative process. Yet, in criticism the process usually ends in judgment— an estimation by the critic of the quality and value of the work. A good critic is both sub­ jective and objective— objective in pursuing his investigation and ob­ serving the work and subjective in his rendering of judgment upon that work. Good criticism is the presentation of the object of art in a cer­ tain light; a way of making others more fully aware, helping them to share the same excitement, and to concur with the critic's evaluations.

But the judicial, subjective statements made by the critic about the work of art must be backed up by facts— by very objective statements that the critic uses to arrive at his judgment. And if criticism is to avoid the accusations of total subjectivity and worthless opinionizing then the statements used in support of evaluations must be logically structured. And from the point of view of logic the reasons used to sup­ port an evaluative statement must be readily and more easily known and proven than the evaluative statement itself. These support statements 8 must be known and observed before arriving at the judgment. Their struc­

ture must be almost syllogistic.

With this method of approach critical judgments, while remaining

subjective, will contain much more stable arguments. These judgments will become more valued insights because of the tendency of those of

equal learning to arrive at or agree to the same assumptions. The

critic cannot delude himself into thinking that his own judgments are

facts only because he is making them or because he personally feels

that they are true. There must exist some method of verifying these

judgments and of assuring their stability in the minds of others.

Good criticism is a close relative to the editorial in journalism

and the essay in literature. An editorial is an opinion-piece, some­

times a call to action, often the reviewing of a situation in such a

way that the reader will form an opinion similar to the editorial

writer’s. A good editorial works in a very logical manner structuring

verifiable facts to support a conclusion which is an opinion about what

course of action those facts logically lead one to pursue. While not

every editorial writer would use the same facts nor would every writer

structure those facts in exactly the same way there is no doubt that

the order in which the facts are presented lead the reader logically

to the conclusion.

A good essay is also an opinion-piece giving the essay writer's

point of view on an event or situation. The essay, while very personal,

is almost always fact-based. The essay writer structures facts in such

a way to present his own logical conclusion as a result of those fasts.

And it is only the judgmental conclusion that is opinion— not the facts. 9

Anyone who structures the facts in the same way as the essay writer structured them will reach the same conclusion.

Thus, in good criticism, just as in good editorial and essay writing, the facts are presented and structured in such a way as to form an opinion and make a critical judgment. It is the selection and structuring of facts about a work and the rendering of judgment result­ ing from those facts that creates good criticism. An incorrect or in­ complete rendering of the facts is as unpardonable in criticism as it is in newswriting.

Yet there are many different types of criticism and the specific intent of this study is to discuss the critic of the cinema. The sta­ tus of this group of critics is somewhat different from other types of critics and even, unfortunately, from what has been defined here as good critical writing. This is due principally to the historical growth and origins of film criticism and to the public's view of film as en­ tertainment and the critic as a kind of show business figure whose popularity has little to do with his writing. The statement by film critic John Simon that "the most important thing to remember about film criticism is that it is not fundamentally different from any other kind - . . . „4 or criticism, is not an easy one to agree with or to prove, and requires some understanding of the history of film criticism.

Writing about the cinema began in journalistic publications in the

1920's. During this silent period of film and extending into the 1930's the American public had little opportunity to read reviews that offered more than hasty plot summaries. Few serious journalists were drawn into the profession of film critic largely because of the low reputation of 10

the film industry at the time.

The early attitude was that the motion picture was a mechanical

innovation which provided novel and innocent amusement for the masses.

This attitude often served to excuse the new medium frpm serious artis­

tic criticism. Although this was an attitude formed during the early

decades of motion pictures it did not die away even as film stories became longer and more complex.

Film critic and historian Kenneth Macgowan wrote in 1921: "The miracle of the photoplay need fear no higher criticism.""’ As supporting

reasons Macgowan added that film should be free from sophisticated

critical writing because of the kinds of people involved in the making of films. He wrote:

Moving picture magnates who were once button salesmen; dramatic stars made from cloak models; directors recruited from small town stock companies; scenario writers of the 'snappy yarns' class— these are the dominant creative fac­ tors in this art which has the instinct to call itself an industry.^

The view of the film maker as rather average, non-intellectual

craftsmen in a commercial medium is a significant indication of the low

cultural esteem held by the medium in its first three decades.

Another tendency during this early period was to view film as a lower form of theater with similar standards, rather than as an art form with its own function and separate standards. Walter Prichard Eaton, a drama critic, wrote in 1909 that when films:

are well planned and well played it is quite possible that they can always fill a useful function in leading the lower stratas of society up toward an appreciation of true dramatic art, which is, after all, only brought to flower on the stage of a true theater where actual men and women speak with the voices God gave them.7 11

This attitude prevailed throughout the history of film, lessening critical interest.

In 1929 Leda. V. Bauer discussed the state of film criticism in

American Mercury magazine, noting that many so-called film critics at the time were merely gatherers of souvenir premier programs and bits of screen gossip.® Bauer wrote that the typical critic was more in­ terested in calling attention to himself so that he might gain an inroad to the more lucrative careers of the business (scenario writing or directing) than in attracting attention to his "erudition of style.

Thus film criticism, until the 1940’s remained, at best, a repor- torial service for newspaper readers and moviegoers. It was not until the latter half of this century when reviewers like Bosley Crowther at the New York Times, James Agee at The Nation, and Pare Lorentz at

McCalls began to write about film with intelligence and style. Yet those early negative public and professional attitudes toward the film medium have still not disappeared. Only a handful of writers today write serious film criticism for a national audience, and public regard for the medium is still a matter of question. It seems, therefore, that long prevailing attitudes about film are at least partly responsible for the medium's meager critical response in this country.

Within the past three decades a small group of important critics have written a wealth of information. And while very little of it is consistent, there are numerous mainstreams of thought that can serve to enlighten a reader as to the state of film criticism in this country.

One note before proceeding must be an explanation of the terms

"criticism" and "reviewing" as they apply to writing about film. Drama 12 critic Walter Kerr of the New York Times says that reviewing is "a consumer report for the uninitiated; criticism is a conversation with one's equals.John Simon says that reviewing "is something that news­ paper editors have invented. . . And with this in mind Simon has also written:

The newspapers carefully screen their reviewers to be rep­ resentative common men, say, former obituary writers or mail room clerks, anything but trained specialists. To accept such a reviewer as critic and guide is like expect­ ing school children to teach one another, or patients in a hospital ward to undertake one another’s cure. A critic excites the public's curiosity, wonder, suspicion, rage, and enthusiasm; a reviewer elicits mostly one of two reactions: 'Good! That's another one I don't have to see!' or 'Great! I Jike it already.' Both reactions stifle thought instead of encouraging the audience and, with luck, even the artist to grow.^

The terms"criticism" and "review" are not nearly as separate as ‘ these two men suggest. Almost any serious, regular writer about film will prefer to be called a "film critic" yet most serious critics refer to their daily, weekly, or monthly writing about film as "reviews."

Persons who call themselves reviewers are also usually considered to be writing for audiences mainly concerned with plot summaries and state­ ments about entertainment value. Yet all serious critics write plot summaries as part of their reviews. On the other hand the critic is con­ sidered to have a solid philosophy, a set of criteria, a theoretical model, or some other formal standard by which to evaluate a film.

For purposes of this study all persons referred to who have written consistently and professionally about film will be termed "film critics", while their writing will be termed either "reviews" or "criticism"— the two words here being considered synonymous. In the minds of most journa­ lists who write about film there is a clear preference for the word

"critic" (serious) over the word "reviewer" (superficial), yet there seems to be no hesitation or concern over calling a "critic’s" writing

"a review."

The clearest explanation of two general methodologies of modern film criticism is by Robert Warshow in the preface to his 1954 book, 13 The Immediate Experience.

Warshow explains one type of writing about film as being based "on some fairly clear concept of the cinematic," and "emphasizing in one way or another the formal qualities of.the medium. . This type of critic places stress "on matters of technique," and tends "to minimize the importance of film actors in favor of directors and, very often, to deplore the introduction of sound.

This is a very pure, aesthetic, almost technical type of criticism which looks at the film as the message or as art and relates much of what is strictly within the film and how it was achieved. The writings of Andrew Sarris, Rudolf Arnheim, and Sergei Eisenstein would be placed under this type.

A second type of criticism, according to Warshow, minimizes the aesthetic, and treats the film as a sociological object or as "indexes to mass psychology." "Criticism of this sort ranges from the discovery of direct correspondence between the movies and life to the complex and deep interpretations of psychoanalysis." The primary aim of this sort of criticism is "sociological analysis.The film is seen as an object for scrutiny only as it relates to its sociological or psychological en­ vironment . 14

A third critical method, first developed by the French New Wave critics, was introduced in this country as the auteur theory by Andrew

Sarris. This Americanization of the French auteur school of criticism was very controversial, drawing both heavy praise and criticism from numerous American critics.

Sarris felt that American criticism, like American cinema, was both pragmatic and anti-theoretical.-^ To improve this situation he structured, based on the French version, a critical philosophy based on the director as author. He explained that by "viewing the pictures of a particular director en masse. . .the auteur critic can ignore the incidental con­ tribution of collaborators and concentrate on the director’s personality as it is revealed in his characteristic stylistic techniques."^ Sarris, however, later stated that he regards the auteur theory "primarily as a critical device for recording the history of the American cinema, the only cinema worth exploring in depth beneath a fevj great directors at the top."^

Almost every American critic writing today uses standards that de­ rive from one of these general methodologies or from the area of literary or dramatic criticism. Most critics conform to one area more closely than another. Most are aesthetic, some sociological, a few literary or auteur but it is a rare critic to be versatile in more than one type.

Yet the explanation of these types makes film criticism seem much purer than it actually is.

Film critics have not entirely gotten away from being gatherers and spreaders of screen gossip nor from using their criticism to call atten­ tion to themselves and to enable them to pursue loftier careers. Patrick 15

McGilligan, writing recently in American Film says that critics view themselves as "independent, disengaged, above scrutiny, above reproach. .

. .They keep their own counsel, talk mostly to each other, nourish their dislike of Hollywood, grow evermore distant, marginal. And they remain unable to comprehend the moviegoing audience of, for example, Grease.

McGilligan further states that critics "are influenced by their ambitions and frustrations, by their vocabulary and deadlines, by their meals and sexual preferences, and so on. The truth is, critics are dis­ posed toward certain directors, for motives of friendship as well as for 2A more lucrative gains."

If McGilligan's statements can be believed then much of film criti­ cism can be dismissed as simply entertainment and neither good journalism nor good critical writing. But this is not entirely the case. Many film critics have, in a very articulate manner, stated what it takes to become a critic, what good criticism is, and have discussed the numerous prob­ lems confronting film criticism. These critics, while not entirely free of the faults stated by McGilligan, have at least compiled a substantial amount of information on the state and philosophy of modern film criticism.

In beginning to understand this philosophy some statements on the requirements of a critic are necessary. John Simon states that to be a critic one must be "conversant with cinematography, literature, acting techniques, painting and sculpture (form and composition), music, dance

(film musicals), and. . .as many foreign languages as possible.

Pauline Kael, one of the most intelligent criticsof the 1960's and

1970's, says the critic must understand "what is going on in the other arts," and have "as wide a background as possible in literature, painting, 16

22 music, philosophy, political thought. . ."

Simon further states that the critic must be a teacher, an artist, and a thinker. The critic must "widen our horizons," allow the viewer

"to see something from a loftier vantage point, in historic perspective."

He must have "a world view. . .a concept or intimation of what the ideal solution to an artistic problem would be and the dogged insistence on measuring every performance against the envisioned model."23

Pauline Kael, in one of the most widely quoted statements on criti­ cism says the role of the critic: .

is to help pecfple see what is in the work, what is in it that shouldn’t be, what is not in it that could be. He is a good critic if he helps people understand more about the work than they could see for themselves; he is a great critic if, by his passion, he can excite people so that they want to experience more of the art that is there, waiting to be seized.24

Film historian and critic Robin Wood, writing in Film Comment, examines the philosophy of the critic in relation to the theories of film. He says: / Each theory of film so far has insisted on its own par­ ticular polarization. Montage theory enthrones editing. . . . Realist theory, seeking to right the balance, merely substi­ tutes its own imbalance, downgrading montage and artifice; the revolutionary theory centered in Britain. . .rejects— or at any rate seeks to deconstruct— realist art. . . .Auteur theory, in its heyday, concentrated attention exclusively on the fingerprints, thematic or stylistic, of the individual artist; recent attempts to discuss the complete 'filmic text' have tended to throw out ideas of personal authorship altogether. Each theory has, given its underlying position, its own validity— the validity being dependent upon, and restricted by, the p o s i t i o n . 25

To get the full benefit of these theories Wood suggests that the critic's "aim should always be to see the work as wholly as possible, as it is— to be able to draw on the discoveries and particular perceptions 17 of each theory, each position, without committing himself exclusively ,,26 to any one.

Yet the difficulty of doing this is extremely great. John Simon urges the critic to use no single theory as a-basis for criticism but to formulate a set of standards based on perfection. Simon says to "never abandon that image of perfection at the back of your head, on which the film, superimposed, must fit like identical triangles. . . And Simon continues by saying that the only thing the critic can do "while waiting

for the day when it will be possible to limit oneself to writing serious criticism about serious films for serious publications is, with every 28 means at his command, to help bring about that day."

These are important statements by Simon, Kael, and Wood and they are among the most profound statements made in shaping an understanding of what modern film criticism ought to be. The critic becomes a critic through knowledge of his own and other fields, his ability to communicate with his audience through his writing, and his ability to guide the reader through a particular film and excite that reader about particular aspects of film in general.

Film critic Manny Farmer believes that the role of critic is dis­ tinctly different from the role of moviegoer. Criticism, according to

Farber, does not begin in the theater. It begins "when you start typing and thinking out the work. . . .You're supposed to get at the truth of a situation; that situation is the movie; you as a critic have to burrow into the situation to find the truth. You don't know more than the people around you, but you have more time. You can go to the movie more times, 29 spend longer discussing it. . 18

Critic Vernon Young says that "criticism is a method of rationally explaining the emotional experience one has already had. . . .It is not 30 your dream of the film you made while watching the one made by Bergman."

Yet when it comes to discussing a major function of film criticism there is some difference of opinion. The late James Agee said the major 31 function of the film critic is to render judgment on the finished film.

Dwight Macdonald, another nationally known critic and writer on film, agrees with Agee and identifies three tasks of the critic: "1) to judge the quality of the film; 2) to state precisely, with examples, just why one thinks it's good, bad, or indifferent; and 3) to relate it to other 32 films and the history of art." Macdonald, who defines and defends criticism almost exclusively as the ability to evaluate a film, also notes that most writing on film is "appreciation, celebration, information, and it is written by intellectuals who have come to be insiders in the sense that they are able to discourse learnedly about almost any movie 33 without thinking much about whether it's any good." ✓ On the other side of the coin, critic Manny Farber views the role of evaluations in criticism as worthless. "The last thing I want to know is whether you (the critic) like it or not." Farber, in direct contrast to Macdonald, believes that criticism should concern itself with "descri­ bing events and hooking an audience from just the right viewpoints instead of parlaying value judgments.

Yet most critics do engage in judging every film they review and in stating each film's good and bad points. And, in defense of judging, the critic's view is at least a relatively independent one. Pauline Kael says that "in the arts the critic is the only independent source of information. 19

35 The rest is advertising.' And as an independent source of information

one measure of the journalistic value of criticism is the critic's

ability to reach his readers with his information and to guide them.

Reaching and guiding readers can be measured partly in box office per­

formance of a film. A critic does not write about every film released

and his writing is distinctly judgmental. Therefore the critic's judgment

ought to achieve some effect and one of the ways that effect might be measured is in box office performance.

Very few people are certain of exactly what will make a film a box

office success. Critics usually scoff at the notion that there is any

relationship between critical appraisal and box office performance. Critics,

in fact, rarely even discuss their criticism in relation to box office

performance. Only the most consumer-oriented critics such as Gene Shalit

of The Today Show or Charles Champlin of the Los Angeles Times , will

relate box office performance to their own critical appraisals.

John Russell Taylor, an English film critic writing in Sight and

Sound, says there is no relationship between American critical consensus

and box office performance. He says any assumption other than this:

is based largely on a misleading parallel between theater and film critics in New York. Because of the special conditions which apply to attendance at the New York theater, the critics . . .can close a show instantly. . . .The film critics cannot exert so much influence.

However, journalist Helen Dudar, writing in Esquire, says that "a wave of praise can effect a marginal film," but "big star movies will generate big trade without the critics; so will pictures with an intensive 37 hype." In the same article Dudar also points out that industry people generally "argue persuasively that what finally grows 'legs' on many .. 20

38 movies— gives them good runs— is word of mouth."

The best critical reputation for making a film a success or a failure does seem to be enjoyed by the New York Times. Abe Rosenthall, managing editor of the Times, says "the job of the expert critic is to arouse interest— negative or positive— and understanding and stimulation in any intelligent reader.Yet Rosenthall also says that the critic must exhibit an "awareness that the movies are related to many other things— including the economic, social, and political developments in our society. . .a good critic is able to relate the art about which he is writing to the world around him. . .

However, Roger Greenspun, a former New York Times film critic feels that the authority over what succeeds and fails in film and the other arts is not at all a function of the Times' excellent criticism but "a carry over mainly from an authority that is well earned in local, national, and international news."^

Whether any publication or critic has an effect on film success or failure there are stories of film company repraisals. John Simon says that "because film represents such a large financial investment. . .the honestly outspoken critic, if he is working for an influential publica­ tion, becomes a threat to Hollywood. . . .Many are the tales of critics losing their jobs, or not even getting them, because of pressure. . .from the big film companies.

Stanley Kauffmann, himself fired as film critic of the New York Times / O after a very short tenure, notes the influence of economics on the critic and warns against it. Business, he says, "has an effect ultimately on aesthetics. . . .However not the slightest concession (by the critic) 21 should be made because of this fact, else we would quickly end up with lopsided patronizing standards or sheer economic-sociological history."^

The aspiring critic would do well to note this important relation­ ship of criticism to box office success. The critic as journalist writes to explain a film to his readers and to comment on the worth of a film.

The critic writes a convincing explanation, even argument, about why the film is good or why it is weak. And while he usually does not directly advise readers to see or not see any film, his argument is directly structured toward convincing the reader which films are worth his time and money.

Film companies cater to the critics by sending out press kits, con­ ducting press tours of films in production, and sending out actors, actresses, and directors on publicity tours. Film companies also use quotes from critics in their advertising as a method of publicizing the positive aspects of the film. If producers believed that film critics had no power over the success of a film many of these things would not take place. Yet the question has never been accurately answered.

If major critics are consistent in their appraisal of films then can a series of positive reviews by different critics assure a film economic success? Or will a series of negative reviews or even a divided critical response hurt a film or prevent it from ever becoming a finan­ cial success? The opinion of the film critic, while only one variable in determining whether any person will see any given film, is certainly a variable worth examining. And a detailed examination of the strength of this variable can lead to a discovery of what relationship, if any, does exist between critical appraisal and economic success and can further 22 lead to certain distinct conclusions regarding film criticism in general.

"Success" in the film industry is measured in terms of economics and awards. Making money is the central measure of success. Awards usually mean more money because of the greater recognition they bring to a film. The more theaters that book a film means more people will see the film and that means increased chances of economic success. Positive critical appraisal may be another success factor.since criticism is widely read and since film companies liberally use positive critical appraisal as an advertising device. The following chapter is a study of the critical appraisal and award winning capacity of economically successful films to determine what relationship, if any, exists among these entities. 23

FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER I

1. John Dewey, Art as Experience (New York, Minton, Balch & Co., 1934), pp. 324-325.

2. Donald C. Bryant, Rhetorical Dimensions in Criticism (Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University Press, 1973), p.39.

3. Theodore M. Greene, The Arts and the Art of Criticism (Princeton, N. J., Princeton University Press, 1940), p.370.

4. John Simon, Private Screenings (New York, Macmillan, 1967), p.7.

5. Kenneth MacGowan, "The Artistic Future of the Movies," North American Review, CCXIII (February, 1921) p.260.

6. Ibid., p.260.

7. Walter Prichard Eaton, "The Canned Drama," American Magazine, LXVIII (September, 1909) p.500.

8. Leda V. Bauer, "Movie Critics," American Mercury XVI (January, 1929) p.71.

9. Ibid., p .72.

10. Andrew Sarris, The American Cinema (New York, E.P. Dutton, 1968), p. 34.

11. Ibid., Private Screenings, p.10.

12. Ibid., p.10.

13. Robert Warshow, The Immediate Experience (Garden City, Doubleday and Co., 1962).

14. Ibid., p.24.

15. Ibid., pp.24-25.

16. Edward Murray, Nine American Film Critics (New York, Ungar Publishing Co., 1975), p.39.

17. Ibid., p.47.

18. Ibid., p.47. 24

19. Patrick McGilligan, "Open Season on Critics," American Film (June, 1979), p.6.

20. Ibid., p.7.

21. John Simon, "A Critical Credo," in Awake in the Dark, ed. David Denby, (New York, Vintage Books, 1977), p.177.

22. Pauline Kael, I Lost it at the Movies (Boston; Little, Brown, and Co., 1965), p.309.

23. Ibid., "A Critical Credo," p.172.

24. Ibid., I Lost it at the Movies, p. 308.

25. Robin Wood, "Ideology, Genre, Auteur," Film Comment (January-February, 1977), p.46.

26. Ibid., p .46.

27. Ibid., "A Critical Credo," p.182.

28. Ibid., p.176.

29. Richard Thompson, "Interview with Manny Farber and Patricia Patterson," Film Comment (May-June, 1977), p.44.

30. Ibid., Nine American Film Critics, p.180.

31. James Agee, "Films," The Nation (December 26, 1942), p.727.

32. Dwight Macdonald, Dwight Macdonald on Movies (New York, Prentice- Hall, 1969), p.471.

33. Ibid., p.470.

34. Ibid., "Interview with Manny Farber and Patricia Patterson," p.42.

35. Arthur Cooper, "The Critic as Superstar," Newsweek (December 24, 1976) p.96.

36. John Russell Taylor, "The Critic as Superstar," Sight & Sound (summer, 1976), p.180.

37. Helen Dudar, "Pauline Kael Doesn't Speak to John Simon, John Simon Doesn't Speak to Judith Crist, Judith Crist Doesn't Speak to Rex Reed, Rex Reed Doesn't Speak to Anyone," Esquire (January, 1976), p.153.

38. Ibid., p.79. 25

39. Roger Greenspun, "Leaving the Times," Film Comment (January, 1974), p.20.

40. Ibid., p.20.

41. Ibid., p.18.

42. Ibid., "A Critical Credo," p.180.

43. Kauffmann worked for the Times for less than one year during 1966- 1967 and was released because his criticism was perceived by Times editors to be too negative.

