Pauline Kael's Criticism of the Auteur Theory

Some people have been critical of Andrew Sarris’ essay, and also then reject the notion of filmmakers having the right to be called an Auteur. One of the main voices on the side of this argument was US film critic Pauline Kael. Sarris and Kael also frequently feuded about the subject on the pages of the New Yorker and also other film magazines. In this extract she is noticeably critical abo

ut the auteur philosophy. “Sarris has noticed that in High Sierra (not a very good movie) Raoul Walsh repeated an uninteresting and obvious device that he had earlier used in a worse movie. And for some inexplicable reason, Sarris concludes that he would not have had this joy of discovery without the auteur theory.” (Kael, 1979: 667). In this exert Kael says in her stony eyed way, that why are we reading into the unattractive parts of a filmmakers work, and praising them for repeatedly allowing these flaws to be repeated throughout the filmmakers filmography and then on top of this calling him or her an auteur? Although some people may feel very differently about the quality of Raoul Walsh’s work, this is though a very strong argument. Another of her main disagreements with Sarris’ Notes on the Auteur Theory is that it disregards directors that have great technical competency. For example Hayao Miyazaki is a master of his craft. He writes and directs all of his film, but also has a strict hand on attitude for all aspects of his fil

ms, as he knows distinctly how he wants his film to be. This is because he has had experience in his earlier life as an animator and concept artist, skills that helped him to cofound his own production company Studio Ghibli. But there has not been much debate whether Hayao Miyazaki should be thought of as an auteur, this something that Kael believes is very unjust, as some people maybe are saying that style is more important than substance.

Her argument with the second of Sarris’ criteria that the directors personality, his or her “stylistic personality’ should be displayed through the film. Is something that she believes goes against the train of thought that we have for all other art forms. As you are able to see from this exert. “Traditionally, in any art, the personalities of all those involved in a production have been a factor in judgment, but that the distinguishability of personality should in itself be a criterion of value completely confuses normal judgment. The smell of a skunk is more distinguishable than the perfume of a rose; does that make it better?” (Kael, 1979: 671). In this she raises the argument that why should we congratulate people who have distinctive style to their work even if it isn’t that great to begin with? Also stating that saying people have a particular style to their work is a very simplis

tic approach. As through out history people have always thought of artists having different style whether they are musicians, artists or writers. This personality trait is by no such means something that is unique to film.

Printed References

Kael, P. (1963) Circles And Squares, Film Quarterly, vol. 16, No. 3 ed. University of California Press

Filmography

High Sierra, (1941) directed by Raoul Walsh, America, Warner Bros. Pictures, [video:DVD]