Cahiers Catch-All Thread: From Auteur to Z

[domino harvey]

I voraciously devoured all of Christophe Fouchet's Histoire Du Mac-Mahonisme and it is a major work of exhumation of this period in French film criticism. Ironically, though Cahiers is not its subject, I learned more new information about the journal from this book than I did in the dreadful Bickerton book. Of course Fouchet already has a big advantage over Bickerton in that he’s not only actually read the film journals he writes about, but he’s seen and thought about many of the films discussed. There’s an aside in the book in which Fouchet declares Walsh’s the Naked and the Dead as Walsh’s masterpiece. This is, of course, an insane position, but it’s the kind of insane position I want to hear coming from the guy writing about the MacMahonists!

There’s so much new information here that I hardly know where to start, but some fascinating bulletpoints will suffice for a first pass:

+ Fouchet makes a convincing argument that the MacMahonists looked at films in ways which corresponded with right wing approaches, but without any interest in politics. This goes a long way towards explaining how they could possibly be obsessed with an ultra-left wing film like Losey’s the Lawless. Fouchet also claims that Cahiers’ opposition to Losey was politically motivated (and indeed the issue devoted to him ultimately led to Rohmer getting fired in favor of Rivette)

+ Mizoguchi in this period is the one universally beloved filmmaker across all cliques and political affiliations. The reason the MacMahonists did not write much on him is because they felt compelled to “discover” and advocate for outre subjects, and everyone already took Mizoguchi as a given

+ Fouchet touches on but does not devote as much time as he could to the MacMahonists’ bastardization of the Hollywood star system, enjoying bad films because they like an actor or actress in them. Star as Auteur is a field of thought a lot of film writers and boutique labels seem to struggle with, but it explains some of their rather bizarre predilections (though Fouchet introduces but does not expand to analyze why they would love a figure like Charlton Heston, which one can nonetheless extrapolate without much effort)

+ Fouchet draws a distinction between how the MacMahonists and Cahiers crew viewed auteurism. This is the only part of the book where I felt Fouchet trusted what the Cahiers critics claimed over their actual views— believing their word that they value a bad film by a great auteur, when there are countless examples of sacred cow directors getting bulleted by the Young Turks in the Conseil. For Fouchet, the difference is that MacMahonists were only concerned with the peaks of a director’s works, and felt free to ignore the rest. As I fill in gaps in many of my favorite directors filmographies with mostly disappointing returns, I can appreciate this approach! We learn some fascinating asterisks for directors beloved by the MacMahonists— how their “discovery” of Allan Dwan extended almost solely to the films he made with producer Benedict Bogeaus for RKO (those seven films collected in that Carlotta DVD set), or how they felt no compulsion to seek out every Walsh film while bolstering him as one of the Four Aces

+ The adoption, raising, and abandonment of Joseph Losey as their honorary leader at the peak of his talent for “refusing to listen” to their input is a fascinating story within a story here. Fouchet is more even handed about it than I would be: it’s insane to ditch Losey right at the height of his powers as he makes his best film (the Servant). But the sense of ownership the MacMahonists felt over him is a great indicator of the power wielded by a minority

+ We learn how the MacMahonists established a reparatory screening program to distribute beloved older films that either bombed or were never shown in France. This eventually died out when other competing programmers attempted the same thing and “diluted” the discoveries by programming films deemed not worth rescuing by the MacMahonists

+ One fascinating main point of Fouchet’s book is that essentially the MacMahonists became irrelevant because their most forthright tastes were co-opted by the wider audiences. Lang, Preminger, Walsh, and Losey indeed are still well loved today, and no one would think twice about someone praising them, but this wasn’t always the case. While the minutiae of why the MacMahonists loved these directors may not have been shared, the end result was the same

+ The MacMahonists ultimately floundered because by the mid 60s, at the height of film art worldwide, they felt abandoned and betrayed by current trends and retreated completely into the past. There’s a hilarious moment in the book where Fouchet lists all the major films which released in 1965 and 1966 and notes after that every single one was trashed by the MacMahonists!