44. Ibid., Nine American Film Critics, p.144. CHAPTER II

A COMPARISON OF CRITICAL REVIEWS; BOX OFFICE SUCCESS; AND FILM AWARDS, 1960 THROUGH 1975

Three hypotheses were tested in this chapter. Based on the fact that reviews of films are written and published before a film is either a box office success or failure and the fact that only economically successful films were studied here, the following two hypotheses were formulated:

I. Most film critics writing for national publications will have positively reviewed the top ten economically successful films of any given year.

II. The higher a film places on a single year’s top ten list the more likely that film is to receive a positive review by most critics.

Due to the fact that awards are presented to a film usually long after its release and long after reviews have appeared the third hypo­ thesis was formulated:

III. The success of a film in winning awards is not determined by critical appraisal.

Reviews were examined for 156 economically successful films which were released or played to audiences within the 16-year period from 1960 through 1975. The ten biggest money-making films, based on box office receipts, in each of the 16 years were selected for the study. This means that the ten films for each year were those films seen by the greatest

26 27 number of people during each particular year. Economic facts on the films grosses were obtained from Variety, one of the principal trade publications in the film industry.

For each film as many reviews in major publications as could be found were examined. Reviews were located in the Readers Guide to Perio­ dical Literature and by examining anthologies of criticism by major critics ..Appendix A contains a list of all publications and critics used in the study. An attempt was made, unsuccessfully in some cases, to locate at least four reviews for each film. The only film in the study that was not examined for reviews and awards was Gone With the Wind which was not originally released during the period of the study.

All critical reviews used in the study were read in detail by this researcher. Based on the general tone of the review and on any specific critical judgments made by the reviewer each review was labelled either positive or negative. A positive review of a film was determined to be one in which the critic: 1) made positive comments about the film; 2) liked most elements or aspects of the film; 3) recommended the film be seen by the reader; 4) or otherwise indicated that the film was of a very high aesthetic or artistic quality with an excellent chance of success.

A negative review was determined to be one in which the reviewer:

1) made negative or predominantly derogatory comments about the film; 2) recommended against seeing the film; 3) or otherwise indicated that the film was severely flawed and had a very limited chance of success.

In order to test this researcher's judgment in determining positive 28

and negative reviews a panel was selected, composed of ten persons

divided into five groups of two each. Qualifications of the panel mem­

bers were that they were all graduate students in the College of Jour­

nalism at the University of South Carolina and that each had some media

experience prior to becoming a graduate student. Each person in each

of the five groups was given 15 randomly-selected reviews from the

study. The five groups all had different reviews but the two people in

each group both had the same reviews, although no one knew what reviews

anyone else had. Each person was asked to categorize the reviews as

positive or negative based on the criteria stated above. Each person was also told that if it was impossible to categorize a review as posi­

tive or negative that a designation of neutral could be applied. However,

no one used the neutral option. Four of the groups agreed 100 percent with each other and with this researcher and one group agreed with each

other and the researcher on all but one review. This test was determined

to be conclusive enough for the researcher to assume that there was a high degree of accuracy in his judgments of "positive" and "negative"

film reviews.

Also examined were the awards won by each of the films in the study.

Best picture awards were taken from the six most prestigious national organizations and one most prestigious international film festival.

I. Academy Award . These awards have been offered annually since

1927 by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and are deter­ mined by vote of the approximately 3,000 members of the Academy.

II. New York Film Critics. S o c i e t y . The Circle Award for best picture 29 of the year is determined by a vote of the critics in the New York metropolitan area.

III. National Society of Film Critics* The award for best picture is made annually and is determined by a vote of society members, the . majority of whom are critics working for magazines.

IV. National Board of Review. Since 1930 the award for best pic­ ture has been made by a Committee on Exceptional Films consisting of about 175 men and women with an interest in motion pictures and a mature sense of social responsibility.

V. Hollywood Foreign Press Association. The Golden Globe Award for best picture of the year is given in two categories: best dramatic film and best comedy or musical. The awards are determined by a vote of the association’s members.

VI. Photoplay Gold Medal Award. Begun in 1920, this award is the oldest in the industry and is one of only two awards given in response to the balloting of the general public. Balloting is conducted by the editors of Photoplay Magazine.

VII. Cannes Film Festival. The Golden Palm Award is given to the

American or foreign film voted by a panel of judges to be the best film of the festival. The festival is held annually in the Spring in Cannes,

France.

What follows in this chapter is a report, by year, of the findings.

Included with each year’s explanation are three tables, one summarizing the number of positive and negative reviews each film received, a second table summarizing the awards each film received, and a third table de­ tailing how each critic and publication used in the study perceived each 30

film used in the study. The analyses and interpretation of the findings appears in Chapter III.

Included in the appendix are excerpts from the critical reviews of significant films for each year. These are included in this study so that readers of the study can observe the general style, tone, and quality of the critical writing and the comments made by some of the critics.

The year-by-year report of the findings begins on the following page. 31

1960

Sixty two reviews were examined for 1960. Forty of the reviews or

65 percent were negative and twenty two or 35 percent were positive.

(Table 1) Only four of the films received more positive than negative reviews and two of the films, Can-Can and Solomon and Sheba, received all negative reviews. Two other films, Psycho and From the Terrace, received only one positive review each. Critics John McCarten, Stanley

Kauffmann, Hollis Alpert, and Brendan Gill gave negative reviews to any of the top ten films they reviewed in 1960 while only one critic,

Arthur Knight, gave positive reviews to all of the top ten films he wrote about. (Table 3)

Two of the films, Ben Hur and The Apartment, received awards and both were positively reviewed by most critics. (Table 2) In summary, all top grossing films of 1960 which won awards also received positive reviews from a majority of critics. The only exception was Psycho. Those films not positively reviewed also tended to be films which did not win awards.

A sampling of critical opinions for 1960 is found in the appendix. 32

TABLE; l

1960 - POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE REVIEWS

Film +

Ben Hur 4 3

Can-Can 0 6

Psycho 1 4

Operation Petticoat 2 3

Suddenly Last Summer 4 3

The Apartment 4 3

Solomon and Sheba 0 6

On the Beach 4 3

Butterfield 8 2 4

From the Terrace 1 5

Total 22 40 33

TABLE 2

1960 - AWARDS

o J3 a >> 03 Ben Ben Hur Can-Can Summer Suddenly Suddenly Last Solomon and Sheba Petticoat Operation The Apartment On the Beach Butterfield 8 From the 1 Terrace Terrace I

Academy Award XX

New York Film Critics Circle Award X

National Society of Film Critics Award

National Board of Review Award

Golden Globe Award

Photoplay Gold Medal Award

Cannes Golden Palm Award 34

TABLE 3

1960 - CRITICAL REACTION BY CRITIC AND PUBLICATION Ben Ben Hur Can-Can Psycho Suddenly Suddenly Last Operation Petticoat Summer The The Apartment Solomon and Sheba Butterfield Butterfield 8 On On the Beach From From the Terrace

— America - Walsh + . _ + + + _ + The New Republic - - --—_ Kauf f-mann

Time + - - - + + - - + +

Newsweek -- + + + - + -— Saturday Review-Knigh + + + Saturday Review - - - -- Aloert The New Yorker - McCarten - - The New Yorker - Gill - The New York Times - + - - - - , + - + + Crowther The New York Times - + Thompson 35

1961

Forty five reviews were examined for 1961. The smaller number can be accounted for by noting that Gone With the Wind, a reissue, was ninth on the list of top grossing films and the Walt Disney film, 101

Dalmations, was reviewed by only one critic.(sfee table 4).

Of the reviews examined thirty-one or 69 percent were positive and only fourteen or 31 percent were negative. Six of the top ten films

received a majority of positive reviews while only two films received more negative than positive reviews. One film, The World of Suzie Wong, received an equal number of positive and negative reviews. It is in­

teresting to note that The Guns of Navarone, the top grossing film of

the year, received all positive reviews and also that the top four films were all positively reviewed by a majority of critics. Critic

Arthur Knight again gave positive reviews to all the top grossing films he wrote about as did critic Howard Thompson (see table 6).

Only one top grossing film, The Guns of Navarone, received an award in 1961 (see Table 5).

In summary, 1961 produced a large percentage of very positive critical reviews. Top grossing films were very positively received by

the critics. However, those same films were very poor in terms of award winning potential.

A sampling of critical opinions for 1960 is found in the appendix. 36

TABLE 4

1961 - POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE REVIEWS

Film +

Guns of Navarone 7 0

Exodus 5 2

The Parent Trap 4 1

The Absent Minded Professor 4 0

The Alamo 0 5

Swiss Family Robinson 4 1

Come September 3 2

The World of Suzie Wong 3 3

Gone With the Wind reissue

101 Dalmations 1 0

Total 31 14 37

TABLE 5

1961 - AWARDS the the Wind 1 Suzie Suzie Wong Swiss Swiss Family Come September 101 Dalmations Exodus The Parent Trap Robinson The World of Gone With 1 Guns Guns of Navarone The Absent-Minded The Alamo Professor

Academy Award

New York Film Critics Circle Award

National Society of Film Critics Award

National 3oard of Review Award

Golden Globe Award X

Photoplay Gold Medal Award

Cannes Golden Palm Award 38

TABLE 6

1961 - CRITICAL REACTION BY CRITIC AND PUBLICATION

• a

u s *j

to 1 - 1 ai 1 3 i-4 A a c O i-4 o cn® 5as H C/5 O 3

America - Walsh The New Republic - Kauffmann______Time

Newsweek The Saturday Review - Knight______The Saturday Review - Alpert______The New Yorker - Gill The New Yorker - Oliver The New Yorker - Angell______The New York Times - Crowther The New York Times - Thompson______39

1962

Fifty nine reviews were examined for 1962. Of those reviews thirty- four or 58 percent were positive and twenty-five or 42 percent were negative (see table 7). Eight of the ten top grossing films received more positive than negative notices with the top grossing film, West

Side Story, also receiving the greatest number of positive reviews.

King of Kings, one of the two films to be negatively treated, received seven negative reviews and no positive reviews making it one of the largest negatively perceived films in the study.

West Side Story, the top grossing film as well as the most critically acclaimed film, also won the most awards (see table 8). It won the Academy Award, the New York Film Critics Circle Award, and a

Golden Globe Award. Two other films, Spartacus and The Music Man, also won awards.

In summary, 1962 was another very positive year in terms of critical appraisal. It was also evident that top grossing films with positive re­ views also could and did win awards.

A sampling of critical opinions for 1962 is found in the appendix. 40

TABLE 7

1962 - POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE REVIEWS

Film +

West Side Story 6 1

Spartacus 4 3

El Cid 4 2

Lover Come Back 4 1

That Touch of Mink 4 2

King of Kings 0 7

The Music Man 5 1

Hatari 3 2

Bon Voyage 1 4

Flower Drum Song 3 2

Total 34 25 41

TABLE 8

1962 - AWARDS Spartacus El El Cid West West Side Story Lover Lover Come Back That Touch of Mink King of Kings The The Music Man | Hatari Bon Bon Voyage Flower Flower Drum Song

Academy Award X

New York Film Critics Circle Award X

National Society of Film Critics Award

National Board of Review Award

Golden Globe Award XX X

Photoplay Gold Medal Award

Cannes Golden Palm Award 42

TABLE 9

1962 - CRITICAL REACTION BY CRITIC AND PUBLICATION j Spartacus El El Cid West West Side Story That Touch of Mink Lover Lover Come Back King King of Kings The Music Man Hatari Flower Flower Drum Song Bon Bon Voyage

America - Walsh + - + --- + + + The New Republic - + + + - Kauffmann

Time + + + + + - - - - -

Newsweek + - - + - - + - - + The Saturday Review - + - - Knight + + The Saturday Review - + Alpert The New Yorker - Gill - + + + --- The New Yorker - McCarten + The New Yorker - + Oliver The New York Times - - Crowther + + + + - + + + The New York Times -

Weiler + ... 43

1963

Sixty three reviews were examined for 1963. Thirty-two or 51 per­ cent were negative and thirty one or 49 percent were positive (see table 10). Five films received more positive than negative reviews.

Three films received more negative reviews. One film received an equal number of positive and negative reviews.

The two top grossing films of the year, How the West was Won and

Cleopatra, were both negatively reviewed and it was not until the fourth film on the list that a film received a greater number of positive reviews than negative reviews. The film Cleopatra received all but one negative review yet was a top grossing film, probably because of the publicity surrounding its stars. Lawrence of Arabia was the most critically acclaimed of the top grossing films receiving only one negative review.

The top grossing film, How the West was Won, won the Photoplay

Gold Medal Award which, as previously noted, is given in response to the balloting of the general public. This relationship between number one top grossing film and this award appears also during other years.

Other award winning films were The Longest Day, not a critical success, and Lawrence of Arabia (see table 11).

In summary, while 1963 was almost even in negative and positive re­ views, those films at the top of the list tended to be the most negatively reviewed. Twenty of the twenty-five negative reviews were given to the top five grossing films. Also, negative or positive reviews had little effect on whether a film won awards.

A sampling of critical opinions for 1963 is found in the appendix. 44

TABLE; 10

1963 - POSITIVE AND NEGATIVEREVIEWS

Film +

How the West Was Won 2 5

Cleopatra 1 7

The Longest Day 3 3

Lawrence of Arabia 6 1

Irma La Douce 1 5

Mutiny on the Bounty 4 3

The V.I.P.'s 4 3

To Kill a Mockingbird 5 2

Son of Flubber 3 2

McLintock 2 1

Total 31 32 TABLE 11

1963 - AWARDS Cleopatra How How the West Was Was Won The Longest Day Lawrence of Irma La Douce Arabia Bounty The V.I.P.'s Son Son of Flubber Mutiny Mutiny on the To To Kill a Mockingbird McLintock McLintock |

Academy Award X

New York Film Cridcs Circle Award

National Society of Film Critics Award

National Board of Review Award X

Golden Globe Award X

Photoplay Gold Medal Award X

Cannes Golden Palm Award 46

TABLE 12

1963 - CRITICAL REACTION BY CRITIC AND PUBLICATION Son Son of Flubber Irma Irma La Douce Bounty The V.I.P.'s Cleopatra The The Longest Day To Kill a How How the West Lawrence of Arabia was was Won Mutiny on the Mockingbird McLintock

America - Walsh -- + - - - + - + The New Republic - - - - Kauffmann + + -- + N.Y. Herald Tribune - Crist — Time + - - + + + + + +

Newsweek + _ _ + _ + + The Saturday Review - Knight + + + The Saturday Review - Alpert - - + + - The New Yorker - - - - + -- + Gill - The New York Times - Crowther - + + - + + + + + The New York Times - Archer -

Commonweal - Hartung — 47

1964

Fifty nine reviews were examined for 1964, of which thirty-eight or

64 percent were negative and twenty-one or 36 percent were positive

(see table 13). Only three films, and only one of those in the top five, received more positive than negative reviews. The top grossing film of the year, The Carpetbaggers, received all negative (five) re­ views. The biggest film of the year, critically, was My Fair Lady which was seventh on the list and received the highest number of positive reviews (six) as well as three awards (see table 14). One other film,

Move Over Darling, also received all negative (five) reviews.

Two other films in addition to My Fair Lady won awards. The Cardinal won a Golden Globe Award yet received five negative reviews by critics and only two positive reviews. The Unsinkable Molly Brown received

the Photoplay Gold Medal Award and was the only film of the five top grossing films to receive more positive than negative reviews.

In summary, 1964 was a very negative year with few critics agreeing with box office successes (see table 15). Only three of the ten top grossing films received a majority of positive reviews. Awards con­ tinued to gravitate to critically successful films while films from plays, especially musicals, tended to be critically successful as well as box office successes. Also, the fact that The Carpetbaggers was adapted from a sexually explicit novel might account for both the film’s extreme box office success and its extremely negative critical appraisal.

A sampling of critical opinions for 1964 is found in the appendix. 48

TABLE 13

1964 - POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE REVIEWS

Film +

The Carpetbaggers 0 5

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World 2 5

The Unsinkable Molly Brown 3 2

Charade 3 4

The Cardinal 2 5

Move Over Darling 0 5

My Fair Lady 6 2

What a Way To Go 1 5

Good Neighbor Sam 3 1

The Pink Panther 1 4

Total 21 38 TABLE 14

1964 - AWARDS

o o o 4 J

CO 3 cd 4 J cd It's It's Mad, a Mad, Darling Charade The The Carpetbaggers The The Pink Panther j The The Cardinal Good Good Neighbor Sam My My Fair Lady Move Move Over Mad, Mad, Mad World The Unsinkable Molly Molly Brown

Academy Award X

New York Film Critics Circle Award X

National Society of Film Critics Award

National Board of Review Award

Golden Globe Award XX

Photoplay Gold Medal Award X

Cannes Golden Palm Award TABLE 15

1964 - CRITICAL REACTION BY CRITIC AND PUBLICATION It's It's Mad, a Mad, Charade The The Unsinkable The Cardinal The The Carpetbaggers Molly Molly Brown What a Way to Go Mad, Mad, Mad World Move Over Darling My Fair Lady Good Neighbor Sam The Pink Panther |

America - Walsh - + -- + + The New Republic - Kauffmann - -- + - N.Y. Herald Tribune - Crist + Time - - + - + - + - -

Newsweek - + + - - + - The Saturday Review - Knight -- - - + The Saturday Review - Alpert - + - + The New Yorker - Gill - + -- + — + The New York Times - - + -- - Crowther + - The New York Times - Weiler + - +

Commonweal - Hartung —

Life - Thompson -

Life - Schickel _

Life - Oulahan

4 ,

1 51

1965

Fifty-eight reviews were examined for 1965, of which thirty-five or 60 percent were negative and twenty-three or 40 percent were positive.

Only one of the films in the top seven, Mary Poppins, received more positive than negative reviews. However, within the top five films two received an equal number of positive and negative reviews. One film,

My Fair Lady, was not considered since it was dealt with in 1964. The sixth and seventh top grossing films received all negative reviews fay major critics in 1965 (see tables 16 and 18).

Only one film on the top grossing list won awards in 1965 and

that film was The Sound of Music, winning the Academy Award, the

Golden Globe Award, and the Photoplay Gold Medal Award (see table 17).

Critical opinion for The Sound of Music was neutral (four positive and four negative reviews) yet the film placed number two on the top gross list. Walt Disney's Mary Poppins, the top grossing and most positively reviewed film, won no awards.

In summary, 1965 was a year in which critical acclaim and box office success or award winning potential did not agree. Only three films were positively reviewed. However, critics did agree with the public's choice of the top film. Mary Poppins won both the highest critical acclaim and turned out to be the biggest box office success.

A sampling of critical opinions for 1965 is found in the appendix. 52

TABLE 16

1965 - POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE REVIEWS

Film +

Mary Poppins 6 1

The Sound of Music 4 4

Goldfinger 3 3

My Fair Lady seeTABLE 9

What's New Pussycat? 1 7

Shenandoah 0 5

The Sandpiper 0 8

Father Goose 4 1

Von Ryan's Express 4 2

The Yellow Rolls Royce 1 4

Total 23 35 TABLE 17

1965 - AWARDS (see (see 1964) | The The Sound of Goldfinger Mary Mary Poppins | Music Shenandoah What's What's New Pussycat The The Sandpiper My My Fair Lady 1 Father Father Goose Von Von Ryan's Express The Yellow Rolls Royce 1 |

Academy Award X

New York Film Critics Circle Award

National Society of Film Critics Award

National Board of Review Award

Golden Globe Award X

Photoplay Gold X Medal Award

Cannes Golden Palm Award 54

TABLE 18

1965 - CRITICAL REACTION BY CRITIC AND PUBLICATION 1 The The Sound of Goldfinger Pussycat Shenandoah What's What's New The Sandpiper Mary Mary Poppins Music Father Coose My My Fair Lady Von Ryanfs Express The The Yellow Rolls Rolls Royce America - Walsh + + X - - - 4* + - The New Republic - Kauffmann + X + _ N.Y. Herald Tribune - -- Crist X Time + + X - - - + Newsweek - Slavitt + + - X Newsweek - Morgenstern X - -- + The Saturday Review - Knight _ k —, + The Saturday Review - Alpert + + X — — + The New Yorker - - - Gill + k — The New Yorker - + Oliver X The New Yorker - Arlen N - ~ The New York Times - Crowther + + — X — _ + , The New York Times - - Thompson X The New York Times - Weiler IX mm Commonweal - Hartung k 4* Life - Schickel X Life - Guerin + k Life - Perry X - 55

1966

Fifty-eight reviews were examined for 1966. Thirty-three or 57 percent were negative and twenty-five or 43 percent were positive (see table 19). Four of the films received a majority of positive reviews while six others received a majority of negative reviews. One film,

Torn Curtain, received all negative reviews. It is significant to note here that four of the five top grossing films received a majority of positive reviews and that of the total twenty-five positive reviews

twenty-one of them were written about the top five box office successes.

The sixth through the tenth films received a total of only four positive reviews.

Two 1966 box office successes received awards (see table 20). Doctor

Zhivago, adapted from a successful novel and the only film in the top

five to be negatively reviewed-by a majority of the critics, won the

Golden Globe Award. The Russians are Coming, the Russians are Coming, which was positively reviewed, won both the Golden Globe Award and the

Photoplay Gold Medal Award.

In summary, 1966 saw a higher relationship between box office and critical success. Four of the top five films were reviewed positively.

However, overall there were still more negative than positive reviews for the top ten films and two of those films were not even reviewed by more than three critics. Also there was still a low relationship between winning awards and critical success.

A sampling of critical opinions for 1966 is found in the appendix. 56

TABLE 19

1966 - POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE REVIEWS

Film +

Thunderball 4 3

Doctor Zhivago 2 7

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? 6 2

That D a m Cat 4 1

The Russians Are Coining, The Russians Are Coming 5 1

Lt. Robinson Crusoe 0 2

The Silencers 1 2

Torn Curtain 0 7

Our Man Flint 1 4

A Patch of Blue 2 4

Total 25 33 57

TABLE 20

1966 - AWARDS Thunderball Doctor Doctor Zhivago Who's Who's Afraid of That Darn Cat Crusoe, USN Virginia Virginia Woolf? The Russians are Coming Torn Curtain Lt. Lt. Robinson The Silencers | Our Our Man Flint A Patch of Blue

Academy Award

New York. Film Critics Circle Award

National Society of Film Critics Award

National 3oard of Review Award

Golden Globe Award X X

Photoplay Gold Medal Award X

Cannes Golden Palm Award 58

TABLE 21

1966 - CRITICAL REACTION BY CRITIC AND PUBLICATION Thunderball Doctor Zhivago Virginia Woolf? Who's Who's Afraid of That Darn Cat are Coming The The Russians Crusoe, Crusoe, USN Lt. Lt. Robinson The Silencers Torn Torn Curtain Our Our Man Flint A A Patch of Blue

America - Walsh - — + + + _ The New Republic - Kauf fmann — N.Y. Herald Tribune - Crist — Time + + + + + — — — +

Newsweek - Morgenstert i - — — + + The Saturday Review - Knight - - - + The Saturday Review - Alpert + + + - The Saturday Review - - Hewes The New Yorker - - - Gill + « - The New Yorker - Oliver + The New Yorker - Adler - The New York Times - Crowther + ' — + + --- The New York Times - - Wai 1 p.r The New York Times - - Thompson The New York Times - + Alden The New York Times - + Kauffmann Commonweal - Hartung +

Life - Schickel - 4- + - 59

1967

Sixty-three reviews were examined for 1967. Forty-one or 65 percent were positive and twenty-two or 35 percent were negative. Eight of the

ten top grossing films were positively received by a majority of the

critics with the film A Man For All Seasons receiving seven positive

reviews and no negative reviews. Only one film, Casino Royale, was

overwhelmingly negative with six negative reviews and only one positive

review. Film critic Hollis Alpert gave positive reviews to all four of

the top ten films he reviewed and Brendan Gill gave positive reviews to

six of the ten.

