This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/jun/22/andrew-sarris
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Andrew Sarris obituary | |
| (40 minutes later) | |
| Jean Sibelius once claimed that "no statue has ever been put up to a critic". If there were such a proposal, then Andrew Sarris, who has died aged 83 from complications after a fall, would be among the first to be honoured. It was Sarris, inspired by François Truffaut's article Une Certain Tendance du Cinéma Français, published in Cahiers du Cinéma in 1954, who eight years later formulated the "auteur theory". Sarris coined that term in his 1962 essay Notes on the Auteur Theory, which he developed later in his influential book The American Cinema: Directors and Directions 1929-1968. | Jean Sibelius once claimed that "no statue has ever been put up to a critic". If there were such a proposal, then Andrew Sarris, who has died aged 83 from complications after a fall, would be among the first to be honoured. It was Sarris, inspired by François Truffaut's article Une Certain Tendance du Cinéma Français, published in Cahiers du Cinéma in 1954, who eight years later formulated the "auteur theory". Sarris coined that term in his 1962 essay Notes on the Auteur Theory, which he developed later in his influential book The American Cinema: Directors and Directions 1929-1968. |
| The much-misused term "auteur" was applied mostly to film directors working as contractors for the Hollywood studios who, nevertheless, revealed their own distinctive style and personal vision. Primarily, Sarris made American critics, and eventually audiences, aware of the importance of the director. Hitherto, reviews were more focused on the stars, the plot and the genre rather than the director. Today, thanks to Sarris, it is common to consider the director as the prime mover of the film. As such, the history of American film criticism can be divided into before and after Sarris. | The much-misused term "auteur" was applied mostly to film directors working as contractors for the Hollywood studios who, nevertheless, revealed their own distinctive style and personal vision. Primarily, Sarris made American critics, and eventually audiences, aware of the importance of the director. Hitherto, reviews were more focused on the stars, the plot and the genre rather than the director. Today, thanks to Sarris, it is common to consider the director as the prime mover of the film. As such, the history of American film criticism can be divided into before and after Sarris. |
| He was born in Brooklyn, New York, to Greek immigrant parents and grew up in Ozone Park, Queens. He remained proud of his Greek heritage, and was a particular devotee of Greek food. After graduating from Columbia University, New York, in 1951, he served with the army signal corps, during which time he wrote movie columns for an armed-forces magazine. | He was born in Brooklyn, New York, to Greek immigrant parents and grew up in Ozone Park, Queens. He remained proud of his Greek heritage, and was a particular devotee of Greek food. After graduating from Columbia University, New York, in 1951, he served with the army signal corps, during which time he wrote movie columns for an armed-forces magazine. |
| In 1955 Sarris met Jonas and Adolfas Mekas, who had just launched a magazine called Film Culture that championed avant-garde film-making. The 26-year-old Sarris became an unpaid reviewer for the magazine while working for the US Census Bureau. However, in 1960 Jonas Mekas asked him to fill in for him as film critic on the Village Voice, where he stayed for almost three decades. | In 1955 Sarris met Jonas and Adolfas Mekas, who had just launched a magazine called Film Culture that championed avant-garde film-making. The 26-year-old Sarris became an unpaid reviewer for the magazine while working for the US Census Bureau. However, in 1960 Jonas Mekas asked him to fill in for him as film critic on the Village Voice, where he stayed for almost three decades. |
| Significantly, Sarris's first review for the once influential weekly New York paper was of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. "At that time," he said, "people objected to the fact that I treated Hitchcock as a major artist." Neither the French nor the British needed much persuading, but the Americans needed to be convinced that Hitchcock was a great director rather than a minor entertainer. Sarris also succeeded in making people revalue the talents of directors such as Howard Hawks, Nicholas Ray, Otto Preminger and Anthony Mann. | Significantly, Sarris's first review for the once influential weekly New York paper was of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. "At that time," he said, "people objected to the fact that I treated Hitchcock as a major artist." Neither the French nor the British needed much persuading, but the Americans needed to be convinced that Hitchcock was a great director rather than a minor entertainer. Sarris also succeeded in making people revalue the talents of directors such as Howard Hawks, Nicholas Ray, Otto Preminger and Anthony Mann. |