+ Like Cahiers, Presence du cinema (the MacMahonist’s journal) had an outsized impact on film criticism and viewing habits compared to its relative reach (kind of like the old apocryphal claim that everyone who attended a Velvet Underground show went on to start a band), and the final chapter does a good job of showing their impact (including introducing one neo-MacMahonist who devoted himself to writing about Ally McBeal!)

+ And finally, Eric Rohmer terrorized every contributor to Cahiers except Luc Moullet, who could do whatever he wanted because Rohmer found him amusing. It is later noted that Moullet would attend screenings at the Mac-Mahon wearing an eyepatch (in reverence or mockery of half of the four aces being one-eyed)

This book deserves a real translation (and from what I gather, even its French release is a “print on demand” affair), it is a fountain of potent research and reframing

[nowhereisaplace]

That's great, this is all good info! I love the story of Rohmer and Moullet, which seems confirmed by Moullet's articles at the time definitely being outside the Cahiers norm at the time. Cahiers under Rohmer's leadership sounds like it was an interesting place to work.

[domino harvey]

There's a few anecdotes about Rohmer here that show he took his position as being apart from the rest of the Young Turks in age in a similar manner to Bazin, ie as a bit of a fatherly elder. But even though Rohmer disagreed with the MacMahonists' famous polemic (linked on the previous page) and said as much in his intro to its publication in Cahiers, he still rightly recognized it was worth printing. Fouchet def has knives out for Rivette's run at Cahiers, though, and not without justification

One other interesting component of this book is briefly highlighting the discoveries made by the MacMahonists after Presence du cinema folded. One thinks of influential French critics' tastes as crystalized and frozen in time from the periods of their greatest visibility, but I was amused, for instance, that one of the main figures went on to discover and love King Hu. Yes, of course he would!

[colinr0380]

Thanks for the great work domino! Its great to find out more about the history of French film criticism, tussling over their favoured auteurs, and find out that Cahiers did not have it all their own way!

[zedz]

It doesn't particularly fit here, but this is the closest to a general auteurism thread on the forum, I believe.

The very specific, nicely nuanced credit on the recent film Enzo reads:
Un film de Laurent Cantet
realise par Robin Campillo

(The film was to be directed by Cantet before his untimely death, and his friend and frequent collaborator Campillo wanted to preserve his authorship in the final credit.)

[rrenault]

So I have a question. I’ve run into issues on other film discussion forums where I’d start talking about auteurism, auteurist taste, and so forth, and people would act like I’m crazy.

I guess I sort of assume when I mention auteurist taste and the auteurist canon that it’s tacitly understood among film buffs I’m referring to the « Sarris canon » and the OG mid-century Cahiers paradigm and all the subsequent writing on film that’s clearly influenced by that mode of thought. I assume auteurism is a bit more specific than just appreciating cinema-as-a-director’s-medium in which any critically acclaimed and ambitious director is an auteur.

In short, for me auteurism essentially means Sarris/Cahiers annd subsequent thought influenced by them and not simply “appreciation of great directors”.

[domino harvey]

I’m happy to help with this but I’m not quite sure I understand what you’re asking. Are you suggesting that auteurism as an approach is tied to the specific directors championed by Cahiers and Sarris? Because that’s not really how anyone views the auteur theory. Citing a Cahiers/Sarris approved director like Hawks et al as an illustration of the concept is commonplace because he is widely recognized as a director with an identifiable vision and approach and there has been a lot written on it so it gets taught/furthered, but to exclude a director who clearly fits the criteria while not part of this canon, like say Kubrick, seems pointless and confusing the approach for a permission slip of directors you’re allowed to like or discuss

[rrenault]

True. I agree that auteurism isn’t tied to a specific set of directors. It’s more about how and why one likes the directors they like, although I seem to remember Dan Sallitt once saying something to the effect he felt he’d have to completely reasses his relationship to cinema as an art form if he found himself veering too far from dyed in the wool auteurism in his taste. I’m paraphrasing of course, but with him at least, it does sort of seem as if theory is preceding taste.