Two films won awards in 1967 with A Man For All Seasons making a vir­

tual sweep. The film won the Academy Award, the New York Film Critics

Circle Award, the National Board of Review Award, and the Golden Globe

Award. The Dirty Dozen won the Photoplay Gold Medal Award and was also

the top grossing film of the year.

Two films, A Man For All Seasons and Barefoot in the Park, were adap­

ted from successful plays while the number two top grossing film, You

Only Live Twice, was adapted from a best-selling novel. All three films were positively reviewed by a majority of critics.

In summary, 1967 was an extremely successful and positive year with

the highest relationship yet between box office success and critical

acclaim. The film A Man For All Seasons proved the point that a well made

film can be a box office success, an award winner, and also win critical acclaim. It is also interesting that once again the top grossing film of

the year won the Photoplay Gold Medal Award, an award voted by the general public.

A sampling of critical opinion for 1967 is found in the appendix. 60

TABLE 22

1967 - POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE REVIEWS

Film +

The Dirty Dozen 4 3

You Only Live Twice 4 2

Casino Royale 1 6

A Man For All Seasons 7 0

Thoroughly Modern Millie 5 2

Barefoot in the Park 5 1

Georgy Girl 4 2

To Sir With Love 5 2

Grand Prix 2 3

Hombre 4 1

Total 41 22 61

TABLE 23

1967 - AWARDS the the Park I The The Dirty Dozen Twice Casino Royale Seasons You You Only Live A Man for All Thoroughly Modern Barefoot in 1 Georgy Georgy Girl Millie To Sir With Love Grand Grand Prix Hombre

Academy Award X

New York Film Critics Circle Award X

National Society of Film Critics Award

National Board of X Review Award

Golden Globe Award X

Photoplay Gold Medal Award X

Cannes Golden Palm Award 62

TABLE 24

1967 - CRITICAL REACTION BY CRITIC AND PUBLICATION Seasons Barefoot in the Thoroughly Thoroughly Modern Park Georgy Girl To Sir With Love 1 Casino Casino Royale J Grand Prix Hombre The The Dirty Dozen Millie A A Man for All You You Only Live Twice

America - Walsh + —- + + + + + The New Republic - Kael + - + - - N.Y. Herald Tribune - Crist +

Time + - - + - + + +

Newsweek - Morgenstern + + _

Newsweek - Zimmerman - + - + +

Newsweek - Junker - The Saturday Review - + - Knight + - The Saturday Review - Alpert + + + + The New Yorker - + + + + - Gill + + The New Yorker - Gilliatt - + - The New York Times - - + - + + - - Crowther + + The New York Times - S t e m -

Life - Schickel + +

Life - Perry +

Life - Williamson + 63

1968

Fifty-two reviews were examined for 1968. Of those reviews twenty- eight or 54 percent were negative and twenty-four or 46 percent were positive. The third ranked top grossing film, Gone With the Wind, was a reissue and therefore not considered.

Three films received a majority of positive reviews and three receiv­ ed a majority of negative reviews. The remaining three each received an equal number of positive and negative reviews. Both the number one and number two box office successes received a majority of positive reviews.

The tenth film on the list, The Green Berets, received six negative and no positive reviews. Critic Hollis Alpert gave positive reviews to all three of the top rated films he wrote about while Penelope Gilliatt gave negative reviews to the three she reviewed.

Only two films won awards. The Graduate won the Golden Globe Award and Rosemary's Baby won the Photoplay Gold Medal Award. The Graduate was positively reviewed by a majority of the critics while Rosemary's Baby received an equal number of positive and negative reviews.

Two films, Valley of the Dolls and Rosemary's Baby, were based on best selling novels. Valley of the Dolls was very negatively reviewed.

The Odd Couple, also negatively reviewed, was based on a successful play.

In summary, the year was largely a critical standoff. Most films did not have much critical support and, except for the top two, there was very little critical acclaim. It seemed to be a year when the top grossing films received neither the critical acclaim nor the awards.

A sampling of critical opinions for 1968 is found in the appendix. 64

TABLE 25

1968 - POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE REVIEWS

Film ______±______-

The Graduate 5 4

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? 6 2

Gone With The Wind reissue

Valley of the Dolls 1 4

The Odd Couple 2 3

Planet of the Apes 4 3

Rosemary's Baby 3 3

The Jungle Book 1 1

Yours, Mine and Ours 2 2

The Green Berets 0 6

Total 24 28 65

TABLE 26

1968 - AWARDS The The Odd Couple The The Graduate Coming to Dinner? Gone With the Valley of the Dolls Planet Planet of the Guess Guess Who's Wind Rosemary's Baby The The Jungle Book Apes Yours, Yours, Mine, and Ours The Green Berets

Academy Award

New York Film Critics Circle Award

National Society of Film Critics Award

National Board of Review Award

Golden Globe Award X

Photoplay Gold Medal Award X

Cannes Golden Palm Award 66

TABLE 27

1968 - CRITICAL REACTION BY CRITIC AND PUBLICATION The The Odd Couple Planet of the Apes 1 1 The The Graduate Cuess Who1s Coming To Dinner Gone With the Wind | Valley of the Dolls Rosemary's Baby The Jungle Book The Green Berets Yours, Yours, Mine Ours &

America - Walsh - + - - - + - N The New Republic - + + - -f- Tffliif finann X Time -- k - + - + - Newsweek - Morgensten l + + -- + - X The Saturday Review - - Knight + The Saturday Preview - s Alpert + X + + The New Yorker - + + Gill X The New Yorker - - - Gilliatt The New Yorker - N Kael X • + The New York Times - + + - Crowther X The New York Times - Thompson X + The New York Times - Adler + - - - — X ; Life - Schickel - - k + — Life - Rapf + The New Leader - k - Simon x Ramparts - Weber X + 67

1969

Seventy-six reviews were examined for 1969. Forty-seven or 62 per­ cent of the reviews were positive and twenty-nine or 38 percent were negative. Six of the top ten films received a majority of positive reviews while two, including the top grossing film of the year, received a majority of negative reviews. Two films received an equal number of posi­ tive and negative reviews. Time critics positively reviewed eight of the top ten films while critic Hollis Alpert positively reviewed six.

Three films won awards and were also positively reviewed. Midnight

Cowboy and Oliver each won the Academy Award. Actually Oliver had won in 1968 but the film did not reach the top ten money list until 1969.

Oliver also won the Golden Globe Award and True Grit won the Photoplay

Gold Medal Award.

In summary, this year saw a very large number of reviews yet a very small number of awards. Critical acclaim seemed to relate very highly to box office success in the bottom part of the list. The top four gros­ sing films received only twelve positive reviews or only 25 percent of the total number of positive reviews in 1969.

A sampling of critical opinions for 1969 is found in the appendix. 68

TABLE 28

1969 - POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE REVIEWS

Filin +

The Love Bug 0 2

Funny Girl 4 4

Bullitt 5 3

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid 3 7

Romeo and Juliet 6 1

True Grit 7 2

Midnight Cowboy 6 3

Oliver 6 2

Goodbye, Columbus 7 2

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang 3 3

Total 47 29 69

TABLE 29

1969 - AWARDS the the Sundance Kid Butch Butch Cassidy and The The Love Bug Funny Girl Bullitt Romeo and Juliet True True Grit Bang Bang Bang Goodbye, Goodbye, Columbus 1 Chitty Chitty Midnight Midnight Cowboy Oliver

Academy Award X X

Mew York Film Critics Circle Award

National Society of Film Critics Award

National Board of Review Award

Golden Globe Award X

Photoplay Gold Medal Award X

Cannes Golden Palm Award 70

TABLE 30

1969 - CRITICAL REACTION BY CRITIC AND PUBLICATION

- the the Sundance Kid Butch Butch Cassidy and The The Love Bug Funny Girl Bullitt Romeo Romeo and Juliet True Grit Midnight Midnight Cowboy Oliver Goodbye, Columbus Chitty Chitty Bane Bane Bane

America - Walsh -— — + + + + + . The New Republic - - - - - + - - Kauffmann Time + + - + + + + + + Newsweek - + + + + - Moreenstern Newsweek - Zimmerman +

Newsweek - Sokolov + ~ Newsweek - Plate + The Saturday Review - Knight + + The Saturday Review - - + + + + + Alpert + The Saturday Review - Gelatt - The New Yorker - Giliatt - + The New Yorker - + - - - + Kael - The New Yorker - Lardnpr — The New York Times - - + Adler , + The New York Times - - - Canbv + + + + Life - Schickel + + - + - +

Life - Rapf + The New Leader - + - + - + - 71

1970

Sixty-seven reviews were examined for 1970. Forty-seven of these re­ views or 70 percent were positive and twenty or 30 percent were negative.

All of the films reviewed received either more positive than negative reviews or an equal number of positive and negative reviews. The top grossing film, Airport, received three positive and three negative re­ views but the next four films all received more positive than negative reviews. Joseph Morgenstem of Newsweek positively reviewed all five of the top ten films he wrote about. Critic Pauline Kael reviewed five posi­ tively and one negatively. Critic Moira Walsh reviewed six positively and one negatively while Time critics reviewed six positively and only two negatively.

Only two films received awards in 1970. M*A*S*H was the only instance in the sixteen years studied that a film on the top grossing list was named winner of the top film prize at the Cannes Film Festival. M*A*S*H also won the National Society of Film Critics Award and a Golden Globe

Award. It was positively reviewed by eight out of ten critics. Patton, the other award winning film, won the Academy Award and the National Board of Review Award. It was positively reviewed by seven out of eight critics.

Two top grossing films, Airport and Catch-22, were adapted from best selling books. Both films were given equal numbers of positive and negative reviews. The film Hello Dolly was adapted from a successful play and critical opinion was also equally divided.

In summary, 1970 was the most critically positive year of the sixteen years studied. Films high in the top ten won awards. However, the top grossing film of the year, Airport, was not a critical success nor did 72 it win a single major award.

A sampling of critical opinions for 1970 is found in the appendix. 73

TABLE 31

1970 - POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE REVIEWS

Film +

• Airport 3 3

M*A*S*H 8 2

Patton 7 1

Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice 4 2

Woodstock 7 1

Hello Dolly 3 3

/ '« k. • - Cactus Flower 4 1

Catch-22 4 4

On Her Majesty's Secret Service 3 1

The Reivers 4 2

Total 47 20 74

TABLE 32

1970 - AWARDS

*33 CO

•K Bob Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice Airport Patton Cactus Cactus Flower Woodstock Hello, Dolly Catch-22 Secret Service On On Her Majesty's S The Reivers

Academy Award X

New York Film Critics Circle Award

National Society of X Film Critics Award

National Board of Review Award

Golden Globe Award X

Photoplay Gold Medal Award

Cannes Golden Palm Award X 75

TABLE 33

1970 - CRITICAL REACTION BY CRITIC AND PUBLICATION

as * CO ■K *< Secret Secret Service Bob Bob and Carol and Patton Ted and Alice Cactus Flower Catch-22 Hello Hello Dolly On Her Majesty's The Reivers Airport 2 Woodstock

America - Walsh + . - + + + + + + The New Republic - + + Kauffmann + -

V Time + + - + - + + + Newsweek- + + Morgenstem + + +

Newsweek - Zimmerman " _

Newsweek - Oberbeck + + The Saturday Review - Knight -

The Saturday Review - Alpert + + + — +

The Saturday Review - + - Gelatt +

The New Yorker - + Gilliatt

The New Yorker - - Kael + + + + +

The New Yorker - + Lardner

The New York Times - - + + - - + + - Canbv The New York Times - + Weiler The New York Times - + Thompson The New York Times - - Greenspun

Life - Schickel + + + + - - The New Leader - + - - Simon ! “ i | 76

1971

Fifty-one reviews were examined for 1971. Of those reviews twenty-

five or 49 percent were positive and twenty-six or 51 percent were nega­

tive. Five films received more positive than negative reviews while four

films received a majority of negative reviews. One film, The Owl and

the Pussycat, received an equal number of positive and negative reviews.

Paul Zimmerman of Newsweek gave positive reviews to all five top grossing

films he wrote about while Richard Schickel of Life was negative on the

three films he reviewed. Pauline Kael of The New Yorker negatively review­

ed four of the five films she wrote about.

The top grossing film of 1971, Love Story, won two awards, the Gol­

den Globe Award and the Photoplay Gold Medal Award. The film Summer of

*42 also won the Photoplay Gold Medal Award. Love Story was positively

reviewed while Summer of '42 was negatively reviewed by the critics.

In summary, 1971 was a very negative year both in terms of critical

reviews and awards won. This is in direct contrast to 1970 which was a very positive year. Two 1971 films were not even reviewed by more than

two critics.

A sampling of critical opinions for 1971 is found in the appendix. 77

TABLE 34

1971 - POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE REVIEWS

Film +

Love Story 4 3

Little Big Han 5 2

Summer of '42 2 3

Ryan's Daughter 1 5

The Owl and the Pussycat 3 3

The Aristocats 1 0

Carnal Knowledge 5 3

Willard 0 4

The Andromeda Strain 2 3

Big Jake 2 0

Total 25 26 78

TABLE 35

1971 - AWARDS j Love Love Story Summer Summer of '42 Little Little Big Man Ryan's Ryan's Daughter The The Owl and the Pussycat The Aristocats Carnal Carnal Knowledge Strain Willard The Andromeda Big Jake

Academy Award

New York Film Critics Circle Award

National Society of Film Critics Award

National Board of Review Award

Golden Globe Award X

Photoplay Gold X X Medal Award

Cannes Golden Palm Award 79

TABLE 36

1971 - CRITICAL REACTION BY CRITIC AND PUBLICATION Pussycat Summer Summer of ’42 Ryan's Ryan's Daughter The Owl and the Strain The The Aristocats Carnal Knowledge Big Jake Little Little Big Man Willard I Love Love Story The Andromeda

America - Walsh - + - - + - The New Republic - - + - - + Kauffmann

Time - Kanfer + ' + -

Time - Cocks - - +

Time - Goodman - +

Newsweek - Zimmerman + + + + +

Newsweek - Kroll +

Newsweek - Keneas - The Saturday Review - + - + Knight The Saturday Review - + + Alpert The New Yorker - < - - - + - Kael The New Yorker - - Gilliatt The New York Times - + + + - - + - Canby The New York Times - + Thompson The New York Times - - Greenspun

Life - Schickel - - —

Commonweal - Westerbec c — 80

1972

Sixty-six reviews were examined for 1972. Of those reviews forty, or 61 percent, were positive and twenty-six or 39 percent were negative.

Six of the top ten films received more positive than negative reviews while three received a majority of negative reviews. One film received an equal number of positive and negative reviews.

The most critically acclaimed film was The Godfather which was posi­ tively reviewed by eight out of nine critics. Stanley Kauffmann negatively reviewed six of the seven top grossing films he wrote about and he was the single negative reviewer of The Godfather. Hollis Alpert of The Satur­ day Review positively reviewed all three films he wrote about and Vincent

Canby of The New York Times positively reviewed seven of the eight films he wrote about.

Seven awards were won by four of the top grossing films in 1972. The

Godfather won the Academy Award, the Golden Globe Award, and the Photo­ play Gold Medal Award. Fiddler on the Roof, the number two top grossing film, won the Golden Globe Award but was negatively reviewed by five out of seven critics. A Clockwork Orange won the New York Film Critics Award and was positively reviewed by a majority of critics. Cabaret won both the National Board of Review Award and the Golden Globe Award and was also positively reviewed.

In summary, 1972 was a very positive year and a very lucrative year for awards. The Godfather was the biggest success, gathering more awards and positive reviews than any other film as well as being the top grossing film of the year. All award winning films except Fiddler on the Roof were positively reviewed by a majority of critics.

A sampling of critical opinions for 1972 is found in the appendix. 81

TABLE; 37

1972 - POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE REVIEWS

Film +

The Godfather 8 1

Fiddler on the Roof 2 5

Diamonds Are Forever 2 3

What's Up Doc? 3 3

Dirty Harry 3 2

The Last Picture Show 6 1

A Clockwork Orange 4 3

Cabaret 5 2

The Hospital 4 2

Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex But Were Afraid To Ask 3 4

Total 40 26 82

TABLE 38

1972 - AWARDS The The Godfather Fiddler Fiddler on the Roof Forever Diamonds Diamonds are Dirty Dirty Harry The Last Picture Show What's What's Up Doc? A A Clockwork Cabaret Orange The The Hospital Evrythng You Alwys Wntd Wntd To Knw Abt Sx

Academy Award X

New York Film Critics Circle Award X

National Society of Film Critics Award

National Board of Review Award X

Golden Globe Award X X X

Photoplay Gold X Medal Award

Cannes Golden Palm Award 83

TABLE 39

1972 - CRITICAL REACTION BY CRITIC AND PUBLICATION

C*** a o Q a* P 03 4J cd jg Fiddler Fiddler on the Roof Show The The Godfather Diamonds are Forever Dirty Harry The The Last Picture Cabaret A A Clockwork Orange The The Hospital Everythng U Always I Wntd Wntd NO 2 About Sex 1

America - Walsh + —

America - Blake + + The New Republic - - --- + - Kauf fmatin Time - Kanfer +

Time - Cocks + - + + + - + -

Newsweek - Zimmerman + -- - + + - — The Saturday Review - " + - + Knight + The Saturday Review - Alpert + + + The Saturday Review - Meehan +

The New Yorker - Kael + + - - + + - + + The New Yorker - + Gilliatt The New York Times - Canbv + - + + + + + + The New York Times - Greenspun + + Commonweal - Vesterbeck Society - Silver -

Life - Schickel + - + + — _ + 84

1973

Fifty-one reviews were examined for 1973. Of those reviews twenty- five, or 49 percent, were positive and twenty-six, or 51 percent, were negative. Only two of this year’s top grossing films received more posi­ tive than negative reviews while five received more negative than posi­ tive reviews. Two films received an equal number of positive and negative reviews while one film was a reissue.

The top film of the year, The Poseidon Adventure, received three nega­ tive reviews out of five and neither the second or third top grossing films, Deliverance and The Getaway, received a majority of positive re­ views. Only Live and Let Die, the fourth top grossing film, and American

Graffiti, the tenth top grossing film, received more positive than nega-

\ tive reviews. American Graffiti, in fact, was the most critically posi­ tive film of the year receiving six out of seven positive reviews. It was also the only top grossing film of 1973 to win an award, winning the Na­ tional Board of Review Award. Jesus Christ Superstar was the most nega­ tively reviewed film of the year, receiving four out of five negative reviews.

Critic Moira Walsh positively reviewed five of the year’s top grossing films while negatively reviewing only one. Stanley Kauffmann gave negative reviews to five of the seven films he wrote about. Critic Penelope Gil- liatt positively reviewed all four of the top ten films she covered.

In summary, 1973 produced very little critical acclaim and few awards.

There was very little relationship between box office success and critical opinion. And the year 1973 was almost a complete reversal of 1972.

A sampling of critical opinions for 1973 is found in the appendix. 85

TABLE 40

1973 - POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE REVIEWS

Film +

The Poseidon Adventure 2 3

Deliverance 4 4

The Getaway 2 3

Live and Let Die 3 2

Paper Moon 3 4

Last Tango in Paris 4 4

The Sound of Music reissue

Jesus Christ Superstar 1 4

The World's Greatest . Athlete 0 1

American Graffiti 6 1

Total 25 26 00 ON

TABLE 41 The Poseidon Deliverance Adventure The Getaway Live and Let Die Paper Moon in Paris Last Tango The Sound of Superstar Jesus Christ Music The World's Greatest Athlete American Graffiti 1

Academy Award

New York Film Critics Circle Award

National Society of Film Critics Award

National 3oard of Review Award

Golden Globe Award

Photoplay Gold Medal Award

Cannes Golden Palm Award 87

TABLE 42

1973 - CRITICAL REACTION BY CRITIC AND PUBLICATION Superstar in in Paris The The Poseidon Deliverance The Getaway Last Tango The The Sound of Music Jesus Christ The World's Adventure Live and Let Die Paper Moon Greatest Athlete American American Graffiti

America - Walsh + + + + + The New Republic - - + --- - Kauffmann + Time - Cocks - + - - + - +

Newsweek - Zimmerman - - — +

Newsweek - Michener + The Saturday Review - - + Knight The Saturday Review - Alpert - The Saturday Review - Meehan —

The New Yorker - Kael - - + - The New Yorker ~ Gilliatt + + + + The New York Times - - Canby -- + The New York Times - + - Weiler The New York Times - Thompson mm The New York Times - + Greenspun . + Life - Schickel ■ - Commonweal - Westerbeck + + New York - Crist +

Newsday - Gelmis - 88

1974

Forty-seven reviews were examined for 1974. Fifteen or 32 percent

of those reviews were positive while thirty-two or 68 percent were nega­

tive. This year included the highest percentage of negative reviews in

the sixteen years studied. Only two of the year’s films, Papillon and

Serpico, were positively reviewed by a majority of critics. Seven films

received a majority of negative reviews. One film was a reissue.

Stanley Kauffmann negatively reviewed four of the five films he

wrote about. Jay Cocks negatively reviewed all five films he discussed.

Paul D. Zimmerman also wrote negatively about four out of five. Pauline

Kael negatively reviewed six out of seven films. The most negatively

reviewed film was Magnum Force which was the fourth top grossing film of

the year. It received five negative reviews and no positive reviews.

Two films, both negatively reviewed, received awards in 1974. The

top grossing film of the year, The Sting, received the Academy Award

and the National Board of Review Award. The second highest grossing film,

The Exorcist, received the Golden Globe Award.'

