Details. article: Circles and Squares; author(s): Pauline Kael; journal: Film Quarterly (01/Apr/); issue: volume 16, issue 3, pages ; DOI. Circles and Squares. Pauline Kael. FILM QUART, Vol. 16 No. 3, Spring, ; ( pp. ) DOI: / Pauline Kael. Find this author on Google. A rejection of Sarris’ auteur theory Learn with flashcards, games, and more — for free.

Author: Fektilar Kazrajinn
Country: Bhutan
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Science
Published (Last): 10 February 2013
Pages: 169
PDF File Size: 11.88 Mb
ePub File Size: 14.43 Mb
ISBN: 412-2-85221-633-9
Downloads: 6570
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Tuzil

And the greatness of a director like Cocteau has nothing to do with mere technical competence: Kael is asserting that the auteur theory venerates directors who repeat uninteresting and obvious devices. The smell of a skunk is more distinguishable than the perfume of a rose; does that make it better?.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: What Kael seems to be asking is whether this is really a good criterion for the critique of film.

The art of the critic is to transmit his knowledge of and enthusiasm for art to others.

They want a simple answer, a formula; if they approached a chef they would probably ask for the one magic recipe that could be followed in all cooking. And for some inexplicable reason, Sarris concludes that he would not have had this joy aquares discovery without the auteur theory.

A Couple of Squared Circles, Sarris and Kael – Part II

The technical competence of a director as a criterion of value. In essence Kael is arguing that the distinguishable personality of a director is a poor choice for criterion of judgement. An cirrcles who is not a good technician can indeed create new standards, because standards of technical competence are based on comparisons with work already done.

The Inner Circle The third and ultimate premise of the auteur theory is concerned with interior meaning, the ultimate glory of the cinema as an art. But how does this distinguishable sqyares function as a criterion for judging the works?


Keeping My Brain Alive: Circles and Squares (excerpts)

Email required Address never made public. It takes extraordinary intelligence and discrimination and taste to use any theory in the arts, and that without those qualitites, a theory becomes a rigid formula which is indeed what is happening among auteur critics.

This is not so far from the way the auteur critics work, either. Infallible taste is inconceivable; what could it be measured against? This is obvious in listening to music, seeing plays, reading novels, watching actors; we take it for granted that this is how we perceive the development or the decline of an artist.

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Criticism is an art, not a science, and a critic who follows rules will fail in one of his most important functions: I will indicate where I feel both critics have got things right and got things wrong.

Film aesthetics as a distinct, specialized field is a bad joke. You are commenting using your Facebook account. According to Kael if a director does not unify his style, the form, pailine the content of the script, then the director does not produce good art.

Film Quarterly () – Circles and Squares – The Alfred Hitchcock Wiki

The distinguishable personality of the director as a criterion of value. South Yorkshire England View all posts by A. Kael goes on to add:. The smell of a skunk is more distinguishable than the perfume of a rose; does that make it better? Oct Nov Dec This site uses cookies. Traditionally, in any art, the personalities of all those involved in a production have been a factor in judgement, but that the distinguishability kae, personality should in itself be a criterion of value completely confuses sqares judgement.

Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.

The greatness of critics like Bazin in France and Agee in America may have something to do with their using their full range of intelligence and intuition, rather than relying on formulas. Kael goes on to squuares It is an insult to ssuares artist to praise his bad work along with his good; it indicates that you are incapable of judging either And it is very difficult to explain to such people that criticism is exciting just because there is no formula to apply, just because you must use everything keal are and everything you know that is relevant, and that film criticism is particularly exciting just because of the multiplicity of elements in film art.


He is a bad critic if he does not awaken the curiosity, enlarge the interests and understanding of his audience.

By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. 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 understanding and feeling for the work, by his passion, he can excite people so that they want to experience more of the art that is there, waiting to be seized. Often the works in which we are most aware of the personality of the director are his worst films – when he falls back on the devices he has already done to death.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here The auteur critic, according to Kael, prefers products made out of inferior products: Kael, in characteristically sardonic and bitchy style, explains that: The article is professionally written and I feel like the author knows the subject very well.