[diamonds]

I’m paraphrasing of course, but with him at least, it does sort of seem as if theory is preceding taste.

Sallitt's assertion is that auteurism is a taste, and not a theory.

[rrenault]

I’m paraphrasing of course, but with him at least, it does sort of seem as if theory is preceding taste.

Sallitt's assertion is that auteurism is a taste, and not a theory.

Well yes. That’s sort of what I meant: “I subscribe to the school of auteurism. Therefore I like the following directors”.

That’s what I would define as theory preceding taste.

[domino harvey]

Well if you subscribe to Truffaut’s specific politique that’s something a bit different but that’s not what anyone really means when discussing auteurism unless they specify. Best not to treat it like dogma, especially since Truffaut and his colleagues almost immediately diverted from the initial polemic anyways

[Mr Sausage]

I’m paraphrasing of course, but with him at least, it does sort of seem as if theory is preceding taste.

Sallitt's assertion is that auteurism is a taste, and not a theory.

Well yes. That’s sort of what I meant: “I subscribe to the school of auteurism. Therefore I like the following directors”.

That’s what I would define as theory preceding taste.

That's more like theory determining taste, which...seems like a bad idea. Most auteurism today takes a 'theory divorced from taste' stance, where auteurism is considered true without that making auteurist films or filmmakers intrinsically better. I always thought Sarris and co.'s big mistake was taking a quasi-Leavisite position, where auteurism wasn't simply descriptive but a badge of honour signaling the real tradition of high art in film. That tended towards absolutism. I believe they infamously declared that the worst film by an auteur was intrinsically more valuable than the best film by a non-auteur, which now comes across as posturing.

You can tell auteurism is still alive and well by the fact it's moved beyond its origins. Like language, the moment an art theory becomes fixed in time, it's dead.

[rrenault]

Well if you subscribe to Truffaut’s specific politique that’s something a bit different but that’s not what anyone really means when discussing auteurism unless they specify. Best not to treat it like dogma, especially since Truffaut and his colleagues almost immediately diverted from the initial polemic anyways

True true

I think Rivette was the one most committed his entire life to the dogmatic strain of auteurism.

[rrenault]

Sallitt's assertion is that auteurism is a taste, and not a theory.

Well yes. That’s sort of what I meant: “I subscribe to the school of auteurism. Therefore I like the following directors”.

That’s what I would define as theory preceding taste.

That's more like theory determining taste, which...seems like a bad idea. Most auteurism today takes a 'theory divorced from taste' stance, where auteurism is considered true without that making auteurist films or filmmakers intrinsically better. I always thought Sarris and co.'s big mistake was taking a quasi-Leavisite position, where auteurism wasn't simply descriptive but a badge of honour signaling the real tradition of high art in film. That tended towards absolutism. I believe they infamously declared that the worst film by an auteur was intrinsically more valuable than the best film by a non-auteur, which now comes across as posturing.

You can tell auteurism is still alive and well by the fact it's moved beyond its origins. Like language, the moment an art theory becomes fixed in time, it's dead.

Well I think a lot of the absolutism was a Hail Mary attempt to make sure film was respected as an art form *the right way* and that “Kael-ism” didn’t win the taste war.

I agree in today’s context such absolutism wouldn’t serve much purpose, intellectual or otherwise.

[diamonds]

Well yes. That’s sort of what I meant: “I subscribe to the school of auteurism. Therefore I like the following directors”.

That’s what I would define as theory preceding taste.