In summary, 1974 was a year with fewer reviews than previous years and

an abundance of negative reviews. There was little relationship between box office success and critical acclaim. However, those films which won

awards were the highest grossing films of the year.

A sampling of critical opinions for 1974 appears in the appendix. 89

TABLE 43

1974 - POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE REVIEWS

Film +

The Sting 2 3

The Exorcist 3 4

Papillon 3 2

Magnum Force 0 5

Herbie Rides Again 0 1

Blazing Saddles 2 3

The Trial of Billy Jack 0 5

The Great Gatsby 1 6

Serpico 4 3

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid reissue

Total 15 32 TABLE 44

1974 - AWARDS The The Sting the Sundance Kid The The Exorcist Papillon Blazing Saddles Serpico The The Trial of Billy Jack Butch Cassidy and Herbie Herbie Rides Again The Great Gatsby Magnum Magnum Force

Academy Award X

New York Film Critics Circle Award

National Society of Film Critics Award

National Board of Review Award X

Golden Globe Award X

Photoplay Gold Medal Award

Cannes Golden Palm Award 91

TABLE 45

1974 - CRITICAL REACTION BY CRITIC AND PUBLICATION Blazing Blazing Saddles Billy Jack Serpico the Sundance Kid The The Sting The Exorcist Papillon Herbie Rides Again The Trial of The The Great Gatsby Butch Cassidy and Magnum Magnum Force

America - Walsh - + - \ America - Lauder + \ The New Republic - - + - -- Kauffmann \

Time - Cocks - - - - - \ Time - Schickel + - + \

Newsweek - Zimmerman - - - + - \ Newsweek - Michener — \ The Saturday Review - Aloert + — + N

The New Yorker - Kael ------+ \ The New Yorker - - Gilliatt k The New York Times - + - + - — — — Canby + \ The New York Times - Savre — k

New York - Crist + + \ Progressive - Turan \

Esquire - Simon + \

: 92

1975

Forty-six reviews were examined for 1975. Twenty-eight or 61 percent

of those reviews were positive and eighteen or 39 percent were negative.

Six of the films were positively reviewed by a majority of critics while

only two were negatively reviewed. Two films received equal numbers of

positive and negative reviews. The most positively reviewed film of the year was The Return of the Pink Panther. This film was eighth on the list

of top grossing films. Critic Stanley Kauffmann gave negative reviews

to five of the six top grossing films he reviewed while Vincent Canby gave positive reviews to six of the seven films he reviewed.

Three films received awards in 1975. The top grossing film, Jaws,

received the Photoplay Gold Medal Award. It was positively reviewed by

a majority of critics and had been adapted from a best selling book.

The Towering Inferno, the number two top grossing film, also received a

Photoplay Gold Medal Award. It was negatively reviewed by three out of

five reviewers. The Godfather, Part II, the fifth top grossing film of

the year, and a sequel to the 1972 top grossing film, The Godfather, won

the Academy Award. It was adapted from the best selling novel, The God­

father, and was positively reviewed by three out of five critics.

In summary, 1975 was a critically very positive year with a plethora of big budget films. Films that won awards, in two out of three cases, were also positively reviewed by a majority of critics. Films adapted from books also tended to be positively reviewed. Overall, more films were given positive reviews than in the previous two years.

A sampling of critical opinions for 1975 is found in the appendix. 93

TABLE 46

1975 - POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE REVIEWS

Film +

Jaws 5 2

The Towering Inferno 2 3

Benji 1 0

Young Frankenstein 4 2

The Godfather, Part II 3 2

Shampoo 2 3

Murder on the Orient Express 3 3

Return of the Pink Panther 4 0

Tommy 3 3

The Apple Dumpling Gang 1 0

Total 28 18 94

TABLE 47

1975 - AWARDS Inferno Benji Young Jaws The Towering Frankenstein Shampoo The The Godfather, Part II Orient Orient Express Return of the Pink Pink Panther Tommy Murder Murder on the The Apple Dumpling Gang

Academy Award X

New York Film Critics Circle Award

National Society of Film Critics Award

National 3oard of Review Award

Golden Globe Award

Photoplay Gold Medal Award X X

Cannes Golden Palm Award 95

TABLE 48

1975 - CRITICAL REACTION BY CRITIC AND PUBLICATION

' . _ _ . is Benj i i Benj | Inferno Shampoo | Jaws The The Towering The Godfather, Return of the Part Part II Pink Panther Tommy The Apple Dumpling Young Young Frankenstein Orient Express Gang Murder Murder on the

America - Walsh - + + The New Republic - - - Kauf fmann — — - +

Time - Cocks + + - - +

Time - Schickel - +

Newsweek - Zimmerman - + + - + Newsweek - Michener + +

Newsweek - Cooper + The Saturday Review - + Alpert - The New Yorker - + - + - Kael + The New Yorker - - - Gilliatt + The New York Times - + + _ Canbv + + + The New York Times - Weiler 4- The New York Times - _ Savre The New York Times - Eder + Commonweal Westerbeck + CHAPTER III

INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

The most outstanding finding in the foregoing analysis is the tre­ mendous discrepancy over what is considered to be quality in film. If the public is to appreciate and to benefit from criticism— if such criti­ cism is to serve not only to increase their knowledge about film but also to help them make intelligent choices about which films to see— then some consistency should be expected of the general body of critics writing today.

The reviews demonstrate a very opinionated group of people whose personal biases continually infringe on their interpretations of facts and, thus, on their critical writing. Facts are ignored in favor of petty likes and dislikes. Films are praised and condemned for very similar reasons. A few examples can further illustrate these points.

In their reviews of The Godfather, Part II Pauline Kael and Paul D.

Zimmerman differ significantly from the review written by Vincent Canby.

Canby, writing in the New York Times (December 13, 1974) says the film

"is not very far along before one realizes that it hasn't anything more to say. Everything of any interest was thoroughly covered in the original film."

However, Zimmerman, writing in Newsweek (December 23, 1974) says the film's "ambition, vision and artistic courage make it more marvelous than anything we might have expected from that ill-fated form, the sequel."

And Pauline Kael, writing in The New Yorker (December 23, 1974) says,

96 97

"Throughout the three hours and twenty minutes of Part II, there are so many moments of epipany— mysterious, reverberant images. . .— that one

scarcely has the emotional resources to deal with the experience of this

film."

Two reviews of the film Lawrence of Arabia also demonstrate a total difference of opinion not backed up by any fact. Bosley Crowther, in his review in the New York Times (December 17, 1962), says "the fault (of

the film) is also in the lengthy but surprisingly lusterless dialogue of

Robert Bolt's over-written screenplay."

Brendan Gill, however, in his review in The New Yorker (December 22,

1962), says, "How rare it is for several disparate talents to be simul­

taneously at their best. Yet here we have a screenplay by Robert Bolt that, if it fails to explain its mysterious protagonist, at least presents a number of eloquent clues to the mystery."

And finally, in his review of the film Love Story Vincent Canby of the New York Times (December 18, 1970) writes: "The novel plays very well as a movie, principally I suspect because Jenny is not really Jenny but

Ali McGraw, a kind of all-American, Radcliffe madonna figure, and Oliver

Barrett is really Ryan O'Neal, an intense, sensitive young man whose handsomeness has a sort of crookedness to it that keeps him from being a threat to male members of the audience. They are both lovely."

But, Moira Walsh, writing in America (January 30, 1971), says, "the sweethearts in the film are about as flat, uninteresting and ill-defined a pair of beautiful young people as can be found nowhere except in a cal­ culating novel-film script."

And Stanley Kauffmann, writing in The New Republic (January 2, 1971), 98 says: "Ali McGraw is the girl and proves again that, without talent, a pretty girl is like a malady."

Of the 156 economically successful films studied over the sixteen year period eighty or 51 percent received more positive than negative reviews. Fifty-six or 36 percent received more negative reviews. Twenty films or 13 percent received an equal number of positive and negative reviews. The hypothesis that the economically successful feature film will have been positively reviewed by most critics in national publications is so weakly supported as to be considered invalid. Fully 49 percent of the 156 films that, over a 16-year period, the public went to see in great numbers received either a negative or a divided response from the critics. And of the 80 positively reviewed films only thirty-eight received at least three more positive reviews than negative reviews. This exhibits very little evidence that critical appraisal has anything at all to do with box office performance.

Even if an examination is made of those major critics who reviewed ten or more films during the period studied (see Table 49) it is found that there is still a very small number of positive reviews. Only nine critics reviewed over forty of the films studied. Only four reviewed over fifty and only two reviewed over sixty films. Thus, most critics seem to have little concern about whether a film will be successful at the box office since only six critics reviewed one third or more of the films studied. Also, of the sixteen critics in Table 49 only eight wrote more positive reviews than negative reviews. 99

TABLE 49

CRITICS REVIEWING TEN OR MORE FILMS

CRITIC + REVIEWS - REVIEWS TOTAL REVIEWS

Hollis Alpert 38 19 57 Vincent Canby 29 19 48 Jay Cocks 13 16 29 Bosley Crowther 39 28 67 Brendan Gill 20 24 44 Penelope Gilliatt 9 10 19 Pauline Kael 22 26 48 Stanley Kauffmann 26 52 79 Arthur Knight 27 19 46 Joseph Morgenstern 17 13 30 Richard Schickel 20 21 41 John Simon 5 9 14 Howard Thompson 7 3 10 Moira Walsh 58 53 111 A. H. Weiler 6 4 10 Paul Zimmerman 17 17 34

And if an examination is made of the three major publications in terms of circulation— Time, Newsweek, and the New York Times— (see Table

50) it is found that though each publication reviewed more films posi­ tively than negatively none did so by any great margin.

TABLE 50

NUMBER OF REVIEWS IN LARGEST PUBLICATIONS

PUBLICATION + REVIEWS - REVIEWS TOTAL REVIEWS

TIME 75 58 133 NEWSWEEK 65 56 121 NEW YORK TIMES 92 70 162

If hypothesis I is true then an overwhelming number of critics would have positively reviewed the 156 economically successful films. As the data shows, anyone reading a review of a film that was to become a box 100

office success from 1960 to 1975 had an almost even chance of reading either a positive or a negative review. And because critics review films before any determination is made of box office success it may be concluded that critics had little influence over whether or not the pub­ lic went to see a film.

Hypothesis II which states that the higher a film places on a single year's top ten list the more likely that film is to receive a positive review by most critics has also been proven false. Table 51 below illus­ trates each of the ten top grossing categories and shows how many films were positively reviewed and how many were negatively reviewed over the sixteen year period.

TABLE 51

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE REVIEWS BY TOP TEN POSITION

RANK FILMS POSITIVELY FILMS NEGATIVELY REVIEWED REVIEWED

1 10 5 2 6 7 3 8 5 4 8 6 5 8 7 6 8 6 7 9 4 8 8 5 9 7 6 10 8 6

The table confirms the fact that hypothesis II cannot be true. All categories had more positively reviewed films except number two. Also, in each category except one and seven over half the films were negatively re- 101

viewed . While these figures marginly support the hypothesis that econo­

mically successful films are positively reviewed by most critics it does

not indicate at all that as a film becomes more economically successful

its chances of a positive review increase.

Of the 156 films studied thirty-six won one or more major award.(see

Table 52). Awards, it has been noted, are usually presented some time

after the general release of a picture and after the film has been re­

viewed in national publications. Therefore, awards have no effect on the

type of initial reviews a film gets. Awards may have an effect on the

money making capacity of a film. However the fact is that during the six­

teen year period studied only thirty-six out of 156 economically success­

ful films won awards. This is not to say that if a film wins an award

that more people will not go to see it. Rather, winning an award is not

enough by itself to assure a film economic success.

The hypothesis that the probability that a film will win awards is not

determined by critical appraisal is true. Of the eighty films positively

reviewed by critics only twenty-five won one or more major awards. Of the

fifty-six negatively reviewed films eight won one or more awards. 3ecause

of the relatively small number of films positively reviewed and winning

awards it seems certain that other factors are operating in regard to

awards. While critical appraisal may be a factor it is not an important

determinant regarding awards.

A number of interesting statements regarding reviewing and awards may

be made. Of those fourteen films receiving multiple awards in a given year all but two were positively reviewed by critics. This is an indica­

tion that critics do recognize award winning quality in a film, especially o to POSITION ON TOP TEN LIST CIRCLE AWARD YEAR N. N. Y. FILM CRITICS FILM CRITICS AWARD ACADEMY AWARD NATIONAL SOCIETY OF NATIONAL BOARD OF REVIEWAWARD TOTAL AWARDS GOLDEN GLOBE AWARD PHOTOPLAY GOLD CANNES GOLDEN PALMAWARD FILM MEDAL AWARD ON Ben Hur O H-* ON ON XX o X

The Apartment f u ON »—» M X Guns of Navarone H* ON X X X

West Side Story C o ON ho ro X

Spartacus 1—• ON N> VI

J The Music Man X ON H-* CO —4

How the West was Won X I ON CO CO

The Longest Day X >—* ON -p- C o X

Lawrence of Arabia X N> The Unsinkable ON -P- co Molly Brown X n O -fS The Cardinal Ul X t-* O' ■P-

My Fair Lady X X LO n O Ui

The Sound of Music X X X u> n » O ON Doctor Zhivago N> ho X l— The Russians to A ON Ul Are Coming o n J—• o n The Dirty Dozen XX »—* A Man For All O' 4> X X X Seasons X o n 00 M The Graduate X o u> tr* M Ul KJ H* n o 3 rt a e n> a. REVIEWAWARD CANNES GOLDEN TOTAL AWARDS PHOTOPLAY GOLD FILM CRITICS AWARD NATIONAL BOARD OF GOLDEN GLOBE AWARD PALMAWARD NATIONAL SOCIETY OF N. N. Y. FILM CRITICS CIRCLE AWARD TOP TF.N T.TST MEDAL AWARD POSITION ON ACADEMY AWARD FILM YEAR

Rosemary's Baby Ch 00 •^1 X (JV cr> vo

True Grit X OS VO --J X Midnight Cowboy i—* h-• h—» 1 --- VO 00 X X Oliver rs> * * * S > w C/1 to X X ui X j - o o u> X X

Patton to i h-4 t—* X Love Story X N3 I—» Summer of '42 CO X i—* NJ The Godfather X X X CO N> M

Fiddler on the Roof X H* s»4 ts> Ni A Clockwork Orange X N) 00

Cabaret Si X X O American Graffiti CO M »—» * p • i—• The Sting X XX N> •*> The Exorcist ts> X h-* •

Jaws *vj Ul H* X j— Ul The Towering Inferno ro X * Ul Ul |The Godfather, Part Ilj X »— 104 those films destined to win multiple major awards.

Also, of the twenty-five positively reviewed films which won awards seventeen, or 68 percent, were highly praised by the critics. This seems to indicate that critics did recognize quality in most of the award winning films they reviewed and that this recognition of quality was

common among most of the critics who viewed these films.

Another finding is that thirteen Academy Awards were won by films on the top grossing list during the sixteen years'studied. From this

statement the general conclusion can be reached that an Academy Award

for best picture is a virtual assurance of economic success.

Looking at the Photoplay Gold Medal Award— an award voted on by

the general public— it can be seen that it was won twelve times by films on the top grossing list and five of those twelve times it was won by

the number one grossing film of the year. This indicates that a very high relationship does exist between winning this award and achieving box office success.

While these two awards strongly support the conclusion that awards mean economic success this does not hold true over all the award catego­ ries studied. Many more films— often not economically successful— won best picture awards than did films in the top ten economic categories.

What these findings all seem to indicate is that film criticism has a very small effect on whether a film will attract a large number of viewers and thus make money, and virtually no effect on whether or not a film will win a best picture award. While it was not expected that critics determine awards it was hypothesized by this researcher that critical appraisal would have some effect on box office. 105

The reason that critical appraisal does not have more of an effect on box office seems to be due to a number of reasons. First, critics in far too many cases are divided over the quality of a film. Four review­ ers of a film may react positively and three other reviewers may react negatively. This makes the film positively reviewed if the totals are examined but does not give anyone reading more than one of the reviews any clear cut statement about the quality of the film. Therefore the person usually will turn to other sources to determine if he will see the film or not. This severely weakens the critic's function as a jour­ nalist.

Second, as has been previously illustrated critical opinion is so diverse and the personal biases so frequent that anyone reading numerous critics over any period of time would scarcely know what to believe.

Critics of film do not seem to structure their criticism in any logical manner. Their explanations of a film deteriorate into personal opinions that differ drastically from other critics and, in numerous instances, from the facts. This can be further illustrated by some examples of di­ versity and bias.

Moira Walsh, writing in America (December 5, 1959), praises the film Ben Hur for the "artistry and creative intelligence" exhibited by its director William Wyler. Stanley Kauffmann of the New Republic (Decem­ ber 28, 1959), however, condemns Wyler's directing technique citing his

"inability to put any real excitement into most of the spectacle."

Time (December 19, 1960) calls the 1961 film Exodus "a serious, ex­ pert and frightening and inspiring political thriller," while Newsweek

( Dec.19, 1960) calls the film "unreal, implausible, and irrelevant." 106

Newsweek (June 25, 1962) also calls the comedy That Touch of Mink "un­

real, implausible and irrelevant" while Arthur Knight (Saturday Review,

July 14, 1962) calls it a comedy that "towers above its contemporaries."

David Slavitt of Newsweek (March 4, 1963) calls the cinerama tech­

niques used in How the West Was Won "one of the great moments in the

history of movies" while Stanley Kauffmann (New Republic, April 20, 1963)

calls cinerama "a technique still so imperfect that it is pretty nervy

to ask people to pay to see it." Those who read only Kauffmann's review

and chose not to attend the film lost out on what was very obviously a

popular technique since How the West Was Won was the highest grossing

film of 1963.

In reviewing The Longest Day, Hollis Alpert in The Saturday Review

(October 20, 1962) calls the battle scenes "magnificent and chilling,"

and speaks of the "remarkable authenticity" of the film. Time (October

19, 1962) calls the same film "technically crude." These comments are

direct statements of opinion. Neither reviewer cites examples of marve­

lous battle scenes or poor technical quality.

David Slavitt, in Newsweek (December 16, 1963) calls the film

Charade "an absolute delight in which Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn

schottische about with evident glee," while Bosley Crowther in the New

York Times (December 6, 1963) calls it a film with "many grisly touches" which "runs to violence so many times." And even though both reviewers use examples to state their points any person reading both reviews would hardly believe the reviewers were discussing the same film.

Hollis Alpert (Saturday Review, December 12, 1964) calls Goldfinger, the 1965 James Bond film, a movie of "thrills and entertainment, and as 107

movie stuff it's first-rate." Richard Schickel (Life, December 29, 1964),

in a direct statement of personal bias, calls the film "a witless at­

tempt to cash in on the spirit of camp, which now blights our land."

Richard Schickel (Life, January 21, 1966) calls Doctor Zhivago "a

work of serious, genuine art," and calls it miraculous "that such a

work could be created within the conventions of the commercial cinema."

Yet Judith Crist, writing in the New York Herald Tribune (January 2,

1966), sees the same film as "just another mammoth spectacular in that it

is much too long, much too padded, over-elliptical in some spots, over­

inflated in others." Nowhere in her review does Crist explain what

"over-elliptical" means.

While reviewers are certainly entitled to their own opinions it be­

comes difficult to understand how so many should differ so drastically

in their comments about films which were so popular with the public.

Stanley Kauffmann (New Republic, February 10, 1968), for example, calls

The Graduate— a film which became one of the box office champions of all

time— "a milestone in American film history," yet Time (December 29, 1967),

a publication of very high circulation, dismissed the film as "spurious

melodrama."

Richard Schickel (Life, May 10, 1968) considered The Planet of the

Apes the "best American movie I have seen so far this year," while Renata

Adler (New York Times, February 9, 1968) said "it is no good at all."

Along similar lines Hollis Alpert (Saturday Review, November 9, 1968)

calls Bullitt "one of the best movies I've seen this year," while Pauline

Kael (New Yorker, October 26, 1968) dismisses it as "basically uninterest­

ing." 108

Stanley Kauffmann (New Republic, March 7, 1970), writing on Patton,

says it is a film that is "made carefully, photographed superbly. . .with

an irresistible performance in the leading role, marvelous battle scenes,"

while John Simon in The New Leader (April/May, 1970) says the "people

remain two dimensional, the battle scenes are just proficient battle

scenes, the words spoken are prosaic and superficial."

In writing about Fiddler on the Roof Richard Schickel (Life, Decem­

ber 10, 1971) calls it "dreary musically and lyrically," and calls the

dancing "uninspired." However, Hollis Alpert (Saturday Review, November

13, 1971) calls the film very close to "the most satisfying musical film

ever."

Jay Cocks, writing in Time (August 7, 1972) about Deliverance, says

that "each of the four lead performances is exceptional," while Stanley

Kauffmann (New Republic, August 12, 1972) says that "no performance (in

the film) deserves comment."

The general public reading these reviews would get— depending on

whose review one read— vastly different ideas about the quality and tech­

nique of a particular film and even about its essential content.

Over the sixteen year period studied the critics did agree on a

number of major trends. Critics, for example, consistently liked musicals

up until 1972. They also liked Walt Disney films; usually disliked films

based on religious themes; and were divided over "big star" films. Critics were also quick to recognize the emergence of some of the great directors

of the present. This can be seen by looking at five of the overwhelming

critical favorites in 1971, 1972, 1973, and 1975. Little Big Man was

directed by Arthur Penn, The Godfather by Francis Ford Coppola, Cabaret 109

by Bob Fosse, American Graffiti by George Lucas, and Jaws by Steven

Speilberg. All were box office and critical successes. All five also won major awards. All the directors became significant forces in Ameri­ can film.

Perhaps the most important question to be posed as a result of these findings is: what function is film criticism serving? A film is released.

Critics respond to that film in national publications. The film achieves some immediate economic success or failure. The film may be nominated for, and may win, one or more awards which may enhance its box office success. The film then eventually goes out of release and possibly on to television, cable television, foreign markets, and, in some cases, re-release.

This study has found that film criticism does not significantly affect the box office success of a film. While findings indicate that a film which achieves box office success is slightly more likely to have been positively reviewed by most critics this is by no means always the case. Nor is the criticism often overwhelmingly positive. Findings also indicate that reviews have virtually no relationship to a film’s award winning capacity. Nor does an overwhelming number of positive reviews by the critics indicate that a film will achieve greater box office success than a film with an equal number of positive and negative re­ views .

Thus film criticism does not significantly affect attendance at a film nor does it influence the awards process. Reviews do provide infor­ mation about films but often this information is in conflict with other critics information because of personal biases and opinions. Very little 110

information except plot summaries is factual. Some few critics write almost exclusively to entertain and perhaps this is a very important function of the film critic. But few reviews are truly entertaining enough to establish this as a well accomplished function.

