As I have indicated elsewhere in this blog, when my book The Screenplay as Literature<\/i> was first published, it was not well-received by critics in the United States.\u00a0 For the most part, I felt that the early critics of my book had not actually read it; thus they could not fully grasp its purpose and central tenets.\u00a0 However, one rather scathing review at the time did indicate that the reviewer had indeed read the book and did grasp the arguments that I put forth\u2014although, he was quick to dismiss them.<\/i><\/p>\n
This review, which appeared in The Journal of Modern Literature<\/i>, begins by stating that \u201cIndeed, the book [The Screenplay as Literature<\/i>] would not even be worthy of reviewing were it not so symptomatic of the pabulum put forth by most studies which compare film with literature, the former almost inevitably bleached by the latter.\u201d\u00a0 And he wastes no time in getting to one of the core tenets of the book, quoting me as follows:<\/p>\n \u00a0Lastly, our study must be more aesthetic than technical: the quality and validity of a particular writer\u2019s or filmmaker\u2019s thoughts and ideas must take precedence over his particular mode of expression.\u00a0 Although\u00a0 the dictum\u00a0 \u201cThe variations of a theme are more important than the theme itself\u201d may be acceptable for music, it could never be acceptable in film, which as we shall see, must deal with reality and not abstraction.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Very much related, this reviewer also quotes another central tenet of my book:<\/p>\n \u201cit must always be borne in mind that a film can be no better than the idea from which it has sprung. . . .\u201d<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The reviewer, an ardent adherent of the so-called AuteurTheory, takes me to task for purportedly dismissing cinematic techniques for \u201cideas,\u201d something that the above quotes from my book may suggest, but not entirely accurately.\u00a0 For him (the late William F. Van Wert, by the way), along with many of the critics of today, aesthetic questions should have little or no place in modern cinema.\u00a0 He even extols American\u201cAuteur\u201d directors (e.g. von Sternberg and Hitchcock) who deliberately chose badly written scripts and transformed them into good films\u2014if such a thing is actually possible. Why are these central tenets?\u00a0 For the same reason we would make them the central tenets in any discussion of great novels.\u00a0 Would anyone include a novel with a trite story or developed from a faulty idea in any canon of great Literature, even though the author demonstrates superior writing skills?\u00a0 I think not. Nor should they in any canon of great films.<\/p>\n What then is the aesthetic question<\/i>?\u00a0 Well, if a film has a Lajos Egri-stlye premise, we might ask if the filmmaker did indeed prove or demonstrate his proposition.\u00a0 But for most films the question is far more subtle; yet in almost every instance we have to ask:\u00a0 \u201cWhat exactly did the writer or filmmaker intend to do, and did he succeed in doing it\u201d?\u00a0 In this regard the films of Federico Fellini are highly illustrative.<\/p>\n Federico Fellini was one of the pre-eminent filmmakers of his day (mid-1950\u2019s until his death in 1993).\u00a0 Many of his films were. and are still , considered masterpieces (e.g. La Strada<\/i> and 8 \u00bd<\/i>, 1954 and 1963, respectively).\u00a0 Fellini, who usually collaborated on the writing of his screenplays, was one of the very first filmmakers to completely master his medium.\u00a0 Such mastery was often discernible in his extensive use of the moving camera, music, color and the precision in his casting.\u00a0 Nothing in a Fellini film was arbitrary; every element was meant to dazzle the viewer.\u00a0 And the fact that you were watching a Fellini film was unmistakable.\u00a0 Yet many of his films were neither critical nor financial successes.\u00a0 A case in point would be his Juliette of the Spirits<\/i> (1965).<\/p>\n Derisively called, by some critics, a female companion piece to his previous hugely successful\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a08 \u00bd<\/i>, Juliette of the Spirits<\/i> is the story of the wife of an unfaithful middle-aged public relations director who seeks to find her own individuality.\u00a0 This is made all the more difficult as she struggles to be freed from the oppressive influence of her husband, family, \u201cfriends,\u201d and, very central to the story, terrifying hallucinations.\u00a0 However, the film, despite its cinematic pyrotechnics, didn\u2019t work.\u00a0 In my The Screenplay as Literature<\/i> I pointed out that the there was little credibility in the miraculous transformation of the heroine of Juliette of the Spirits<\/i> at the end of the film \u00a0\u201cfor a character that for all her life has passively let herself be acted upon and dominated by others.\u201d\u00a0 Where did Fellini go wrong?\u00a0\u00a0 Frankly, I don\u2019t think that I know the answer.\u00a0 Perhaps it was in his avowed purpose \u201cto restore to woman her true independence, her indisputable and inalienable dignity,\u201d even though he openly admitted that \u201cto undertake to speak calmly and clearly about a woman is almost impossible for a man.\u201d\u00a0 Or perhaps it was Fellini\u2019s over- use and over- simplification of Sigmund Freud\u2019s psychoanalytic techniques that worked so well for him in 8 \u00bd<\/i>.\u00a0\u00a0 What is important, though, is that in this instance Fellini failed:\u00a0 the questionable validity of his concept could not be masked by his brilliant mode of expression.<\/p>\n Today in America, and other countries as well, we have several filmmakers, who, like Fellini before them, also have mastered their medium.\u00a0 When you see one of their films, even if you are not totally overwhelmed by\u00a0its cinematic pyrotechnics, you certainly won\u2019t be bored.\u00a0 But often after seeing one these films you may come away with the feeling that you have just partaken of a sumptuous meal yet are still hungry.\u00a0 This begs \u201cthe aesthetic question.\u201d\u00a0 Critics need to address it instead of just effusing praise for the filmmaker\u2019s enormous talents– because when audiences \u00a0leave the theater, they most assuredly will.<\/i><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" As I have indicated elsewhere in this blog, when my book The Screenplay as Literature was first published, it was not well-received by critics in the United States.\u00a0 For the most part, I felt that the early critics of my … Continue reading