Happy Holidays from Stewart-Colbert

2 Part series of Stephen Colbert at the Harvard School of Politics.

Great sendup of the Time Person of the Year issue from The Daily Show.

What has Andrew Sarris done with the Autuer Theory

Andrew Sarris’ “Notes on the Autuer Theory in 1962” represents his attempt to show this theory from an English language viewpoint. He starts by saying that the Autuer Theory, as presented by Bazin and Truffaut, needs to be restated to take away their vagaries; “I believe there is a misunderstanding here about what the autuer theory actually claims, particularly since the theory itself is so vague at the present time.” (Sarris, 561) He also points out that Truffaut has gone to great lengths to elaborate that his theory was only meant for a given time and a given place. However Sarris seeks to update it and bring it into his view of contemporary cinema. Sarris is to freewheeling with other critics views, and too rigid with his own at times, to make this theory mold to his conception of what he thinks it should be.

At the beginning of the article Sarris seems unsure of himself and his thoughts. He states that there is no definition of the Autuer Theory in the English language as far as he knows. However, this is the point of his essay and why he thinks it is important is because he is attempting to stake his claim to the American perception of the Autuer Theory. As stated in the introduction, Truffaut’s claim that the Auteur theory was meant for a given time and a given place is not given much credence. He mentions this only in passing and says how he respects Truffaut’s notion, but Sarris then goes on to transport this idea from one time and place to another. While he was not as far removed from Truffaut’s formulation as we are, he is trying to bring it into an American context and attempting to change its meaning to justify his perception. Sarris says that the Autuer theory has changed the way that he views cinema, but he says that someone who was responsible for its creation, Bazin, did not really understand what it meant: “That three otherwise divergent critics like Bazin, Roud, and Cameron make essentially the same point about the autuer theory…I believe there is a misunderstanding about what the autuer theory actually claims,…” (561). This statement does not seem to pay the proper respect to the people that added to his appreciation of the Auteur Theory and suggests that he believes he can be the theory’s savior and properly explain it for once.

Another problem with Sarris’ argument of the Autuer theory is the rigidity with which he approaches this subject. Even though he states at the beginning that the Autuer Theory allows for exceptions from the director being the only possible Autuer in a film, he spends the rest of his time arguing which director’s can be considered Autuers. Sarris mentions Marlon Brando as a candidate in passing, and also points out how crew members on the technical side of filmmaking can be responsible for making a great film. But he never argues for the position of the actor in the Autuer Theory or that of a cinematographer, producer, or editor.

At one point Sarris states that, “An expert production crew could probably cover up for a chimpanzee in the director’s chair.” (563) This statement seems to be an oversight on Sarris’ part. The bulk of the article is arguing the championing of the director as the supreme creative force behind the making of the film. Sarris falls into his own trap at this point. He says that a pattern will be established after a given number of films about the status of that director as an Autuer. However, a bad director working with great actors and a skilled production crew could continue to make good films as long as he retained that crew. While it does appear likely that one would be able to differentiate a good director from a bad director after some time, it is not guaranteed. Therefore Sarris’ upcoming list of his twenty Autuers could be flawed.

In his list of directors that he considers to be Autuers, Sarris is ignoring part of his article. First of all there is no mention of any actors even being considered for this list, or any other crew member besides the director for that matter. Even though he says that there is room for exceptions to the director being the Autuer, he refuses to make these exceptions in his list. Therefore the possibility of a bad director populating his list exists. Even though Sarris steers the cautious course by only including directors that have a more established reputation, this reputation may not have come from their directing skills. Drawing upon the statement cited earlier, one of these directors could very well be a “chimpanzee.” He does not consider the fact, or at least does not present evidence to the contrary, that one of these directors could have had their faults covered up by an expert crew and skilled actors on numerous occasions.

Throughout his article, Sarris digs holes but never seems to fill them. The notion that a list can be formed of great directors is not completely faulty, but it deserves more discussion than he allows for. Sarris mentions that there could be more discussion on the topic by revealing that he has a supplementary list of two hundred other potential Autuers. But this topic is never engaged as he floats off to other ones. The notion of the Autuer theory is fine, but the way that Sarris argues it is very loose and he never really engages the reader into his meaning. Though he makes some good points about the nature of the Autuer Theory, he never truly explores it to the extent that one would expect. And while Sarris takes fault in other critics being very vague in their definitions of the Autuer Theory, he further devolves into this trap by staying very vague himself. “Notes on the Autuer Theory in 1962” seeks to enlighten the English speaking world as to what the Autuer Theory could be. But due to Sarris’ free floating ideas based on other critics thoughts, along with the rigidity of his own; the article never becomes convincing as to why the English speaking world should care.

You're Next

“They’re already here, you’re next!” These are the frantic ravings of Dr. Miles Bennell (Kevin McCarthy) at the intended ending of Don Siegel’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956). This moment shows the overwhelming fear that has taken over Miles, and perhaps the paranoia that had overtaken the original story writer, Jack Finney, and Siegel as well. This film shows the American resistance to everything that is different, and our almost violent tendencies to retain the status-quo. Siegel builds a palpable sense of dread to carry along his viewers as he calls us to fight against subversion and to retain the white-male dominated, American way of life.