Then what is the function of film criticism? All the research up to now indicates it is serving many functions poorly and none well. It is certainly not serving the public journalistically. And while some criticism may be entertaining, very little is factually informative.

Frequently displayed in reviews are gossip, inuendo, and personal bias.

Film criticism— as the study proves— is causing few people to go to films or to stay away. It is, in fact, suffering a loss of credibility because of its diversity. Any consistent reader of numerous national publication reviews on a particular film will usually find such a diversity of opinion and such poorly presented arguments as to give up on criticism as anything more than plot summary. It may very well be, as some film producers believe, that word of mouth and big publicity campaigns are the secrets to any film's success. It certainly is indicated here that critical appraisal is not one of those factors.

New functions need to be posed for film criticism. Deficiencies need to be corrected. Criticism must be viewed as part of the communica­ tion process a film goes through in getting made and eventually getting seen by the public. New objectives for criticism and refined methods of approaching critical writing about film must be found if film criticism is to be an important part of this communication process. Chapters IV and V of this study attempt to refine and improve film criticism by illustrating and utilizing principles of the communication process of Ill which film criticism is a part and by proposing a paradigm based upon

the rhetorical method of Kenneth Burke. CHAPTER IV

FILM CRITICISM; A COMMUNICATION PROCESS MODEL;

AND KENNETH BURKE'S RHETORICAL METHOD

The training of future critics of the cinema and the future of serious journalistic film criticism must include ideas and methods from other firmly established areas of criticism. If film criticism is to be­

come more consistent, more reliable, and more structured it must draw upon

some philosophy or combined philosophies established as quality criticism.

This does not mean that methodologies from other areas can be adapted

directly to film and thus dictate what might be called prescriptive for­ mulas for writing about film. Existing philosophies in other areas need to be explained in terms of film so that critics of film can better and more

completely organize their thoughts and begin to develop their own indivi­

dual philosophies about film and its criticism.

To begin this process there follows a philosophy of film and an adapted method utilizing the philosophy in the critical analysis of fea­

ture films. Specifically used are a process model for film detailing a communication blueprint for filmic messages, and an adaptation of the methods of the rhetorical critic Kenneth Burke to film analysis.

The process model is used to explain film as a form of communication and to detail how the various components of the communication chain work as individual components and how they work together as part of the model.

The journalistic critic, in order to fulfill his function, must be able to understand his own place in how a film reaches and communicates to its

112 113

audience. The process model is a way for the journalistic critic to under­

stand film and it is a useful tool with which to analyze those films the

critic chooses to see and to write about.

The critical method developed by rhetorician Kenneth Burke is used

here as an amplification of the process model and as a method more readily

adapted to the thought processes of the journalistic film critic. Burke's

concepts of identification and the dramatistic pentad are most significant

as an organizing process for the film critic. They allow the critic to

determine, in an orderly and complete way, as much about a film, its

creators, and its potential or actual audience as possible. Burke's con­

cepts also allow the critic to construct models and to determine communica­

tion patterns for each film he views. Burke's concepts are seen here as

the fundamental method for thought organization leading to the writing

of quality journalistic film criticism.

However, before Kenneth Burke must come a requisite understanding

of film. The chosen method of explanation— the process model— is a way

of illustrating how any type of message communicates. A process model in­

cludes an enumeration of the components or elements in a system and the

structural relationship among those components. A model, in general, helps

organize data, provides a conceptual framework by which to discuss some­

thing, and can serve to generate thinking and hypotheses about thesystem.

Also it can lead to predictions about the way in which the system operates.

The model presented here adheres to the strategies of those models which view communication in such a process manner. The models most direct­ ly related are those by David BerioClaude Shannon and Warren Weaver^, and Bruce Westley and Malcolm MacLean. In all of these models the defining 114

condition of communication becomes a precise understanding of the function of symbolic information transferred within a structured system. Film, also viewed as a structured system^is process modeled in Figure 1. SCENE

EEDBACK B

FEEDBACK A

S U SUBSCENE B{ B S INTER­ C MEDIARIES E CREATORS FILM N E VIEWER A

FIGURE 1

A FILMIC MODEL 116

Each term in the model requires definition if the film making and film viewing experience are to be understood in their proper interrelationships. 4 SCENE — The general environment of ideas, issues, events, and emotions existing in society during the time of the creation, release, and public viewing of the film; those external cultural and ideological factors common to both creator and viewer which preceded the film and which are instrumental in producing the motivation to both create it and to view it.

CREATORS — Those associated with the conception, writing, producing, and distributing of a film; those with any input into the film or those whose ideas and interpretations determine significant directions which the film will take. The creators may include all of the following: unions, financiers, writers, producers, directors, production companies, studios, independents, actors and actresses, and distribution companies.

SUBSCENE "A” — The ideas, events, issues, and emotions which form a specific basis and thesis for a film's creation; the time and place of a film's creation and production; the personalities, previous experiences, background, and sensitivities which determine the creators' decisions.

FILM — The actual distributed product, generally defined as a series of images alone or with sounds, existing in a predetermined interrelationship, and stored on some sort of flexible plastic base that can be displayed using standardized equipment.^

INTERMEDIARIES — Film critics, reviewers, columnists, censorship bodies, and any person who disseminates information about the film to potential viewers of the film. This information may be transmitted via the mass media or by other channels of communication such as lighted signs, billboards, or word-of-mouth. It is any information, no matter how weak or strong, which provides knowledge of the film, and which may also provide positive or negative 117 information about the film.

SUBSCENE "B" — The ideas, events, issues, and emotions which form a basis for film reviewing, film criticism, and film discussion; the environment of critical issues, ideas, and styles; the ideas forming the basis for the film's publicity campaign; the personalities, previous experiences, backgrounds, and sensitivities common to the intermediaries

(as a whole or as singular groups) and thus shaping their judgments.

VIEWERS — The general publics who see the film. Some members of this group will become intermediaries for others.

SUBSCENE "C" — The time and place of a film's release and viewing; the particular ideas, issues, events, and emotions common to the general public— or any segment thereof— at the time of the film's release and often not present during the film's creation; the meanings and inter­ pretations of things brought by the viewer to the film; any extension of perception brought about by the shared stimulus provided by the shared perception of others.

FEEDBACK "B" — The boxoffice returns indicating to the creators one type of success or failure.

FEEDBACK "A" — The critical appraisal indicating to the creator a type of success or failure.

Creators, viewers, and intermediaries alike exist in a single society of values, ideas, issues, events, and emotions. This single environment creates the overall scene of the model. The success, both financial and critical, often is determined by the strength or weakness between the film, the creators, the viewers, and this overall scene. Within this scene, whether it encompasses a country, a number of countries, or the 118 world, exists the totality of commonalities between creator, intermediary, and viewer.

Societal (or scene) values and film are related in a fundamental way according to Janice Rushing and Thomas Frentz who hold that film and society reciprocally influence one another. "By projecting collective images of a culture, by serving as symptoms of cultural needs, and by symbolizing trends, dramatic media both reflect and create societal events."^ These collective images, trends, and needs are all part of the overall scene. It is that group of cultural and ideological factors common to all.

This scene functions also to establish the model as transactional.

And in the sense of the model "transactional" indicates the ability to see together that which is considered conventionally as if it were com­ posed of irreconcilable separates, but yet must be viewed as a single entity to be completely understood. This approach does not dismiss the interactional approach, but simply places it within the broader framework of a transaction. Indeed it is vital to study the interactional aspects of the various links within the components of the model. But a complete understanding requires a transactional approach.

Breaking the model down, the first element is the creators— those who initiate the idea for the film, the senders of the message, the creators of symbolic information within their own context. The ideas they utilize may be original or adapted from a book, play, or event. The creators interpret those ideas to give some meaning to the film, a meaning they believe to be contained within the images of the finished product. And while the creators are often viewed as having the task of 119 catering to the desires of the audience the film is always their own per­ ceptions of the subject.

The film is conceived and produced at a time removed by months or even years from when it will be viewed. The film is controlled by a set of ideas common to those who are the creators. This environment of ideas includes not only the filmic ideas of the creative craftsmen but also the trends and issues of the times, success of other films in the same vein, peer group considerations, monetary resources, and distribution considera­ tions. The film itself actually becomes an outgrowth of three things: the creators, the subscene in which the creators exist, and the general en­ vironment or scene which may be having an effect on the subscene.

The film itself— the audio-visual elements— are the constitutive elements of motion pictures and constitute not only the physical film but is also the carrier of the message. The film is the audio-visual symbolic form. It is the artifact, the object from which meaning will be inter­ preted. A complete analysis of the film would involve both creator and viewer, taking into account such things as the film maker's distinctive management of the technical resources of the medium; his creation of symbolic images, whether arising from his private vision or from some public store of images; and his moral stance as it reflects, inculcates, draws upon, or contradicts the values of his audience.

Methods of analysis may be both deep and probing, exploring the film from such areas as rhetorical theory, content analysis, visual per­ ception, psycho-sociological theory, aesthetic or film theory. The film and all its symbolism becomes only a link between three other groups of symbolic information. Yet the film because of its inherent structure 120 and symbolism also becomes a primary presenter of a particular body of symbolic information. Yet the meaning of a film depends almost entirely on what each succeeding group— intermediaries and viewers— bring to it rather than on what is contained within the images themselves. And to the viewer the intermediaries, with their perceived experiential access to true filmic meaning and quality, often become a critical mediating link in the communication of ideas.

Publicity about the film is created and thrust before the public through the intermediaries. Preview screenings for critics are arranged.

An image for the film is created or, in most instances, enhanced. This image must create or amplify the expectations or anticipations which in­ duce the audience to see the film. According to I.C. Jarvie, the image of a film may come about this way:

A film is made. Certain elements in it are selected out for sales points, and certain elements are sales points (the degree of coincidence between these two sets might be called 'talent at publicity'). These begin to be put around in the press and mass media. . .if the image is fulfilled by the film, publicity (including critics) and word of mouth combine to spread this image.^

Publicists and critics are extremely important intermediaries for the creators. It also can be pointed out that a best selling book or a successful stage play are valuable intermediaries and that critics are a much smaller factor in the success of these sorts of films. Other key intermediaries include columnists, interviewers, test audiences, tele­ vision and radio ads, talk shows, and word-of-mouth. Virtually everyone who will view the film will see it as a result of contact with some intermediary. 121

Intermediaries who are critics serve as interpreters of the film and summarize and define the film's meaning for the public. This may be the precise meaning the creators had in mind or it may be far removed from the

creators' intention. And while these intermediaries are often seen by the public as having some psychic access to the creators meaning or to the

film's meaning in general, this is seldom the case.

The intermediaries themselves are within a subscene and this subscene often is a major obstacle to objectivity. While trying to communicate

something about the film to the potential viewer, intermediaries tend to be very subjective about what they actually do communicate. Certain seg­ ments of the potential audience are often alienated by publicity which

tends to "type" a film. Friends and acquaintances who talk about a par­

ticular film may alienate potential viewers because of differences in

ideals, experiences, and personalities. Critics and columnists with their opinions and biases alienate many.

Critics especially have very subjective opinions. And often the ex­ pression of these opinions serves to alienate segments of the audience who

read these critics reviews. For example, Brendan Gill, reviewing That Darn

Cat in The New Yorker (December 11, 1965), says the film "is a typical product of the giant Disney flapdoodle factory, which for many years now has devoted itself to grinding out lavish falsifications of contemporary life." While the fact of what Disney creates may be very true in this re­ view it is stated as a very negative opinion.

A number of critics also speak about films and issues they know very little about. Moira Walsh in a review of Thunderball in America (January

8, 1966) wrote that "speaking as a non-fan, my undependable opinion is 122 that Thunderball has a few beautifully lunatic moments, but in the main is weakened by a greater and more intrusive dependency on gadgetry, gim­ mickry and contrivances than its predecessors." Why did this critic choose to write about this film?

Comments from five reviews on the 1971 film Love Story illustrate the subjectivity of critics.

Paul D. Zimmerman in Newsweek (December 28, 1970) writes: "Ali McGraw and Ryan O ’Neal are attractive and lively performers who lend to their non-characters an interior life nowhere written in the script."

Stefan Kanfer in Time (December 21, 1970) says: "Ali McGraw promises to become the closest thing to a movie star of the 40's. . . .Ryan O'Neal gives the character of the neon scion a warmth and vulnerability entirely missing from the bestseller."

Vincent Canby, in the New York Times (December 18, 1970) writes that

Love Story "plays very well as a movie, principally I suspect because

Jenny is not really Jenny but Ali McGraw, a kind of all-American, Radcliffe madonna figure, and Oliver Barrett IV is really Ryan O'Neal, an intense, sensitive young man. . . .They are both lovely."

Yet, on the other hand, Moira Walsh in America (January 30, 1971) says: "The sweethearts in the film are about as flat, uninteresting and ill-defined a pair of beautiful young people as can be found. . ."

And Stanley ICauffmann in The New Republic (January 2, 1971) writes:

"Ali McGraw is the girl and proves again that, without talent, a pretty girl is like a malady. . . .Ryan O'Neal is the boy, or is he? He's one of the new breed of young film heroes whose face can't be remembered even when you're looking right at it." 123

The viewers themselves are within still a third subscene. Each viewer— as an individual, as a member of a particular group of viewers, or as a member of a cultural or societal group— lives, to some degree, in his own particular world of ideas, attitudes, values, mores, and per­ ceptions. He lives in a particular time period and views the film on a particular day, month, and year. The viewer's subscene is different from the general scene in that each viewer and viewer-group is individual, with individual life styles, and individual ways of viewing the world, and in­ dividual ways of interpreting meaning. And if we call the world "the scene" then any "subscenes" may be seen as a locality within that world, a locality which often is as different from another locality as Africa is from Europe, or often as similar as Ohio is to Michigan.

The meaning of a film depends to a great extent on what the viewer brings to it rather than on what is contained in the images. It is a relationship between the implication of the maker and the inference of the audience. Siegfried Kracauer suggests that the film operates as a vicarious experience "with which the viewer associates, often subcons­ ciously, his prior experiences and attitudes to arrive at new inter-

Q pretations and conclusions."

Creators, intermediaries, and viewers are each involved in inter­ preting a film. The creator infuses the film with his own ideas, his own vision of the film's world, his own method of structuring the images. The creators ideas are intentionally and very strongly incorporated into the images. The intermediaries examine the images'and attempt to communicate their quality and meaning sometimes, but usually unsuccessfully, attempt­ ing to mask their own biases. The viewer also interprets the film, but 124 with no attempts at objectivity and not according to any specified critical standards. The viewer is often seeking entertainment and if this

entertainment can enrich his life, spur him to creative ideas, or make him more aware of a given issue or subject then so much the better

for him. But the meaning exists in the viewer and not in the film. And

it is this similarity or deviation between the intended meanings of the

creator-and the perceived, interpreted meanings of the intermediaries

and the viewers which almost always determine a film's success or failure

at the boxoffice.

The primary purpose for the construction of a process model of film

is to illuminate the various components and how those components work

together. A critic must understand his place in the model and view the model as a tool. He must use the model to analyze those films he chooses

to see and to write about. The model can be used to determine how well

the film maker used the tools of the medium to communicate a statement

to a potential audience and to define who that potential audience might be. A comprehensive analysis of the communication model elements should

prepare the critic to make such judgments and to support his views with a rational, detailed analysis of the contributing elements.

While the communication model is significant to the understanding of

film it may not be the best vehicle for the critic. Some modification or amplification of the model to match the thought processes of the critic might be better to use. Numerous critical constructs and critical areas might be chosen and adapted to film. The one here viewed as best is within the area of rhetoric. 125

While most commonly attributed to discourse, rhetoric is by no means restricted to that area.^ Rhetorical studies have been defined as those

"properly concerned with the process by which symbols and systems of symbols exert influence upon beliefs, values, attitudes, and actions, and they embrace all forms of human communication."^

Film may be justifiably studied as an aspect of rhetoric since it utilizes both visual and verbal symbols to exert influence upon the • thought and, often, upon the behavior of the viewers. A subordinate area of rhetoric and the area that will be primarily utilized in applying criticism to film is rhetorical criticism. The criticism of any rhetorical work (film included) is concerned with "getting inside transactions of communication to discover and describe their elements, their form, and their dynamics and to explore the situations, past and present, which generate them and in which they are essential constituents to be com­ prehended and judged."^

The communication model of film presented in this study is a trans­ actional model and the adaptation of rhetorical criticism to that model can lead to more complete analysis. Using rhetorical criticism as a format for film criticism will give the critic and the future critic a more thorough and objective plan for critical writing. The method presented here is not intended as a prescription but rather a philosophy. Criticism, as has been pointed out, begins with the writing of the critical piece rather than with the viewing of the film. Rhetorical criticism offers a logical method for thinking through a film after a critic views it but before he writes about it. 126

In applying rhetorical criticism to film, a statement can be used

from the report of the Committee on Rhetorical Criticism presented

in May, 1969, at the Pheasant Run Conference of the Developmental

Project on Rhetoric:

Rhetorical criticism is to be identified by the kinds of questions posed by the critic. This position involves a shift in traditional emphasis from identifying rhetorical criticism by material studied to identifying it by the na­ ture of the critic's inquiry. . . .So identified, rhetori­ cal criticism may be applied to any human act, progress, pro­ duct, or artifact which in the critic's view, may formulate, sustain, or modify attention, perceptions, attitudes, or be- havious.^

In general the rhetorical criticism of any message can direct itself

toward four goals:

1) The critic must discover and explicate the elements and form of a particular message. This means undertaking a study of style, form, and content. 2) The critic must probe the informative and the per­ suasive dimensions of the message and examine those dimen­ sions in terms of their relationship to the definition of the term rhetoric. 3) The critic may relate the particular message or type of message being discussed to other similar messages or types of messages in terms of their intended or persuasive content. 4) The critic must use rhetoric as a method of supporting value judgments he may make about the message.1"1

In both rhetoric and rhetorical criticism the term "persuasion” has been formidable. Aristotle defined rhetoric as "observing in any given

case the available means of persuasion."1^ This classic or Aristotelian

tradition of rhetoric still serves as a source for the preparation of persuasive discourse and as a source of methodology for the analysis and criticism of discourse. 127

Although Aristotle conceived of rhetoric as a universal art, forms of communication unknown to him have been made a part of rhetoric and society has recognized and accepted the:vn For example, Aristotle con­ ceived of rhetoric only as oral discourse, but with the advent of print­ ing and the spread of written materials many critics have shown that written discourse is as much a part of rhetoric as the oral form. Eigh- teenth-eentury rhetoricians saw the rise of monotheism and protestantism which were unknown to Aristotle. As a result they recognized a new form of discourse: preaching. This added a fourth type of oratory to the forensic, deliberative, and epideictic forms treated by Aristotle. These examples illustrate the dynamic quality that has enabled rhetoric to ex­ pand and meet the needs of communication.

In the twentieth century, with the development of new ideas about communication theory, one man in particular has defined a new rhetorical approach by recasting the old principles to further broaden the scope of rhetoric and meet modern demands. That rhetorician is Kenneth

Burke and an understanding of his methodology for rhetorical criticism can give any critic both the tools and the philosophic base for the analysis of any motivated act of communication. In its total framework

Burke's concept of rhetoric is soundly grounded on the classical founda­ tion that has existed for centuries. The difference lies primarily in a special set of terms used by Burke, which he feels enables rhetoric to function over a broader range of subjects. In delineating this dif­ ference Burke,states: 128

If I had to stun up in one word the difference between the 'old' rhetoric and the 'new1 . . .1 would reduce it to this: the key term for the 'old' rhetoric was persuasion and its stress was on deliberate design. The key term for the 'new' rhetoric would be 'identification' which can include a par­ tially unconscious factor in appeal.

Burke, in another work, elaborated on the relation of persuasion to identification:

As for the relation between 'identification' and 'persuasion'; we might well keep in mind that a speaker persuades an audience by the use of stylistic identification; his act of persuasion may be for the purpose of causing his audience to identify itself with the speaker's interests; and the speaker draws on identification of interests to establish rapport between himself and his audience. So there is no chance of our keeping apart the meanings of per­ suasion, identification, and communication.^

In a still later work Burke defines identification: "A is not identical with his colleague, B. But insofar as their interests are joined, A is identified with B. Or he may identify himself with B even when their interests are not joined, if he assumes that they are, or is persuaded to believe so."^ And in another section of the same work

Burke states: "You persuade a man only insofar as you can talk his language by speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea, 18 identifying your ways with his."

Burke's second significant concept is provided in his book, The 19 Grammar of Motives. Whereas the classical format of rhetorical criticism 20 as developed and outlined in Speech Criticism is very highly structured and really can be applied only to oral discourse, the Burkean concept— called the "dramatistic pentad"— may be utilized for the analysis of any motivated act of communication. The pentad examines five aspects of 129 a situation. First, it looks at what was done, termed the act; second, when or where it was done, the scene; third, who did it, the agent; fourth, how did he do it, the agency; and fifth, why, what was the purpose.

Burke demonstrates the need for these terms when he states:

Men may violently disagree about the purpose behind a given act, or about the character of the person who did it, or how he did it, or in what kind of situation he acted; or they may insist upon totally different words to name the act itself. But be that as it may, any complete statement about motives will offer some kind of an answer to these five ques­ tions: What was done (act), when or where it was done (scene), who did it (agent), how he did it (agency), and why (purpose).

The normal method for utilizing the pentad is to begin by detailing the scene in which the act occurred. This involves not only an examina­ tion of the time and place in which the particular act occurred, but also a study of the events that preceded the act itself but which were instrumental in producing the motivation that generated the act.

Moving from the scene, one would next examine the act itself. Atten­ tion here is devoted to those aspects that actually constituted the formation and communication of the message.

The next step is to examine the purpose of the act. The emphasis -here is on isolating what the agent hoped to accomplish through this act.

Clearly tied to the purpose of the act is the study of the agent, since to know who is responsible(the agent) for the act will give greater insight into the reasons for actually engaging in the act.

Finally, one studies the agency or the means by which the agent tried to insure the success of his act. In examining the agency attention is given to the problem of determinibg strategies by which the agent sought 130 to make the audience identify with the act, and thus be persuaded.

In posing the question of what format of rhetorical criticism will serve the purpose of the film process model best the choice is very simple. The classic mode— while adaptable to f i l22 m — emphases the oral form of communication, while the twentieth century format of Kenneth

Burke emphasizes the broad nature of the communication aspects of the rhetorical act. The obvious decision to choose the Burkean approach is based on two reasons. First, Burke’s concept of rhetorical communication enables a critic to move outside the area of oral discourse to deal with any motivated act of communication. On the other hand, the classic mode, by the very nature of its component parts, is limited to oral discourse.

Second, Burke's critical format offers a more effective method for dealing in depth with the communication process of film. The substance of Burke's methods involve the use of identification and the pentad which enables the critic to understand the nature of the motivated communication act.

