week four - bonnie and clyde

Kramer argues that 'newness' was not actually the main characteristic of the bulk of Hollywood-centered film criticism in the 1960s. Instead it was devoted to a "systematic critical re-evaluation and close analysis of the work of a small group of directors." Funnily enough, most of this critical re-evaluation and analysis had to do with the "newness" and "uniqueness" that they could provide come time to bump America back up into the running of countries making things happen in the cinema.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kael’s critique of art cinema and the New American Cinema was that they were using trash, and creating buzz around it to promote it to the status of "true art." Concerning the New American Cineman, Kael says that there was a full rejection of "craftsmanship," (i.e. the writing, directing, acting and producing sucked,) and that their standard was set so low that anything on film could be considered good. She also criticized the art house audience, saying that they accept "lack of clarity as complexity... and confusion as 'ambiguity' and as style."

When Bonnie and Clyde came out, Pauline Kael glorified it, calling it the "most excitingly American American movie" in half a decade. This is because of the connection and spark it had with the audience, electrifying people back into good cinema. She also said that concurrent with the "true art" that America was capable of creating, it fell back into line with the good classical cinema, while remaining true to it's own 'new wave' era (since many people saw Bonnie and Clyde as marking the beginning of the American film renaissance.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which critics were on opposing sides of the debate over Bonnie and Clyde, and why?

Bosley Crowther, Variety magazine and Page Cook all lamented the movie, saying it was trash. Crowther was by far the most scathing, calling the movie lazy, indulgent, and reckless. His review set the stage, and from then on was essentially the starting point for most other reviews. Page Cook said it was "incompetent" in all areas, and was using a faux idea (sociopathology) and disguising it as art.

On the other side of the fence, William Wolf, Jacob Suskind, Wilfred Sheed, and Andrew Sarris all gave it thumbs up, although the latter mainly used his review to chastise Crowther. Wolf judged it as authentic and a "major artistic achievement." Suskind wrote that he felt as though he was witnessing history through the lens of a documentary camera. Sheed called it a "mural of the thirties," and even the National Catholic Office for Motion Pictures gave it a good review, despite the overt violence.

And then there are people like Joseph Morgenstern, who hated it the first time around (influence abroad?) and then changed his opinion after a second viewing.

Why were these people on opposite sides of the fence? I have no idea. I guess because thats how movie reviews tend to go... some people love em', some people hate em'. And hopefully, you write what's true to you ---> hence, opposing outcomes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------