The film first suggests the idea of subversion early on during Miles’ first flashback. He talks about how everything looked normal in Santa Mira upon his return from the city; however he suggests that something was seriously wrong beneath the surface. Understanding the fear of what lies beneath the surface is the key to recognizing what makes this film so resonant. Everyone has the fear that their secrets will be found out by others. We also fear that we may not truly know our loved ones. This creates a fear of what cannot be seen, and a protective urge of what we do not want to be uncovered. However this fear of what lies beneath the surface is also alluring. Many people find it necessary to uncover other people’s secrets. This creates power from the knowledge that has been gained. But there is also the deeper satisfaction of uncovering the mystery that motivates people to dwell beneath the surface.

Miles is called back into town at the beginning of the film because so many people have been showing up to his practice to see him. But when he returns, everyone says that it was nothing important, and he need not worry about them. This is the beginning of Miles’ curiosity of what could be wrong with his town and it is the motivation to find out what has subverted his town. He can tell that something has infiltrated the town’s populace, and it becomes imperative that he uncovers what it is.

He can tell immediately that something has transformed the townspeople’s need for medical care, which directly undermines his place in society. As the typical male protagonist he is willing to fight to protect his place, which means upholding the economy that supports him, and protecting the woman he loves so he can have control over a family as well. This would reaffirm his place in the male order that dominates society. And the woman that he must protect is Becky Driscoll (Dana Wynter), who becomes the films female protagonist.

When Becky is first introduced at the Doctor’s office, she is not dressed in typical attire for a domesticated woman during the 1950’s. Her dress is quite revealing and she openly flirts with Miles as the two of them revel in the other’s sexual innuendo filled banter. Both Becky and Miles are recent divorcees and this is somewhat threatening to Miles. He realizes that Becky is a sexually liberated woman which gives her an unusual amount of power. While Miles is drawn to Becky’s beauty and sexuality, he is also threatened by it. This makes it imperative for him to bring her under his fold through matrimony as quick as possible. He needs her to be married to him in order for the patriarchal order to be restored in his life. His hold on power has already been subverted from him once by his first wife, and he must prevent that from happening again. However, the courtship of Becky is continually interrupted and eventually cut short by the invading alien duplicates.

These duplicates happen upon Santa Mira to begin their conquest. This small town represents any that you would find throughout the country. The notion that a small suburban town could be corrupted by outsiders was exceedingly frightening during the fifties and remains so today. A principal fear in the time that the film was made was that America was being subverted by communists and their spies. This fear spanned from the highest levels of government, all the way to the average family. America as a whole was afraid of losing its national identity, as were Miles and Becky. The alien duplicates offer them a simpler life, where they will not have to worry about work or feelings. They also offer a different form of reproduction that renders the differences between men and women obsolete. This strikes up fear in both Miles and Becky, as they want to experience emotions and be in love. However this life offered by the duplicates is appealing to some, who seem to thrive under it after they have been taken over. And it is perhaps indicative in Miles’ anger that he is attracted to the concept of this new way of life subconsciously. However his fear of losing his place of power in Santa Mira is too much for him. For the duplicates are offering a life where doctors are not needed, therefore taking his identity in terms of his personality, and in his work life.

By the end of the film, Miles has been thoroughly emasculated by losing his job, his position of power, and his potential wife to the alien duplicates. When Becky is finally overtaken by the aliens, it is because Miles leaves her alone for an instant. Becky is portrayed as being very weak, because she needs Miles to protect her from the duplicates. Siegel shows her as being weak and submissive, because the second that she is left alone, she is willingly overtaken by her duplicate because she cannot fight off sleep by herself. The only reason she makes it as far as she does without this happening is because she had Miles to protect her. This is an ongoing theme throughout the movie, from the time that he finds her duplicate and carries her down the stairs like a child, all the way to the end when he is trying everything he can to keep her awake. Miles never seems to have much of a problem staying awake. He is doing all he can to exert his power over the aliens, and to retain his place in society. When Becky is finally overtaken by the aliens he has lost his final position of power, that of the patriarch over a family. When he goes to kiss her and she does not respond, it is clear that he has lost his sexual power over her. This is the final emasculation, and it drives him to madness. The following moments show his complete impotency as he is trying to warn his fellow man about the danger that is going to subvert them as well. He is only saved in the end, by authority figures that still retain their power over their own families and towns.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers continues to be an effective film. The fears expressed by Miles and Becky during the film are still very prevalent today. Everyone has a fear of losing their identity; whether it is their personality, or their position as a person of power at home or in society. The film succeeds at evoking suspense from the impending doom of the characters, and of society as a whole. Siegel seemed more pessimistic than the studio by wanting to end the film with Miles’ final descent into madness, as he screams wildly at the passing cars on the highway. Siegel feared that the white male was already losing its grip of power over society. However, he was overruled by his supervisors to tack on the optimistic ending. This was so the producers could reassure themselves, and society as a whole, that nothing was about to change.

Did You Kill The Electric Car

As I started backlogging some old writing for my blog I realized that I never posted this review that appeared in The Seahawk on November 2nd.

Take a look and check out the DVD.

The New Yorker on The Office

Here is an interesting article from the most recent issue of The New Yorker.  It talks about the British and American versions of The Office.  It also brings in the notion that they were heavily influenced by the works of Samuel Beckett.