To me, he seems to be implying the reverse of your formulation, something like: "My taste in cinema finds me gravitating toward certain films/directors due to elements I perceive in their direction. That makes me an auteurist." He writes in the article that he has given up on the idea of "a pure and objective standard for auteurism," that it has no identifiable unique tenets, which would seem to contradict the idea that he believes in auteurism as a school to which one subscribes.

[domino harvey]

It’s worth remembering that all of the Cahiers critics were much more capricious than the mystique surrounding them suggests. Look at something as pointless as Rohmer’s review of South Pacific to see that any approach to film is malleable and a game at some level

[Mr Sausage]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Cahiers bunch were never systematizing or theoretical critics, right? It was only later American critics like Sarris who tried to make some system of it.

[rrenault]

Well yes. That’s sort of what I meant: “I subscribe to the school of auteurism. Therefore I like the following directors”.

That’s what I would define as theory preceding taste.

To me, he seems to be implying the reverse of your formulation, something like: "My taste in cinema finds me gravitating toward certain films/directors due to elements I perceive in their direction. That makes me an auteurist." He writes in the article that he has given up on the idea of "a pure and objective standard for auteurism," that it has no identifiable unique tenets, which would seem to contradict the idea that he believes in auteurism as a school to which one subscribes.

Could be, although I suppose, in truth, it's a chicken and egg scenario.

Don't get me wrong. I think Sallitt genuinely likes the directors he claims to actively like but with people in general there can be a tendency to not allow oneself to like certain things without rational justification, and said rational justifications tend to often rely on already extant critical frameworks, such as, for instance, Sarris' critical paradigm as outlined in The American Cinema. I guess what I'm saying is Sallitt seems like the sort of person who won't allow himself to just go "Man, Last Year at Marienbad (or Tree of Life or any other highly opaque film) was such a weird crazy film. I can't make heads or tails of it, but it was interesting and I definitely felt something. I'll have to revisit and mull it over I guess". I feel the whole "I didn't understand it, but I liked it and found it interesting nonetheless" phenomenon is a healthy part of aesthetic appreciation in general that I feel a lot of film critics actively resist.

[domino harvey]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Cahiers bunch were never systematizing or theoretical critics, right? It was only later American critics like Sarris who tried to make some system of it.

The journal in the late 60s and 70s was (as you’d expect, given the rise in popularity of film theory at the time), but assuming you mean “Cahiers” as short hand for the Young Turks era and a few years on either side of that (which is generally how I use it as well), their approaches in this period only seem to be systemic if you take them at their word rather than their implementation (a problem that continues to plague authors discussing this journal, be they bad [Bickerton] or good [Fouchet]), or worse, on reputation. I’d say the driving force of most of Cahiers writings were ways to justify and reflect the critic’s moral outlook within the film they liked (and the inverse for those they didn’t). Beyond that, rigorousness to any coherent throughline is hard to find, despite the common perception

[rrenault]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Cahiers bunch were never systematizing or theoretical critics, right? It was only later American critics like Sarris who tried to make some system of it.

Probably yes. I suppose on the French side the deliberate systemizing came more from folks like Deleuze with his Time Image and Movement Image books, although I know a film academic in real life who structures his introductory courses to film theory around the idea in the 20th century there were two primary modes of thought regarding what film as art fundamentally "is" with one mode being Arnheim and the other being Bazin.

So I guess Sarris' writings were to a large extent pattern recognition based on the disparate writings and comments of Bazin and the Young Turks during the preceding 10-15 years.

[domino harvey]

A brief illustration of how inconsistent Cahiers were with even their most famous approach. In his essay, Truffaut names Joshua Logan as an auteur (he, perhaps presciently, amends this as “budding” auteurism, however). This makes sense as Bus Stop and Picnic opened in France within months of each other and made a huge impact on the journal— Picnic is not, perhaps, a film one associates with Cahiers, but it should be, as it was rapturously received by all contributors. But Truffaut and the others could not possibly realize the extent to which Logan’s next film, Sayonara, would be indefensible on any level, much less in self-evident artistry! So does Cahiers double down on the virtues and distinction already made and find the value in a film with a credible claim on being the worst film of the decade anyways? No, they claim they were fooled and he wasn’t an auteur after all. Convenient!