The pentad itself may be constructed in the form of a model and, coupled with an understanding of the process model, offer a complete in­ trinsic and extrinsic method of understanding a film. Burkes concept of identification is a most useful critical tool for understanding how a film communicates.

A film communicates with and informs or persuades a person or group only insofar as that person or group can identify with it. Any film's purpose, in part, is always to get the audience to identify itself with the film's area of interest, its characters, or its theme and any successful film will draw on these concepts to establish a communication rapport, a climate of acceptance and identification, with its audience. 131

In many films emotional identification is developed between cer­ tain characters and the audience. A film that is unsuccessful may be so because it has missed its mark in terms of identification. Society changes and, indeed, is in a constant state of fluctuation. Looking back at the model it can be said that the subscene of the film's creators may be so different from the subscene of the intermediaries and the potential viewers that there is no means of identification. A film may miss its mark because those with which it seeks to identify do not go to see it or are alienated by some intermediary such as a critic. In order to succeed a film must reach its intended audience— which is that audience that can best identify with some aspect of the film— or that audience which may have a need to identify with a certain film. Fantasy films such as Mary Poppins or The Love Bug were very successful not because the audience established some identification with those in the film but because the audience had a desire or a need to identify with that type of film at that point in time when the film was released.

Inept publicity often causes a film to fail because the film is not publicized to the audience which can best identify with it. Critics— as human beings— identify with certain films or aspects of a film and when they express this view they often risk alienating a portion of the film's audience which might potentially identify with other aspects.

A critic must attempt to determine all the available avenues of iden­ tification associated with a given film and then communicate to the reader those which he feels are most significant to the communication value of the film. Every successful film, in some way, uses the concept of identification, either as a means to persuasion or as an end to establish an image with which the audience will Identify. 132

For example, during the period examined in this study the film The

Graduate succeeded largely because the audience of the late 1960's was able to identify with both the lead character— an unknown actor with no

"public" image— and the subject matter of the film— the generation gap and alienation of youth. Other films such as M*A*S*H, Woodstock, and Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice succeeded because of this identification.

Even the very successful American Graffiti drew an audience which could identify with the time period of the film, and an audience which wanted escape from the present and to identify with the film's portrayal of a time, a mood, and a set of ideas from the past. Indeed, in this film the identification appeal of the music itself was enough to lure many people to see the film. Yet, the power of this film, and the power of many other successful films, was the fact that it included something- for everyone— some character, event, song, or place that almost everyone who went to see it could identify with.

The tendency of the public, during 1960-1975, to identify with the musical as a continuing form of popular entertainment is largely respon* sible for fourteen musical films being on the lists during the sixteen years. Even the last musical, Tommy, released in 1975 succeeded because of its identification with rock music, the youth culture, and various symbolic ideas about the relationships, conflicts, and communication be­ tween generations.

The failure of religious films such as King of Kings and Ben Hur to generate audience identification resulted in their Jack of success after

1962. Even the portrayal of single characters, their ideas, lifestyles, images, or actions often causes such a strong identification that a series 133 of films can be successful. The character of James Bond is illustrative of this point.

Kenneth Burke's second concept, the dramatistic pentad, is most significant in film criticism as an organizing process for the critic.

It allows the user to determine much about a film, its creators, and its potential or actual audience. It also allows the critic to construct models and to determine communication patterns for each film viewed. The pentad must be considered a fundamental method for thought organization about both the film itself and the film's relationship to society.

The five terms of the pentad can be expanded to give each one more

emphasis in relation to particular films, to the film form in general, and to the process model of film explained earlier. The pentad, like

film criticism itself, can be either intrinsic or extrinsic. That is,

it can extrinsically view a film from a sociological perspective, examin­

ing the film in terms of its social consequences, looking primarily at

the relationship between film and audience, often looking at the effect of a film on its audience. Intrinsically the pentad can be used to examine the visual or cinematic artistry of the film, the directorial structure, the plot, the characters, or the relationships which constitute

the film's inner means of identification, persuasion, or communication.

The film critic then, using the pentad, would examine film in the following way, each of the five elements taking into account both intrin­ sic and extrinsic factors in the film.

SCENE: An examination of the time and place in which the film was made and released; the environment of ideas and issues surrounding the film or on which the film is based; the societal events preceding the 134 film which were instrumental in producing the motivation that generated it. The scene may also be an examination of the nature of the world created within the film or the sort of world defined, perhaps, by a body of films. Scene-based criticism can also be valuable.in genre studies and in types of auteur studies. In addition, studying the in­ ternal world defined by a body of films often may be a significant fac­ tor in understanding a culture.

The scene in the pentad is analogous to the concept of both scene and subscene in the process model. Film projects the collective images, fantasies, and values of the culture in which the film is created.

Viewed historically, film reveals obvious correlations between ideals in fashion, male and female beauty, individual and nationalistic heroism, 23 and family life. These collective images, fantasies, values, fashions, etc. are all related to studies and analyses of the concept of scene.

Films such as The Graduate, Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice, American

Graffiti, and The Exorcist are films that a critic could study in re­ lation to the concept of scene because these films achieved success through their release at a time when their success potential was at its highest.

ACT: An examination of the production itself including the direction, writing, visual images, editing, sound, plot, and distribution pattern of the film; the symbolic idea of the film; the structure of the film.

Act-based criticism is useful in determining how and why a film is suc­ cessful— because of its directorial or cinematic or structural style, or because of some factor in plot, production, or distribution.

The critic here concerns himself with the significance of the plot, the technical aspects, the production, and possibly the distribution of 135 the film. Films such as Cleopatra, Lawrence of Arabia, and The Last Pic­ ture Show can best be discussed using act as a base, placing emphasis on either the production, as in the case of Cleopatra, or on the finished film, as in the case of Lawrence of Arabia.

PURPOSE: Isolating what those responsible hoped to accomplish through making the film, or what they have intentionally accomplished. The in­ tent of the film maker is the purpose. It may also be a study of the motivational factors in a film's plot or its characterizations.

The purpose may be to change something or to present a point of view on some event, or the purpose may be purely creative and artistic

(such as to entertain— as in the films of Walt Disney). Purpose-based criticism can center around the implications of the central thematic statement which the film seems to make. Films such as Jaws, Airport, and Carnal Knowledge may be usefully studied based on the purpose of

the film makers and what those films may unintentionally have accom­ plished with their audiences.

AGENT: An examination of the person or persons responsible for the

film. This may range from a structural analysis of a director's world view as revealed by one or a number of films, to the patterning of

themes within a film which might reveal a relationship which exposes an ideology that is relevant to studying an agent.

The critic here might base his analysis on the film maker's background or raise significant questions about the film maker such as: What is the nature of his training and previous experience and his reputation as a film maker? What subjects does he usually deal with, and what major at­ titudes or social philosophy does he usually express in his films? What 136

are the significant factors in his personal and professional background

which may have influenced his choice and treatment of subject matter,

his attitudes, and his philosophy in a particular film? Does he see

himself in the role of change agent, or does he shun this for a strictly

creative, artistic role?

The critic basing his analysis on the agent could examine such

films as The Godfather (both I and II), Psycho, or A Clockwork Orange.

Each succeeded and can be studied as agent-based films. Their creators

had complete control, and examining these films through a study of the

■director of each is one important way to understand their success.

AGENCY: The means by which those responsible for the film try to in­

sure the film's success, including the use of strategies by which the

film maker seeks to make the audience identify with the film. This en­

compasses the information and meaning conveyed by the film form itself,

the information carried by the formal techniques of the cinema. It in­

volves studying the specific ways the sound and the images carry forth

the act and create the scene. Agency is the nature of the medium in

terms of both technical capacities and prevailing theory.

By allowing these dramatistic terms to dominate all or part of a

film, thus determining the stresses for criticism, various types of what

Burke calls substances can be established. According to Burke all messages

must establish a substance, that is the context for a communication or

the key to the communicators intent or attitudes.2^ In other words, par­

ticular characters, relationships, contexts, or visual or verbal devices

within the film which reveal the intent or attitudes of the film's crea­

tors. This is the synthesis of the process for the film critic— the point 137 when both the pentad and the concept of identification are used to critically analyze the film.

The pentad, however, must never be construed as a prescriptive for­ mula for criticism. As Edwin Black has written:

A critic who is influenced by, for example, the Burkean pentad and who, in consequence of that influence, comes to see some things in a characteristically dramatistic way— that critic is still able to function in his own person as the critical instrument, and so the possibility of significant disclosure remains open to him. But the would-be critic who has not internalized the pentad, who undertakes to 'use' it as a mathematician would use a formula— such a critic is cer­ tain to produce work that is sterile. ^

The true significance of Burkean criticism, as it applies to film, is the fact that the Burkeian approach allows for a specific format for criticism. It allows details to emerge that otherwise would go unnoticed in a non-structured approach. It allows for criticism using logic and facts rather than opinions. It allows for a specific method of thought organization in preparation for writing high quality criticism.

It is the conclusion of this section that rhetorical criticism using the critical format of Kenneth Burke is a significant and functional tool for the analysis of the film form. This approach allows for organi­ zation, relationships, detail, and interpretations which go beyond other critical attempts in describing the nature of film. This approach also encompasses the elements of the process model of film and translates those elements into a tool more functional for the critic— and especially for the beginning critic. 138

In order to understand more fully the application of the concepts of identification and the pentad to film criticism an examination of the

1968 film The Graduate follows. The rhetorical discussion about the film should not be construed as a review but rather as an example of the information and the thought processes necessary for.the critic to under­ take .in order to be ready to write a review. The rhetorical analysis demonstrates a complete and functional use of the two rhetorical concepts and will demonstrate its usefulness to future critics of the cinema. 139

FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER IV

1. David K. Berio, The Process of Communication (New York; Holt,Rinehart & Winston, 1958).

2. Claude E. Shannon and Warren Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of Com­ munication (Urbana, The University of Illinois Press, 1962).

3. Bruce Westley and Malcolm Maclean, "A Conceptual Model for Communica­ tions Research," Journalism Quarterly 34 (1957), pp.31-38.

4. The concept of the scene presented here is adapted from Kenneth Burke's explanation of scene as part of his dramatistic pentad. A full explanation of the pentad appears later in this chapter.

5. Henry S. Breitrose, "Film as Communication," in Ethiel de sola Pool and Wilbur Schramm, editors, Handbook of Communication (Chicago, Rand McNally College Publishing Co., 1973).

6. Janice Hocker Rushing and Thomas S. Frentz, "The Rhetoric of Rocky,!' Western Journal of Speech Communication (Spring, 1978), p.64.

7. I.C. Jarvie, Movies and Society (New York, Basic Books, Inc., 1970), p.189.

8. Siegfried Kracauer, Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality (New York, Oxford University Press, 1960), pp.160-166.

9. For examples of rhetorical criticism of nonoratorical forms of dis­ course, especially film, see Phillip K. Tompkins, "The Rhetorical Criticism of Non-oratorical Works," The Quarterly Journal of Speech (December, 1969), pp.431-439; Thomas W. Benson, "Joe:An Essay in the Rhetorical Criticism of Film," Journal of Popular Culture, 8 (1974), pp.24-32; Martin J. Medhurst, "Image and Ambiguity: A Rhetorical Approach to the Exorcist," The Southern Speech Communication Journal, (Fall, 1978), pp.73-92.

10. Lloyd F. Bitzer and Edwin Black, The Prospect of Rhetoric: Report of the National Developmental Project (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.; Prentice Hall, 1971), p.208.

11. Donald C. Bryant, Rhetorical Dimensions in Criticism (Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University Press, 1973), p.35.

12. Richard B. Gregg, "A Modern Conceptualization of Rhetorical Criticism," (Speech given at the annual convention of the National Council of Teachers of English, Atlanta, Ga., Nov., 1970). 140

13. Ibid., Rhetorical Dimensions in Criticism, pp.34-35.

14. Aristotle, Rhetoric in Aristotle: Rhetoric and Poetics translated by W.R. Roberts (New York, The Modern Library, 1954), pp.26-27.

15. Kenneth Burke, "Rhetoric— Old and New," Journal of General Education 5 (April, 1951), p.203.

16. Kenneth Burke, A Grammar of Motives and A Rhetoric of Motives (Cleve­ land, The World Publishing Co., 1962), p.570.

17. Kenneth Burke, A Rhetoric of Motives (New York, Prentice-Hall, 1945), p.X.

18. Ibid., p.55.

19. Kenneth Burke, A Grammar of Motives (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1945).

20. Lester Thonssen and A. Craig Baird, Speech Criticism (New York, The Ronald Press Co., 1948).

21. Ibid., A Grammar of Motives, p.X.

22. For an excellent adaptation see Jerry Hendrix and James A. Wood, "The Rhetoric of Film: Toward Critical Methodology," The Southern Speech Communication Journal (Winter, 1973), pp.105-122.

23. Ibid., "The Rhetoric of Rocky," p.64.

24. Ibid., A Grammar of Motives, p.21.

25. Edwin Black, Rhetorical Criticism, A Study in Method (Madison, University of Wisconsin Press, 1978), p.XII. CHAPTER V

A CASE IN POINT: THE GRADUATE

In analyzing the film The Graduate from a rhetorical perspective the critic must first review the elements of the film according to the pentad.

SCENE: The general climate of restlessness among American youth fol­ lowing 1965; the uncertainty of youth about their own future due to the war in Vietnam; the increasing lack of concern by youth over materialism and various institutions such as marriage; the impact of when the film was released and what the climate was at the time.

ACT: The film itself and the symbolic ideas presented including the

parent-over-youth hierarchy, the idea of non-communication between genera­

tions, the idea of a "plastic", materialistic society, the derogation of

the upper-middle-class life style, and the rebelliousness of youth against

that life style.

PURPOSE: To reinforce the youth of the 1960's by presenting a young man who questions society's value system and who works out his own answers

to those questions^, and a placing of the burden of guilt for the rest­

lessness of youth upon the adults.

AGENT: Those responsible for the visual and verbal aspects of film and plot: visual— Mike Nichols, director and Robert Surtees, cinematogra­ pher; verbal— Mike Nichols, Buck Henry, and Charles Webb (the writer of

the novel on which the film is based.)

AGENCY: The specific characterizations, words, actions, and visuals which insured the success of the act or the symbolic idea, and those

141 142 characterizations, words, actions, and visuals which insure the achieve­ ment of the purpose.

The critic must organize his thoughts around both identification and the pentad. By doing this the critic will have then considered most of the key critical areas: the content, the film maker(s), other films in the same vein by the same or different directors, the technical aspects, and the social or societal comments and implications made by the film. The critic can use these considerations in his analysis and begin to speculate on the effects of the film. But first should come an expansion of the key points according to the pentad.

The scene at the time of the film's release and production was one

i of restlessness bordering on despair. Lyndon Johnson was President. The nation was in economic crisis. The war in Vietnam was raging.Students were in turmoil, about themselves and about their role in the situation the

"over-30" society was creating for them. Nichols and Henry, the primary agents (pentad term) of the production, had to have knowledge of the climate of restlessness among American youth in order to structure their film around that theme.

Adults during the middle and late 1960's were looked upon as creators of a society where "comfort is king and the credit card is the power be- hind the throne," according to an article in Changing Times magazine.

Youth of the time sought personal purpose and worth, determined not to be

"a generation whose grasp of the old-fashioned virtues of self-efficiency and resourcefulness is inevitably weakened."^ Young people were confused by parents who tried to solve their problems by simply telling youth to

"take another helping from the silver platter."4 College graduates around

1967 were voicing loudly their feelings of being "uninvolved in their own 143 destinies."5 They were seeking ways to become involved without being trapped.

Students themselves in the mid-60's were writing down their feelings and their thoughts.

I am the pen-point of history writing, my life is its ink. I am defining myself en route, knowing that before the ink is dry what I've written is already inaccurate, for I am a process of becoming different.?

What does one do when caught up in a culture from which one feels alienated, in a culture one feels is going in the wrong direction?8

Many students today are no longer content merely to go to class, graduate, get a job, and watch television every night for the rest of their lives.^

Nichols uses the act, or the film itself, and the agencies of visual effects, characterizations, words, and actions to form attitudes and to reinforce actions in the American youth of the late 1960's. Nichols is raising strong questions about the place, role, and treatment of our youth. Nichols himself says:

I think it was the story of a not particularly bright, not particularly remarkable, but worthy kid drowning among ob­ jects and things, committing moral suicide by allowing him­ self to be used finally like an object or a thing by Mrs. Robinson, because he doesn't have the moral or intellectual resources to do what a large percentage of other kids like him do— to rebel, to march, to demonstrate, to turn on. Just drowning.

A great deal of the film's success rests on its ability to develop an identification between the ideas presented by the act through the agency on the one hand and the environment and ideas of the American youth at the time the film was released on the other.

In order to examine more closely the success of the film, an analysis 144 of the agencies, or those effects within the film responsible or causative of that success, is necessary. The characterizations are a logical start­ ing point. Benjamin Braddock (played by Dustin Hoffman who was then an unknown actor with whom the audience would have no previous identifica­ tion) , the lead character, had to be one who could make the youth of the time identify with him. He had to be a character who, in both verbal and visual ways, could make all youth believe that he shared some part of their predicament and their ideas, that they were not alone. Nichols accomplishes this not only through Benjamin himself but also through the presentation of characters or stereotypes with whom youth could not identify. Carl Smith is one of these, the stereotype of the suave, tweedy, fraternity man. His fraternity brothers call him "the make-out king." He is depicted as an unfeeling "square," the perfectly dressed pre-medical student who can see the course of his life stretching clearly ahead of him, while Benjamin examines one day at a time and can see nothing of his future. Carl is the man Elaine (Katherine Ross, another virtual unknown at the time of the film) is to marry, the man who proposes to her by say­ ing, "I think we'd make a pretty good team."

Benjamin is the quieter of the two, the sloppier of the two, the more awkward, the more sour, the more confused, the more isolated, the more interesting, the more "real." Carl is condemned by his context. His life is set,he can see his goals. The youth of the 1960's will side against him and his ideals. Youth cannot see the future; they see a war in southeast Asia; they see the draft; they live one day at a time, plan one day at a time. Carl, in the film, strengthens the character of Ben­ jamin by being a contradiction of that character. Benjamin has proven 145

he can succeed in college, but he is unable, like so many other youth of the time, to draw satisfaction from that excellence. He finds himself disenchanted and regards his education as meaningless. There is no option

to his life, nothing he can see that he wants to do. He is portrayed as a leader in school, an achiever,, and then as a contemporary youth, question­

ing the values of society. Benjamin represents the best, the vanguard of his confused generation. He is pointing toward the future, showing youth which way the winds of change are blowing.

Mrs. Robinson (Anne Bancroft) is also a stereotype in the film. She is the epitome of all upper-middle-class, middle-aged, discontented, social-climbing wives wanting nothing more from Benjamin than a good time in bed. She is also the stereotype of the adult unable to break out of

the formality of her own marriage. Benjamin, during his affair with Mrs.

Robinson, keeps working the conversation around to his misgivings about not having a meaningful relationship. The film maker (agent) is here in­ jecting a sense of guilt as a method of achieving his purpose. Benjamin has rejected the traditional sex-for-fun idea and thereby aquires a guilt feeling. Benjamin, as a young person, is below Mrs. Robinson on the adult- youth hierarchy scale; thus, he feels additional guilt at rejecting the hierarchy. In the film's end, however, this guilt is purged by taking

Elaine from her mother. Significantly, however, Benjamin takes Elaine from the church after the wedding ceremony is performed; Elaine is legally married to Carl. Through this, the adult hierarchy of marriage is dealt a blow and the appeal to youth is reinforced by having Benjamin and Elaine go off together, not knowing what will happen, not caring, wondering, like all youth, what the future will hold. 146

The ending is the boldest attempt at achieving the pentadic purpose through the content. Mrs. Robinson, seeing her daughter about to run off after the marriage ceremony, screams, "It's too late." Elaine, heading for Benjamin, screams back, "But not for me." No stronger statement of purpose is made.

The ending also illustrates another strong identification with the climate of youth (scene) and enables the audience to see clearly another stereotype in the character of Mrs. Robinson. She becomes the adult who regards the formality of her own marriage as sacred,'so sacred that al­ though her own marriage is essentially over, she refuses to end it. The ending is significant in still another way in that it marks the single major deviation between film and novel in terms of the general plot struc­ ture. In the book Benjamin interrupts the ceremony and gets Elaine before the final marriage vows have taken place. In the film, the interruption of the wedding takes place after the vows. Through the change Nichols is expressing the idea that marriage is merely a formality^ and he gives the film a greater appeal, and closer identification with the ideals of the youth of the late 1960's.

Other points of identification relating to success of the visual quality of the film and its relationship to the pentad can be brought out.

It is actually this visual quality which insures the film's success. The opening of the film effectively and immediately conveys Benjamin's isola­ tion by focusing exclusively on his apprehensive face moving through the crowded Los Angeles Airport. Paul Simon's song, not long afterward, complements this, giving Benjamin a perception of "people talking without speaking, people hearing without listening," giving the character an in­ 147 creased identification with alienation.

Nichols wants youth to see the world of adults as a "plastic" world, built on the ideal of showing off the possessions one has. Therefore, in his film he builds and presents such a world, but isolates his main character within the world. The scene of Benjamin's birthday party is a prime example. Benjamin's parents are showing off both their son, the college success, and the gift they have gotten him— a scuba diving outfit.

They present Benjamin to the guests in the outfit and have him walk into the family swimming pool. The father talks through the presentation of

Benjamin and his walk and entry into the pool as though it were a circus act. The significant visual point is that much of the scene is filmed from Benjamin's point of view inside the scuba diving gear. The viewer sees people press up against his mask, sees him walk to the water, hears the sound of his breathing through the breathing apparatus, all from be­ hind the mask. The viewer is made to share Benjamin's isolation from the party. Finally, under water there are no sounds but the breathing, and the camera reveals Benjamin helplessly standing at the bottom of the pool, not wanting to come up, desiring the isolation of the water and the empty pool, desiring just to be left alone.

Another scene, earlier in the film, further illustrates the value in analyzing the pentadic term— agency— as it relates to achieving the pur­ pose of the film. In this earlier scene, a friend of Benjamin's parents tells him the word of the future,"the most important word in your life," will be "plastics!" The word is etched on the viewer's mind. Mrs. Robinson, with her mechanical sex, is an emblem of the plastic world. Her television, unwatched, blares "The Newlywed Game," a precise illustration of plastic 148 society and the concept of marriage as a game.

Benjamin's individuality and alienation are further emphasized in the film by the absence of any young people in the film's key scenes. At the opening party for Benjamin, as well as his birthday party, and at the

Robinson's wedding, all the guests are middle-aged and elderly people.

With no young people other than Benjamin to identify with, Nichols assures his character a strong audience bond.