| His personal tastes were detailed in The American Cinema, probably the book most thumbed by film critics. Sarris categorised directors under chapter headings such as Pantheon Directors; The Far Side of Paradise; Expressive Esoterica; Fringe Benefits; Less Than Meets the Eye; Lightly Likable; Strained Seriousness; Oddities, One Shots and Newcomers; Subjects for Further Research; and Make Way for the Clowns. Many of the directors' labels were questionable – especially the Less Than Meets the Eye chapter, in which John Huston, William Wyler and Billy Wilder featured. Some also objected to Stanley Kubrick being placed among the Strained Seriousness section – Sarris changed many of his views subsequently – but the book still makes a valid contribution to a general understanding and appreciation of American cinema. | His personal tastes were detailed in The American Cinema, probably the book most thumbed by film critics. Sarris categorised directors under chapter headings such as Pantheon Directors; The Far Side of Paradise; Expressive Esoterica; Fringe Benefits; Less Than Meets the Eye; Lightly Likable; Strained Seriousness; Oddities, One Shots and Newcomers; Subjects for Further Research; and Make Way for the Clowns. Many of the directors' labels were questionable – especially the Less Than Meets the Eye chapter, in which John Huston, William Wyler and Billy Wilder featured. Some also objected to Stanley Kubrick being placed among the Strained Seriousness section – Sarris changed many of his views subsequently – but the book still makes a valid contribution to a general understanding and appreciation of American cinema. |
| "I am prepared to concede that auteurism is and always has been more of a tendency than a theory, more a mystique than a methodology," Sarris wrote in later years. Auteurists are content to describe the stylistic and thematic epiphanies of their favourite auteurs. But according to anti-auteurists such as Pauline Kael, auteurists were invariably male, never bathed because it took time away from their viewing of old movies. They preferred trash to art and shared a preposterous passion for Jerry Lewis. They also encouraged the younger generation not to read books. | "I am prepared to concede that auteurism is and always has been more of a tendency than a theory, more a mystique than a methodology," Sarris wrote in later years. Auteurists are content to describe the stylistic and thematic epiphanies of their favourite auteurs. But according to anti-auteurists such as Pauline Kael, auteurists were invariably male, never bathed because it took time away from their viewing of old movies. They preferred trash to art and shared a preposterous passion for Jerry Lewis. They also encouraged the younger generation not to read books. |
| This caricature was far from the truth. Sarris, always very dapper, was a cultured man, more likely to quote Baudelaire and Kierkegaard than a film director. The feud between Sarris, the unconditional auteurist, and Kael, who questioned the notion of auteurship, had passionate supporters on either side. It was a lively diversion, though of little interest outside the film critics' fraternity. | This caricature was far from the truth. Sarris, always very dapper, was a cultured man, more likely to quote Baudelaire and Kierkegaard than a film director. The feud between Sarris, the unconditional auteurist, and Kael, who questioned the notion of auteurship, had passionate supporters on either side. It was a lively diversion, though of little interest outside the film critics' fraternity. |
| I met Sarris on two occasions, including once at the Berlin film festival in the 1980s when he listened politely and patiently to what I had to say about a film, and then calmly but witheringly demolished my argument. | I met Sarris on two occasions, including once at the Berlin film festival in the 1980s when he listened politely and patiently to what I had to say about a film, and then calmly but witheringly demolished my argument. |
| In 1969 he married the feminist film critic Molly Haskell, and they made a formidable and stimulating couple. Sarris continued to write clear, witty and trenchant film criticism regularly until 2009 and he was a revered professor of film at Columbia University, teaching courses in international film history, American cinema and Hitchcock until his retirement in 2011. Towards the end of his professorship, some students complained that he would fall asleep in class, to which the dean responded that Sarris asleep was better than some critics awake. | In 1969 he married the feminist film critic Molly Haskell, and they made a formidable and stimulating couple. Sarris continued to write clear, witty and trenchant film criticism regularly until 2009 and he was a revered professor of film at Columbia University, teaching courses in international film history, American cinema and Hitchcock until his retirement in 2011. Towards the end of his professorship, some students complained that he would fall asleep in class, to which the dean responded that Sarris asleep was better than some critics awake. |
| Sarris was optimistic to the end. "I disagree with those who say film criticism is in crisis. There might be fewer people looking for a fight. It might be less polemical than it was when subscribing to a certain film theory could make you a marked man among your fellow critics. But I think as long as film-makers keep making great work … the work will resonate and we will continue to wrestle with it." | Sarris was optimistic to the end. "I disagree with those who say film criticism is in crisis. There might be fewer people looking for a fight. It might be less polemical than it was when subscribing to a certain film theory could make you a marked man among your fellow critics. But I think as long as film-makers keep making great work … the work will resonate and we will continue to wrestle with it." |
| His other books included Confessions of a Cultist, The Primal Screen and You Ain't Heard Nothing Yet: The American Talking Film, History and Memory 1927-1949. | His other books included Confessions of a Cultist, The Primal Screen and You Ain't Heard Nothing Yet: The American Talking Film, History and Memory 1927-1949. |
| He is survived by Haskell. | He is survived by Haskell. |
| • Andrew Sarris, film critic, born 31 October 1928; died 20 June 2012 | • Andrew Sarris, film critic, born 31 October 1928; died 20 June 2012 |