[rrenault]

A brief illustration of how inconsistent Cahiers were with even their most famous approach. In his essay, Truffaut names Joshua Logan as an auteur (he, perhaps presciently, amends this as “budding” auteurism, however). This makes sense as Bus Stop and Picnic opened in France within months of each other and made a huge impact on the journal— Picnic is not, perhaps, a film one associates with Cahiers, but it should be, as it was rapturously received by all contributors. But Truffaut and the others could not possibly realize the extent to which Logan’s next film, Sayonara, would be indefensible on any level, much less in self-evident artistry! So does Cahiers double down on the virtues and distinction already made and find the value in a film with a credible claim on being the worst film of the decade anyways? No, they claim they were fooled and he wasn’t an auteur after all. Convenient!

Something I have noticed in recent years is how a lot of filmmakers will announce themselves as a genuinely "new bold voice in arthouse cinema" with an early future such as The Lighthouse in the case of Eggers and Heaven Knows What in the case of the Safdie Bros., but they just seem to get more and more 'mainstream' and 'commercial' with each new feature. It was probably a similar scenario with Yorgos Lanthimos and his early work like Dogtooth compared to his later work whereas Lars Von Trier(whose work I've never particularly 'liked') for better or worse never stopped being 'von Trier'. My point is von Trier's work didn't seem to get increasingly 'mainstream-friendly' as his career progressed, which is what seems to be the case with Eggers, Lanthimos, etc.

Maybe it's just the nature of film culture and the film industry in the era in which the younger crop of directors initially emerged. Luca Guadagnino's career also kind of seems like this, because I have to imagine someone with a JC Monteiro film in their top ten isn't that staunchly commercial-minded deep down. Then again, maybe it's also just the fact arthouse cinema is somewhat fashionable again like it was in the 60s considering It was Just an Accident, Sentimental Value, No Other Choice, and The Secret Agent were all nominated for Best Picture at the Golden Globes.

Kelly Reichardt has also, similarly to von Trier, never really "gone mainstream" despite working with well-known actors.

Sorry for blabbering a bit. It just seemed somewhat connected to the whole "this director fooled us with his first film before revealing himself to just be hot air with his subsequent work" premise.

[Mr Sausage]

Lanthimos followed up his biggest mainstream hit with an opaque, audience repelling anthology film, Kinds of Kidness. And The Northman and Nosferatu aren’t any more commercial than Eggers’ debut, The Witch. Indeed with Eggers his defining commitment to period authenticity and psycho-sexual bombast has been a constant throughout his career. His later films aren’t a swerve; The Lighthouse is just an outlier (relatively speaking).

Your argument hinges on two filmmakers with strong individual voices identifiable in even their most commercial ventures. Wouldn’t David Gordon Green be a better example?

[MichaelB]

I went to The Northman with extreme trepidation, as I was aware that its budget was substantially bigger than the one for The Lighthouse (one of my favourite films of the last decade) and assumed that this meant that Eggers’ wings would have had to be clipped—so I was surprised and gratified that the film was far more authentically “Eggers” than I’d ever dared hope.

[zedz]

There's a current use of "auteur" that I've seen used in several extras and commentaries in recent years that seems dead wrong to me: it's the sense that "auteur" cinema is equivalent with highly controlled arthouse cinema, with some directors dismissed as "not auteurs" because they didn't write their own scripts, or made commercial projects they didn't choose themselves, or didn't work within consistent genres in a consistent style - or all of the above. Which is surely the antithesis of auteurism as originally conceived, which was all about recognizing the signature of directors who operated within exactly those kind of constraints. Nobody ever had to argue that a writer / director / star like Chaplin was an auteur, because it was self-evident.