In still another visual instance near the beginning of the film Ni­ chols shows the party scene by using huge, smothering close-ups of the guests approaching Benjamin. This imposes Benjamin's claustrophobia on the viewer, forcing an identification with the character. Other visuals are used to depict various hierarchical symbols, adding to the achievement of purpose. These symbols include the house with a pool; the gift of a car; the social drinking, materialistic adults. They all symbolize the society

Benjamin rebels against.

Benjamin at U.C.L.A. dresses in a windbreaker and chinos; Carl is shown well-dressed in a coat and tie. Benjamin', in the film's conclusion, uses a cross to trap the wedding party in the church, another rejection symbol. And, in still another scene, when Benjamin is running from his broken-down car toward the church where Elaine is being married, he is shown in extreme long shot with an extremely long focal length lens. Thus, because of the optics of the lens he appears to be running hard but getting nowhere. This is not only an intricate detail of the plot but is an ad­ ditional visual comment on the futility of many youthful aspirations, the concept of "running, yet standing still."

It should be emphasized that what has been presented on The Graduate 149 is a relatively complete synthesis of the thought processes a critic needs to go through in using a rhetorical approach based on Burke's concepts.

Both the pentad and identification are useful tools for a complete analy­ sis and for the organization of a critical philosophy or method. Film criticism demands systematic thought processes— a system designed to allow the critic to consider the entire film but then, using some organized method, to filter out the truly important areas and relate those areas to the whole film and to each other. Rhetorical criticism provides such a system of organization and analysis, and it is a system which need not dictate the way a review is written or its final quality, but which should influence the completeness of the considerations that go into that review. 150

FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER V

1. H. Wayne Schuth, Mike Nichols (New York, Twayne Publishers, 1978), p.58.

2. "Meet the Restless Generation," Changing Times (June, 1967), p.8.

3. Ibid., p.8.

4. Ibid., p.8.

5. Ibid., p.9.

6. Ibid., p.9.

7. Louis W. Cartwright, "The New Hero," in To Make a Difference by Otto Butz (New York, Harper & Row, 1967), p.15.

8. Michael Castell, "Affirmation Without Absolutes," in To Make A Dif­ ference, p. 45.

9. Allen Cherry, "From Youth Culture to Commitment," in To Make a Dif­ ference, p. 56.

10. Ibid., Mike Nichols, p.45.

11. Ibid., p.61. CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In concluding a study such as this a number of summary statements are necessary as well as a review of the major findings and their relation­ ship to one another and to the whole of the study. The major findings of this study can be summarized as follows:

1) Critics disagree radically on what is considered to be quality in film and often are in disagreement about the same points in a given film.

Those areas in which critics do agree are small in number compared to the areas of disagreement.

2) Most critics seem to have little concern about whether a film will be successful at the box office and there seems to be no relationship be­ tween positive critical reviews and box office success. In other words, critics had little influence over whether or not the public went to see a film.

3) Critical reviews do not seem to influence the award winning ca­ pacity of a film although there are strong indications that critics do recognize award winning quality in a film.

4) Awards, especially the Academy Award, do seem to increase a film's chances of economic success.

5) Film criticism must be viewed as part of a communication process a film goes through in getting made and eventually getting seen by the public. The process model of film presented here is a way for the jour­ nalistic critic to understand film and his own place in how a film reaches

151 152 and communicates to its audience.

6) The rhetorical approach to criticism by Kenneth Burke offers a logical, systematic, and critically sound method for the beginning jour­ nalistic critic to learn how to think through a film after he has seen it and then to write about it. The Burkeian approach allows for a specific format for criticism. It allows for approaching criticism using logic and facts rather than opinions. It allows for organization, relationships, detail, and interpretations which can go beyond other critical attempts in describing the nature of film. And the Burkeian approach encompasses the elements of the process model of film and translates those elements into a tool more functional for journalistic film critics.

Certainly one of the most significant general conclusions to be de­ rived from what has been presented is that the area of critical writing about the cinema must become and must remain more open to the influences of other more organized, older, and more complete critical methods and philosophies. Film criticism is a popular art about a popular art. It is a journalistic form yet most serious critics writing for national publica­ tions are fulfilling neither the role of critic nor the role of jour­ nalist.

Journalism means dealing with facts, pursuing a specific process for gathering facts, writing those facts in a certain way, and arriving at conclusions. Journalism means objectivity in the sense of logically pre­ senting facts which lead to equally factual conclusions. The critic— while not writing news stories— must still be viewed as a journalist (and the methods presented here are intended for the journalistic critic). And the subjective statements of the critic must be backed up by facts which lo- 153 gically lead to those subjective statements.

Film criticism, compared to other areas of criticism, is still in its infancy. It has only been since the 1940's that serious critics began to write about the cinema with intelligence and style. The pioneering criticism of James Agee, Bosley Crowther, and Pare Lorentz has been carried forward by people such as Dwight McDonald, Stanley Kauffmann,

Robert Warshow, Andrew Sarris, Pauline Kael, and John Simon. Each of these critics, and a number of others, utilizes a particular philosophy or approach in their critical writing. Some, like Sarris, have proposed intricate methods and theories for studying and writing about film. These critics do sometimes utilize a consistent structure or pattern in their approaches and their writing, they sometimes do agree with one another, and they all certainly do have some philosophy about film.

Yet, at its worst film criticism, even the critical writing of the best critics, is highly subjective, biased, sometimes immature, disor-. ganized, superficial, and often very unstructured. At its best film criticism during the period examined was very opinionated and not very consistent with the structure and function of good criticism in other areas.

While each critic is an individual with their own individual style and point of view their methods, taken together, do not add up to any single set of guidelines or even any packageable series of philosophies for the new, beginning, or future journalistic critic to follow. The best critics write fluently and do not work in a vacuum— unaware of the writing and thoughts of other major critics. Yet, as has been found, their methods abound with flaws and there is far from any agreement on what constitutes 154 either a good film or good criticism. The critics seem not to be aware of good criticism in other areas nor aware of what has been presented here in Chapter I as a philosophy of criticism.

What this researcher is proposing, through the understanding of film as a communication process and the Burkeian method of rhetorical criticism, are ways to teach and to encourage thoughtful and complete film analysis for young journalistic writers. The journalist who desires to become a film critic can utilize the approach presented here as a way of thinking about a film after he has seen it and as a way of organizing his thoughts leading up to the writing of the piece of criticism. It can lead to insights which are more consistent with good criticism in general and which are hopefully brilliant insights which can improve the state of public thought about film and the state of the art of film criti­

cism itself— especially at the journalistic level.

The approach presented here does not pretend to be the only method but rather is intended as one vehicle which, if refined and mastered by new journalistic film critics, can significantly improve the quality of film criticism. Future studies of this nature should include the applica­ tion of other rhetorical methods as well as methods from other areas of criticism to the process model. The criticism of literature, art, and drama are all considerably older than film criticism and all have very well defined methods, theories, and philosophies. And many of these have a very logical link with film.

A study such as the one presented here also paves the way for more current and in-depth looks at critics or groups of critics and groups of films. Using the ten most economically successful films of each year is only one way to classify film for a study such as this. Valuable related

studies could be done comparing criticism with films having very large publicity budgets, or films which won awards in categories other than

best picture. Other studies might include more specific groups of critics

or even individual critics. While the content analysis in this study is very general and was only used to prove a point about criticism and not

as a stand-alone piece of work there is much to be done in the area of

content analysis of film criticism. Future studies kight be more statis­

tically oriented or might go deeper into analyzing the structure and even

specific wording of specific pieces of critical writing.

Finally, if scholars and critics begin to engage in rhetorical

studies of film, a collection of their findings could be gathered and published to aid in the development of a "rhetoric of the cinema" to

serve in much the same way as Aristotle's Rhetoric has served the scholar of oral discourse. The results of such a study would benefit not only the rhetorician and the critic, but also the film maker who seeks to understand how the film can best serve as a' vehicle of communication and persuasion. APPENDIX A

PUBLICATIONS AND CRITICS IN THE STUDY

I. Magazines

A. America; Richard A. Blake, Robert Lauder, Moira Walsh

B. Commonweal: Philip T. Hartung, Colin L. Westerbeck

C. Esquire: John Simon

D. Life: Ann Guerin, Richard Oulahan, Eleanor Perry, Maurice Rapf, Richard Schickel, Thomas Thompson, Bruce Williamson

E . The New Leader: John Simon

F. The New Republic: Pauline Kael, Stanley Kauffmann

G. Newsweek: Arthur Cooper, Howard Junker, Alex Keneas, Jack Kroll, Charles Michener, Joseph Morgenstern, S.K. Oberbeck, Thomas G. Plate, David Slavitt, Raymond A. Sokolov, Paul D . Zimmerman

New York: Judith Crist

I. The New Yorker: Renata Adler, Roger Angell, M.J. Arlen, Brendan Gill, Penelope Gilliatt, Pauline Kael, Susan Lardner, John McCarten, Edith Oliver

J. Progressive: Kenneth Turan

K. Ramparts: Nancy Weber

L. The Saturday Review: Hollis Alpert, Roland Gelatt, Henry Hewes, Arthur Knight, Thomas Meehan

Society: Isidore Silver

N. Time: Jay Cocks, Mark Goodman, Stefan Kanfer, Richard Schickel

II. Newspapers

A. Newsday: Joseph Gelmis

B. The New York Herald Tribune: Judith Crist

156 157

C. The New York Times; Renata Adler, Robert Alden, Eugene Archer, Vincent Canby, Bosley Crowther, Richard Eder, Roger Greenspun, Stanley Kauffmann, Nora Sayre, Michael Stern, Howard Thompson, A.H. Weiler APPENDIX B

CRITICAL SAMPLES

1960

Ben Hur

"Its virtues stem from the amount of artistry and creative intelli­

gence contributed by all concerned with the picture, and most of all by

director, William Wyler." (Moira Walsh, America, Dec. 5, 1959)

"I was disappointed in the gifted William Wyler's inability to lift

the religious scenes above the Sunday-school level, to put any real excite­

ment into most of the spectacle, or to infuse most of the acting with vitality," (Stanley Kauffmann, The New Republic, Dec. 28, 1959)

Can-Can

"It is not only in the dancing that this effort is dismally remiss.

The story is also a downright foolish pastiche, cut to Frank Sinatra and

Miss Maclaine, who look about as logical in Paris of the 1890's as they

would look on the Russian hockey team." (Bosley Crowther, New York Times,

March 10, 1960)

"Can-Can is not immoral. It is merely dull." (Time, March 21, 1960)

Psycho

"Hitchcock seems to have been more interested in shocking his audience with the bloodiest bathtub murder in screen history, and in photographing

Janet Leigh in various stages of undress, than in observing the ordinary

rules of good film construction." (Moira Walsh, America, July 9, 1960)

158 159

Suddenly Last Summer

"The main trouble with this picture is that an idea that is good for not much more than a blackout is stretched to exhausting length and, for all its fine cast and big direction, it is badly, pretentiously played." (Bosley Crowther, New York Times, Dec. 23, 1959)

"The script. . .is beautiful; the direction by Joseph Mankiewicz is penetrating and unhurried, and the acting is both strong and subtle. The result of these nicely coordinated efforts is an absorbing, original and often moving film." (Newsweek, Dec. 28, 1959)

1961

Guns of Navarone

"The result, inevitably, is a compromise— long sequences of matchless action countered (or negated) by lengthy patches of conversation in which the men sort out their motives and philosophize about war." (Arthur Knight,

The Saturday Review, June 24, 1961)

"For anyone given to letting himself be entertained by scenes of ex­ plosive action and individual heroic displays,' there should be entertain­ ment in this picture, for there is plenty of all that in it." (Bosley

Crowther, New York Times, June 23, 1961)

Exodus

"It is made of strong, stirring stuff, and if it has lacks in subtle­ ty these are overridden much of the time by the dedicated, triumphant actions the ambitious film portrays." (Hollis Alpert, The Saturday Review,

December 17, 1960)

"As can be seen here, it is a very serious movie, and on accasion it is even exciting. As cannot be seen here, however, in the long, long run it is dull." (Newsweek, Dec. 19, 1960) 160

"He (Preminger) permits nearly everyone in his large cast to state his ideological and political beliefs before and after each new turn of events, and the result is an awesome talkfest that is all too rarely in­ terrupted by the popping of rifles." (Roger Angell, The New Yorker, Dec. 17,

1960)

The Parent Trap

"The plot may wear thin at times but its young star never does."

(Arthur Knight, The Saturday Review, May 27, 1961)

"Young Miss Mills skill in projecting two different personalities would do credit to a mature actress. Essentially though it is an artifi­ cial, albeit pleasant, diversion of no substance." (Moira Walsh, America,

July 15, 1961)

The Alamo

"The shortcomings of The Alamo boil down to one unfortunate, though common, failing: pedestrian treatment." (Moira Walsh, America, Nov. 12,

1960)

"But this horrendous representation of the last battle for the Alamo comes after two hours of slogging through some rather sticky western cliches." (Bosley Crowther, New York Times, Oct. 27, 1960)

"The script is a model of distortion and vulgarization, and I go out of my way to call attention to it because this is a picture in which, for once, the writer appears to be conspicuously to blame for what has gone wrong." (Brendan Gill, The New Yorker, Nov. 5, 1960)

1962

West Side Story

"Because of the quality of the original material and of the trans- 161 lation, the result is the best film musical ever made." (Stanley Kauffmann,

The New Republic, Oct. 23, 1961)

"Adding to my unease was the deliberately fostered discrepancy be­

tween the dances, which are highly stylized, and the settings, which are naturalistic ..." (Brendan Gill, The New Yorker, Oct. 21, 1961)

Spartacus

"It is an entertaining show. It is only occasionally tedious, a bit

too gory and somewhat pompous about its thematic pertinence; but in direction, acting, writing, editing, use of color, and general whammo, it is one thousand statute miles ahead of its most recent competitor,

Ben Hur." (Stanley Kauffmann, The New Republic, Nov. 14, 1960)

"They have included some blatantly spelled out sex, an almost in­

tolerable amount of graphic brutality and even some coyly oblique infer­

ences of homosexuality in a film which, at the same time, they are active­

ly promoting as a valuable historical document for all school levels."

(Moira Walsh, America, Nov. 12, 1960)

El Old

"The pure graphic structure of the pictures, the imposing arrange­ ment of the scenes, the dynamic flow of the action against strong back­ grounds . . . give a grandeur and eloquence to this production that are worth seeing for themselves." (Bosley Crowther, The New York Times, Dec.

15, 1961)

"Within the film itself I found considerable confusion about who was doing what to whom, and where— a confusion compounded by a script that leaped nimbly across years and distances, and seemed to dare the audience to try and follow." (Arthur Knight, The Saturday Review, Dec. 162

23, 1961

Lover Come Back

"The script is literate. The tone is irreverent. The picture is entertainment." (Newsweek, Feb. 19, 1962)

"Essentially, what is wrong with the film is the same thing that is wrong with the numerous overblown, tear-jerking soap operas that still clutter up the screen. It violates artistic truth." (Moira Walsh, America,

Feb. 24, 1962)

1963

How the West Was Won

"The buffaloes make the whole preposterous picture worth seeing. The stampede lasts forever. From a small moving mass at the horizon, they come looming down to fill the whole screen with a great, gray, shaggy blur. They fan out, fifty abreast, galloping at an unlikely speed, a swath of dirty fur and deafening noise. . . .It is one of the great moments in the history of movies." (David Slavitt, Newsweek, March 4, 1963)

"First, it is in cinerama, a technique still so imperfect that it is pretty nervy to ask people to pay to see it. Second, it is a historical stew of the sort that is usually defended at the last ditch as educational for children." (Stanley Kauffmann, The New Republic, April 20, 1963)

The Longest Day

"The beach battle scenes are magnificent and chilling, a glider landing in the dark is tension-filled, and the battle of troops of the

82nd airborne division for St. Mere Eglise has remarkable authenticity."

(Hollis Alpert, The Saturday Review, Oct. 20, 1962)

"The total effect of the picture is that of a huge documentary report, 163 adorned and colored by personal details that are thrilling, amusing,

ironic, sad." (Bosley Crowther, The New York Times, Oct. 5, 1962)

"Although my senses were convincingly assaulted for three solid hours, my emotions were hardly ever engaged, and I ended, rather to my embarrassment, by being bored." (Brendan Gill, The New Yorker, Oct. 13,

1962)

"Too many of the lines just lie there. Too many of the actors just stand there. Too much of the direction has no direction. Furthermore the film is technically crude." (Time, Oct. 19, 1962)

Lawrence of Arabia

"But if finally it is not first rate, it is at least the first spectacular for adults, with a fascinating subject, much good writing, excellent acting, and visual experiences that almost touch the other senses." (Stanley Kauffmann, The New Republic, Jan. 12, 1963)

"The fault seems to lie, first in the concept of telling the story of this self-tortured man against a background of action that has the characteristic of a mammoth western film. . . ,.The fault is also in the lengthy.but surprisingly lusterless dialogue of Robert Bolt’s over-writ­ ten screenplay." (Bosley Crowther, The New York Times, Dec. 17, 1962)

Irma La Douce

"But the major thing that Mr. Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond have ac­ complished in their script is to force the essential good humor and in­ nocence of a spoof— a travesty of the legend of the Parisian apache and his girl." (Bosley Crowther, The New York Times, June 6, 1963)

"I cannot refrain from calling attention to the fact that their script is a model of vulgarity." (Brendan Gill, The New Yorker, June 15, 164

1963)

1964

.The Carpetbaggers

"A cheap and vulgar film based on Harold Robbins cheap and vulgar

novel." (Philip T, Hartung, Commonweal, July 24, 1964)

"The people who appear in it . . . are simply not stars enough to

make such exaggerated nonsense believable or endurable." (Tommy Thompson,

Life, June 26, 1964)

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

"Now that Stanley Kramer’s gone quadruply mad, we have the essence

of the Hollywood comedy that Hollywood has been ignoring much too long. .

. . The cheers are not only for Mr. Kramer's It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad

World but basically for his having appreciated and reminded us of the

fundamentals of pure American comedy and of the glories of exploiting

true comedians." (Judith Crist, New York Herald Tribune, Nov. 24, 1963)

"Again and again, it's possible to catch sight of what a funny pic­

ture It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World might have been if it had been

limited to a cast of eight or ten and to a running time of, say, an hour

and a half." (Brendan Gill, The New Yorker, Nov. 30, 1963)

"The idea in William Rose's script is amusing, and a sturdy scaffold

for all manner of engaging nonsense, but Kramer's film is two hours too

long, hundreds of yards too wide (it was shot in Ultra Panavision 70 and

is shown in cinerama) and with a $4.80 top, a couple of dollars too ex­ pensive." (David Slavitt, Newsweek, Nov. 18, 1963)

Charade

"It doesn't do in this instance to examine plot, motivation or chara­

cter development too closely. If you don't, I think you will have a good 165

time." (Moira Walsh, America, Dec. 21, 1963)

"Of itself, Charade is a stylish and amusing melodrama; but in the context of the bloodlust that seems unloosed in our land, it is as sinister as the villains who stalk Miss Hepburn through the cobbled streets of Paris." (Arthur Knight, The Saturday Review, Dec. 14, 1963)

My Fair Lady

"Miss Hepburn wisely makes no pretense of not owing much to her illustrious predecessor in the role, but her qualities as an actress and as a personality soon turn her Eliza into an utterly different, though no less captivating, creature than that of Miss Andrews." (Brendan Gill,

The New Yorker, Oct. 31, 1964)

"Mami Nixon, who sings the words that Audrey Hepburn mouths, has neither the clarity of tone of Julie Andrews nor the thrilling precision of diction. And this is a radical fault in a musical play which is about diction." (David Slavitt, Newsweek, Nov. 2, 1964)

1965

Mary Poppins

"To make a good show better, Disney employs all the vast image-making machinery at his command. The sets are luxuriant, the songs lilting, the scenario witty but impeccably sentimental, and the supporting cast only a pinfeather short of perfection." (Time, Sept. 18, 1964)

"Mr. Disney has long been the victim of his own incomparable tech­ nical facility and enormous bankroll, and here, as in several of his other pictures, he has made everything too good to be true." (Brendan

Gill, The New Yorker, Oct. 3, 1964) 166

The Sound of Music

"Viewers who want a movie to swell around them in big warm blobs will find The Sound of Music easy ,to take. Sterner types may resist-at the outset, but are apt to loosen up after a buoyant, heels-in-the-air song or two by Julie Andrews." (Time, March 5, 1965)

"My own apathy . . .is based on its knowing manipulation of shopworn but sure-fire materials. And I shall be very much surprised if this careful calculation does not make it one of the outstanding commercial successes of 1965." (Arthur Knight, The Saturday Review, March 20, 1965)

Goldfinger

"Were it not for the utterly fantastic premises of the story, the good-humored and insouciant style in which the whole series is presented, one might find the scarifying violence a bit much. But if the audience has been sufficiently Fleming-indoctrinated, I suppose there is no reason to complain. It's all meant as thrills and entertainment, and as movie stuff it's first rate." (Hollis Alpert, The Saturday Review, Dec. 12, 1964)

"Goldfinger, lacking freshness, the action, the empathetic high-living and vicarious heroics of the two preceding James Bond films, turns to lesbianism, to Krafft-ebing tortures, to unadulterated sadism for fillups."

(Judith Crist, New York Herald Tribune, Jan. 3, 1965)

"What they give us in Goldfinger is an excess of science-fiction fun, a mess of mechanical melodrama and a minimum of bedroom farce." (Bosley

Crowther, New York Times, Dec. 22, 1964)

What's New Pussycat

"It is a witless attempt to cash in on the spirit of camp, which now blights our land." (Richard Schickel, Life, July 9, 1965) 167

1966

Thunderball

"Now Mr. Fleming's superhero. . .has not only power over women, mira­ culous physical reserves, skill in perilous maneuvers and knowledge of all things great and small, but he also has a much better sense of humor than he has shown in previous films. And this is the secret ingredient that makes Thunderball the best of the lot.” (Bosley Crowther, The New York

Times, Dec. 22, 1965)

"The trouble with Thunderball is easily explicable; it is just like the three James Bond movies that preceded it." (Richard Schickel, Life,

Jan. 7, 1966)

Doctor Zhivago

"At once generous yet austere, huge but never out of human scale, gently unfolded yet full of power, it is work of serious, genuine art.

That such a work could be created within the conventions of the commer­ cial cinema is almost as miraculous as the fact that a novel celebrating the unconquerable individualist could come out of modem Russia." (Richard

Schickel, Life, Jan. 21, 1966)

"Alas, Zhivago, in many respects, could be termed just another mam­ moth spectacular in that it is much too long, much too padded, over-ellip­ tical in some spots, over-inflated in others, with the occasional babel of dialect and accent common to international casts and the reduction of historic events into over-simplifications of banalities." (Judith Crist,

New York Herald Tribune, Jan. 2, 1966)

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

"What was, on the stage, little more than a loud clash of badly or- 168 chestrated symbols signifying very little has become, on the screen, a drama of character and characters— a story about people who, you are sur­ prised to discover, you genuinely care about and sympathize with as damned and suffering human beings." (Richard Schickel, Life, July 22, 1966)

"That W h o ^ Afraid of Virginia Woolf? should be less satisfying as a motion picture than it was as a play is perhaps to be expected." (Henry

Hewes, The Saturday Review, July 9, 1966)

The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming

"Norman Jewison has permitted nearly every moment of it to become twice as brightly colored, twice as noisy, and twice as frantic as it needed to be; this is all the more a pity because the cast includes a number of excellent comic actors, including Alan Arkin. . ." (Brendan

Gill, The New Yorker, June 4, 1966)

"Fortunately a surprising amount of creative slapstick and unstereo­

typed character comedy gets into the mixture as well. These qualities plus the ability to maintain a fairly sane and consistent point of view in the face of insane complications, raise the film above most of its present-day competitors." (Moira Walsh, America, Aug. 27, 1966)

1967

The Dirty Dozen

"Flawed as it is, however, it seems to me one of the most interesting films about the brutalizing effects of war that we have had from American film makers in the last decade." (Richard Schickel, Life, July 21, 1967)

"And then to bathe these rascals in a specious heroic light— to make their hoodlum bravado and defiance of discipline, and their nasty kind of gutter solidarity, seem exhilirating and admirable— is encouraging a 169 spirit of hooliganism that is brazenly antisocial, to say the least."

(Bosley Crowtner, The New York Times, June 16, 1967)

You Only Live Twice

"You Only Live Twice is really no better or worse than the other

Bond bonanzas, only the same— still delivering the dependable sex, sock and CIA-nicism that have made James Bond the culture hero of the 60's."

(Paul D. Zimmerman, Newsweek, June 26, 1967)

"Now, five films later, he (Bond) is the victim of the same misfortune that once befell Frankenstein: there have been so many flamboyany imita­ tions that the original looks like a copy." (Time, June 30, 1967)

"I had a good time at You Only Live Twice but I can't really write about it, because it's not a subject for criticism but for consumer guidance." (Pauline Kael, The New Republic, July 15, 1967)

Thoroughly Modern Millie

"But in the end, after all the talent Ross Hunter has marshalled and all the money he has lavished, the climax of his labors is a tasteless and labored slapstick scene in which the happy heroes beat the bean sprouts out of two oriental houseboys." (Paul D. Zimmerman, Newsweek, April 10,

1967)

"In his new film, he (Ross Hunter) has managed to combine commercial judgment with a considerable degree of taste and intelligence, and the product he has fashioned provides, on the whole, alot of fun." (Hollis

Alpert, The Saturday Review, April 15, 1967)

1968

The Graduate

. . . in cinematic skill, in intent, in sheer connection with us, 170

The Graduate is, if I may repeat it, a milestone in American film history."

(Stanley Kauffmann, The New Republic, Feb. 10, 1968)

"But the screenplay, which begins as a genuine comedy, soon degene­ rates into spurious melodrama. Moreover, director Nichols, perhaps affected by his stage experience, has given much of the film the closed-in air of a studio set." (Time, Dec. 29, 1967)

"The movie's principal weaknesses are oversimplification, overelabora­ tion, inconsistency, eclecticism, obviousness, pretentiousness, and, especially in the penultimate section, sketchiness." (John Simon, The New

Leader, Feb., 1968)

Guess Who1s Coming to Dinner?

"Mr. Rose has written a deliciously swift and pithy script, and Mr.

Kramer has made it spin brightly in a stylish ambience of social comedy."

(Bosley Crowther, The New York Times, Dec. 12, 1967)

"It is supposed to be coraedy-drama, but its effect is neither comedy nor dramatic. Instead, it is like an embarassing social situation unac­ countably prolonged, which one can only twitch through." (Richard Schickel,

Life, Dec. 15, 1967)

The Odd Couple

"And playwright Neil Simon occasionally takes off his clowns mask to show the humans beneath. In doing so, he has made his odd couple real people, with enough substance to cast shadows alongside the jokes. "

(Time, May 3, 1968)

"The wry and pertinent comment on human nature is certainly there, but the vehicle through which it is conveyed seems thinner and more mechanical than it did on stage." (Moira Walsh, America, June 1, 1968) 171

"But, as Simon showed in Barefoot in the Park, he simply can't go the distance. He can't build a full-length play." (Stanley Kauffmann, The New

Republic, May 10, 1968)

Planet of the Apes

"Damn it, Planet is the best American movie I have seen so far this year." (Richard Schickel, Life, May 10, 1968)

"It is no good at all, but fun, at moments, to watch." (Renata Adler,

The New York Times, Feb. 9, 1968)

1969

Funny Girl

"Miss Streisand has matured into a complete performer and delivered

the most accomplished, original, and enjoyable musical-comedy performance

that has ever been captured on film." (Joseph Morgenstern, Newsweek, Sept.

30, 1968)

"She (Streisand) has a voice, of course. I've never liked it much,

but then alot of people have and do, and quite rightly Wyler has made her

pretty much the whole show. Sorry to say, I'm not much of afan of her

comic abilities either." (Hollis Alpert, The Saturday Review, Oct. 12,

1968)

Bullitt

"Bullitt strikes me as one of the best movies I've seen this year;

it has energy, drive, impact, and above all, style." (Hollis Alpert,

The Saturday Review, Nov. 9, 1968)

"Bullitt is efficiently made and extremely well edited but basically

uninteresting." (Pauline Kael, The New Yorker, Oct. 26, 1968) 172

Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid

"It is an intelligently entertaining movie that, in its fractured,

tongue-in-cheek way, is making sensible human observations for anyone

who is looking for them." (Moira Walsh, America, Oct. 11, 1969)

"Even though the result is not unpleasant, it is vaguely disturbing—

you keep seeing signs of another, better film behind gags and effects that

may remind you of everything from Jules and Jim to Bonnie and Clyde and

The Wild Bunch." (Vincent Canby, The New York Times, Sept. 25, 1969)

Romeo and Juliet

"Because these kids are authentic teenagers, just as Shakespeare

had envisaged them, they take on a vitality and poignance that no middle-

aged actor could project. This Romeo and Juliet, sumptuously mounted,

excitingly imagined, lives on the truth of its characters rather than on

simply the splendor of its lines." (Arthur Knight, The Saturday Review,

Oct. 5, 1968)

"The movie is being sold on its youth appeal— on teenagers playing

teenagers— but you can always make a movie with kids playing kids; the

feat would be if the kids could read Shakespeare." (Pauline Kael, The

New Yorker, Oct. 19, 1968)

Midnight Cowboy

"By refusing to patronize his characters and by putting them in a

realized world, Sc'nlesinger has united us with Joe and Ratso, all of ua

together hustling amidst the neon but— as we can see— not all of us

necessarily lost." (Stanley Kauffmann, The New Republic, June 7, 1969)

"Despite the superb ease of Jon Voight in the title role and the hard work of Dustin Hoffman as Ratso, Schlesinger never comes to grips 173 with their characters as individuals.” (Richard Schickel, Life, June 27,

1969)

1970

Airport

"Once the plane— and the story— get off the ground, the film's sure­

fire theatrics grab hold of you against your better judgment." (Moira

Walsh, America, March 21, 1970)

"Airport. . .is an immensely silly film— and it will probably enter­

tain millions of people who no longer care very much about movies."

(Vincent Canby, The New York Times, March 6, 1970)

M*A*S*H

"What holds the disparate elements of M*A*S*H together in the pre­

carious balance that is the movie's chief charm is a free-for-all, throw­ away attitude. The picture looks as if the people who made it had a good

time, as if they played with it and improvised and took some chances.

It's elegantly made, and yet it doesn't have that overplanned rigidity of so many Hollywood movies." (Pauline Kael, The New Yorker, Jan. 24,

1970)

"Its humor comes mostly in bits and pieces, and even in its climax,

an utterly unsporting football game, it fails to build toward either sig­ nificant confrontation or recognition. (Roger Greenspun, The New York

Times, Jan. 26, 1970)

Patton

"The people remain two dimensional, the battle scenes are just pro­ ficient battle scenes, the words spoken are prosaic and superficial. Though some of the images, as noted, are striking, that in itself does not make 174 a film a work of art." (John Simon, The New Leader, April/May, 1970)

"Here is a film that is made carefully, photographed superbly, and directed generally well, with an irresistible performance in the leading role, marvelous battle effects and above all an air of intelligent can­ dor." (Stanley Kauffmann, The New Republic, March 7, 1970)

Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice

"To put the matter simply, Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice is as sweet and charming and funny and, above all, human as any comedy that has been made in the United States in this decade." (Richard Schickel,

Life, Oct. 3, 1969)

"... the movie is unpleasant because it acts superior to the people in it, which is no great feat because Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice are conceived as cheerful but humorless boobs." (Vincent Canby, The New York

Times, Sept. 17, 1969)

1971

Summer of '42

"Summer of *42 brings out the best in director Robert Mulligan— that gift for getting down a specific time, place and atmosphere. . ." (Paul

D. Zimmerman, Newsweek, April 26, 1971)

"It has gauzy, soft-focus photography and saccharin rhapsodies on the sound track. The writing is appropriately wretched. . ." (Jay Cocks, Time,

May 10, 1971)

Ryan's Daughter

"Ryan's Daughter has the kind of visual impact and emotional range during its more than three hour length that audiences may well be pining for. Hardly a work of cinematic art, it does tell an involving story of the kind that even some critics have been saying we've all been missing 175 lately." (Hollis Alpert, The Saturday Review, Nov. 14, 1970)

"What Lean offers us instead of depth, insight and human rechness is the skeleton for what perhaps might have been an interesting, fleshed- out novel." (Alex Keneas, Newsweek, Nov. 23, 1970)

The Owl and the Pussycat

", . .when Streisand and Segal stick to their clawing comedy, watch­ ing the fur and feathers fly is high entertainment." (Mark Goodman, Time,

Nov. 16, 1970)

"In any compilation of the modern world's ten most unrewarding stunts, the casting of Barbra Streisand in a straight comedy, especially one as flimsily fabricated as The Owl and the Pussycat must rank close to Charles

A. Stephens 1920 attempt to ride over Niagara Falls in a barrell, which turned out to be fatal." (Vincent Canby, The New York Times, Nov. 4, 1970)

"The movie works because, despite smears of soap here and there, it creates a city and two citizens that are funny and scary— a fantasy that sends you back to the reality in a state of alertness. To this end

Streisand devotes the most amazing comic energy seen on the screen in a very long time, and Segal gives a remarkable performance." (Jack Kroll,

Newsweek, Nov. 16, 1970)

1972

The Godfather

"He (Brando) is the godfather, the centerpiece of what promises to be the Gone With the Wind of gangster movies— both in its artful, intelli­ gent control of gaudy material and in its certain sensational box-office success." (Paul D. Zimmerman, Newsweek, March 13, 1972) 176

"His (Brando's) resident power, his sheer innate force, has rarely seemed weaker. . . .Because the picture has so much of the commonplace, it escapes being called commonplace. . . .The Godfather was made from a big best seller, a lot of money was spent on it, and it runs over three hours. Therefore it’s significant." (Stanley Kauffmann, The New Republic,

April 1, 1972)

Fiddler on the Roof

"The score is dreary musically and lyrically, the dancing uninspired.

The tone of the screenplay is uncertain, not really funny in the funny parts, not really moving in the sober sections." (Richard Schickel, Life,

Dec. 10, 1971)

"Topol is so absolutely right as Teyve. If this is not the most satisfying musical film ever, surely it is awfully close to it." (Hollis

Alpert, The Saturday Review, Nov. 13, 1971)

What's Up Doc?

"I couldn't believe that our age produced this film; this decade's gaiety, such as it is, is less physical, for one thing. I laughed occasio­ nally— some of the lines are formula-funny. But I didn't laugh at anything that happened— and this in a fast-moving farce." (Stanley Kauffmann, The

New Republic, April 1, 1972)

". . .Mr. Bogdanovich proves himself a master of the old, quick- cutting style which enables him to cram his film with hundreds of gags, both visual and verbal. . ." (Richard Schickel, Life, April 7, 1972)

The Last Picture Show

"The Last Picture Show is a masterpiece. It is not merely the best

American movie of a rather dreary year; it is the most impressive work by 177 a young director since Citizen Kane." (Paul D. Zimmerman, Newsweek, Oct.

11, 1971)

"It all seems true enough, but almost every scene reminds us vaguely of something we've seen before and generally have seen better."

(Stanley Kauffmann, The New Republic, Oct. 16, 1971)

1973

The Poseidon Adventure

"But though tensions slacken and credibility is strained here, realis­ tic technical effects make the stricken ship and the efforts of its sur­ vivors to escape a fairly spellbinding adventure." (A.H. Weiler, The New

York Times, Dec. 13, 1972)

"Despite its efforts to preach the moral that man must exercise his free will if he chooses to live, The Poseidon Adventure remains essen­ tially a brainless and, alas, witless entertainment, an action movie that reaches its climax in the first twenty minutes." (Arthur Knight, The

Saturday Review, Feb., 1973)

Deliverance

"Each of the four lead performances is exceptional. . ." (Jay Cocks,

Time, Aug. 7, 1972)

"No performance deserves comment. Voight's talent is wasted in a nondescript role." (Stanley Kauffmann, The New Republic, Aug. 12, 1972)

Paper Moon

"Better than ever before, Bogdanovich has caused his individual talents as a film-maker and his seeming total recall of past film develop­ ments to unite in a harmonious whole." (Moira Walsh, America, June 2, 1973)

• • .Paper Moon is ruthlessly mechanical, a frivolous and cursory 178 piece of work that never even challenges, much less engages, its directors best abilities. The film has no perceptible feeling of any kind." (Jay

Cocks, Time, May 28, 1973)

1974

The Sting

"The Sting is pure gold, the kind of movie that dreams of sophisti­

cated entertainment are made on, one that is as good to look at as to listen to . . ." (Judith Crist, New York, Dec. 31, 1973)

"It’s more than two hours long, but if you can edit out about twenty minutes in your mind as you watch, it's passably entertaining." (Stanley

Kauffmann, The New Republic, Feb. 2, 1974)

The Exorcist

"If you want to be shaken— and I found out, while the picture was going on, that that's what I wanted— then The Exorcist will scare the hell out of you." (Stanley Kauffmann, The New Republic, Feb. 9, 1974^

"Whatever Blatty's claims, if The Exorcist scares people that's probably all it has to do, in box office terms, and basically that's all the whole unpleasant movie is designed to do." (Pauline Kael, The

New Yorker, Jan. 7, 1974)

"As a feat of film-making alone it is extraordinary, its details

chiseled and polished to near perfection. Movies have excelled in the horror genre in the past, but surely this is the best of the horror films."

(Hollis Alpert, The Saturday Review/World. Feb. 9, 1974)

Serpico

"Pacino's performance is bolstered by a screenplay and direction that respect the city-dweller's intelligence, that tells of an eleven year 179 experience with sophistication and temperance and resists endless oppor­ tunities for a wallow." (Judith Crist, New York, Dec. 10, 1973)

"The movie is great fun, but— to put it on a moral level— Serpico's crusade becomes Wexler's and Lumet's debauch. They had themselves a ball, and so will the public, but the movie turns this hero into a mere freak, and turns one of the rare hopeful stories of our time into an entertain­ ing downer." (Pauline Kael, The New Yorker, Dec. 17, 1973)

1975

The Towering Inferno

"The special effects are smashing. . . .The Towering Inferno has an advantage over most movies of this sort in that it has a really classy cast." (Vincent Canby, The New York Times, Dec. 20, 1974)

"What you cannot know, of course, is how staggeringly stupid and slow the whole burning business becomes." (Paul D. Zimmerman, Newsweek,

Dec. 30, 1974)

Young Frankenstein

". . .It is funnier (than Blazing Saddles) over the long run because it is more disciplined. The anarchy is controlled. Mr. Brooks sticks to the subject. . ." (Vincent Canby, The New York Times, Dec. 16, 1974)

"Young Frankenstein is like a sketch from the old Sid Caesar show, for which Brooks wrote, spun out ten times as long. Ten times too long.

Brooks is a sprinter and there aren't enough good sprints here." (Stanley

Kauffmann, The New Republic. Jan. 18, 1975)

"The movie works because it has the Mary Shelley story to lean on; we know that the monster will be created and get loose. And Brooks makes a leap up as a director because although the comedy doesn't build, he 180 carries the story through." (Pauline Kael, The New Yorker, Dec. 30, 1974)

"The task of turning the story ludicrously on its ear. . .causes the introduction of some 'adolescent dirty joke' sexual innuendoes. By today's criteria, they are not particularly blatant, but they left me disquieted and with a bad taste in my mouth." (Moira Walsh, America, Jan. 18, 1975)

The Godfather, Part II

"The Godfather, Part II is not very far along before one realizes that it hasn't anything more to say. Everything of any interest was thoroughly covered in the original film." (Vincent Canby, The New York

Times, Dec. 13, 1974)

". . .its ambition, vision and artistic courage make it more mar­ velous than anything we might have expected from that ill-fated form, the sequel." (Paul D. Zimmerman, Newsweek, Dec. 23, 1974) BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Books

Adler, Renata. A Year in the Dark. New York: Random House, 1969.

Arnheim, Rudolph. Film as Art. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1957.

Balazs, Bela. Theory of the Film. New York: Roy Publishers, 1953.

Bitzer, Lloyd F., and Black, Edwin. The Prospect of Rhetoric: Report of the National Developmental Project. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971.

Black, Edwin. Rhetorical Criticism, A Study in Method. Madison: Uni­ versity of Wisconsin Press, 1978.

Bobker, Lee R. Elements of Film. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1969.

Bryant, Donald. Rhetorical Dimensions in Criticism. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1973.

Burke, Kenneth. A Rhetoric of Motives. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Prentice- Hall, 1945.

------. A Grammar of Motives. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1945.

Butz, Otto. To Make a Difference. New York: Harper and Row, 1967.

Dewey, John. Art as Experience. New York: Minton, Balch and Co., 1934.

Denby, David, ed. Awake in the Dark. New York: Vintage Books, 1977.

Gelmis, Joseph. The Film Director as Superstar. New York: Doubleday, 1970.

Greene, Theodore M. The Arts and the Art of Criticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1940.

Jarvie, I. C. Movies and Society. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1970.

Kael, Pauline. I Lost It at the Movies. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1965.

181 182

---- . Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1968.

------. Going Steady. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1970.

— ---- . Deeper into Movies. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1972.

Kauffmann, Stanley. Figures of Light. New York: Harper and.Row, 1971.

------American Film Criticism. New York: Liveright, 1972. ■

Kracauer, Siegfried. Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality. New York: Oxford University Press, 1960.

Lawson, John H. Film: The Creative Process. New York: Hilland Wang, 1964.

MacCann, Richard D., ed. Film and Society. New York: Charles Scrib­ ner's Sons, 1964.

Macdonald, Dwight. On Movies. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969.

Murray, Edwin. Nine American Film Critics. New York: Ungar Publishing Co., 1975.

Pool, Ethiel de sola, and Schramm, Wilbur, eds. Handbook of Communica­ tion. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Co., 1973.

Roberts, W.R. Aristotle: Rhetoric and Poetics. New York: The Modern Library, 1954.

Sarris, Andrew. The American Cinema. New York: E.P. Dutton, 1968.

------• The Film. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1968.

------. The Primal Screen. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1973.

Schuth, H. Wayne. Mike Nichols. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1978.

Simon, John. Private Screenings. New York: Macmillan, 1967.

------. Movies into Film. New York: Dial Press, 1971.

Warshow, Robert. The Immediate Experience. Garden City: Doubleday, 1962.

II. Periodicals

Bauer, Leda V. "Movie Critics." American Mercury, January, 1929. pp. 68-72. 183

Behrens, Laurence. "The Argument in Film: Applying Rhetorical Theory to Film Criticism." Journal of the University Film Associa­ tion, XXXI, 3 (Summer, 1979): 3-11.

Benson, Thomas W. "Joe: An Essay in the Rhetorical Criticism of Film." Journal of Popular Culture 8 (August, 1974): 24-32.

Breen, Myles P. "The Rhetoric of the Short Film." Journal of the University Film Association, XXX, 3 (Summer, 1978): 3-13.

Burke, Kenneth. "Rhetoric— Old and New." Journal of General Educa­ tion (April, 1951): 200-212.

Cooper, Arthur. "The Critic as Superstar." Newsweek, December 24, 1976, pp. 95-96.

Dudar, Helen. "Pauline Kael Doesn't Speak to John Simon, John Simon Doesn't Speak to Judith Crist, Judith Crist Doesn't Speak to Rex Reed, Rex Reed Doesn't Speak to Anyone." Esquire, January, 1976, p. 153.

Eaton, Walter Prichard. "The Canned Drama." American Magazine, Sept­ ember, 1909, pp. 500-510.

Greenspun, Roger. "Leaving the Times." Film Comment, January, 1974, pp. 18-21.

MacGowan, Kenneth. "The Artistic Future of the Movies." North Ameri­ can Review CCXIII (February, 1921): 258-263.

McGilligan, Patrick. "Open Season on Critics." American Film, June, 1979, p. 6.

Medhurst, Martin J. "Image and Ambiguity: A Rhetorical Approach to the Exorcist." The Southern Speech Communication Journal (Fall 1978): 73-92.

Rushing, Janice H. and Frentz, Thomas S. "The Rhetoric of Rocky." Western Journal of Speech Communication (Spring 1978) 63-70.

Taylor, John Russell. "The Critic as Superstar." Sight & Sound, Sum­ mer, 1976, pp. 178-183.

Thompson, Richard. "Interview with Manny Farber and Patricia Patter­ son." Film Comment, May-June, 1977, pp. 42-54.

Tompkins, Phillip K. "The Rhetorical Criticism of Non—oratorical Works." The Quarterly Journal of Speech (December. 1969") : 431-439. ------184

Westley, Bruce, and Maclean, Malcolm. "A Conceptual Model for Commu­ nication Research." Journalism Quarterly 34 (Spring 1957): 31-38.

HI. Dissertations

Blades, Joseph Dalton. "A Comparative Study of Selected American Film Critics, 1958-1974." Ph.D. dissertation, Bowling Green State University, 1974.

Poggi, Gregory Joseph. "From Dramatic to Cinematic Standards: Ameri­ can Silent Film Theory and Criticism to 1929." Ph.D. disser­ tation, Indiana University, 1977.

Rabin, Ronald L. "Building a Model of Symbol use for a Pluralistic Rhetorical Criticism." Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1976.