-

Making cinema anew: film criticism and themaking of the new American cinema, 1959-1975.Oudenhoven, Jameshttps://iro.uiowa.edu/discovery/delivery/01IOWA_INST:ResearchRepository/12782142050002771?l#13782142040002771

Oudenhoven. (2020). Making cinema anew: film criticism and the making of the new American cinema,1959-1975 [University of Iowa]. https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.005341

Downloaded on 2022/06/04 05:20:50 -0500Copyright 2020 James OudenhovenFree to read and downloadhttps://iro.uiowa.edu

-

MakingCinemaAnew:FilmCriticismandtheMakingoftheNewAmericanCinema,1959-1975by

JamesOudenhoven

AthesissubmittedinpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsfortheDoctorofPhilosophy

degreeinAmericanStudiesintheGraduateCollegeof

TheUniversityofIowa

May2020

ThesisCommittee:LaurenRabinovitz,ThesisSupervisor LauraRigal StevenUngar TravisVogan DeborahWhaley

ii

Acknowledgements

ThisdissertationwassupportedbyaCLASDissertationWritingFellowshipthat

providedmethetimeandfinancialsupportIneededtocompletemyresearch.Iwouldlike

toacknowledgeandthankmycommitteemembers,LauraRigal,StevenUngar,Travis

Vogan,andDeborahWhaley.Eachmemberimprovedthequalityofthisdissertation,andI

sincerelyappreciatethetimeandefforttheyputintoworkingonthisproject.Iespecially

wanttothankLaurenRabinovitz.Thisprojectwasinspiredbyherwork,andsheprovided

meneededsupportandencouragement.Laurenhasreadmoreofmyworkthananyone

else,andhereditorialvoicewillbewithmeforsometimetocome.Iamgratefulforher

dedicationtothisprojectandproudthatthisisthelastdissertationshedirected.

Ineedtothankmyfriendsandfamilywhohavesupportedmethroughoutthis

process.ThefriendshipandsupportofDiann,Mike,andJustinwasimportanttome

throughoutmytimeatIowa.IwanttothankmycaptiousfriendAndrew,whoseunusual

advicehelpedmotivatemewhenIwasfeelingdiscouraged.Ineedtothankmylovingand

appreciativefamily.IwasprivilegedtoberaisedbyBetsyandDuane,whovaluedart,

education,andtheGreenBayPackers.Theyhavealwayssupportedme,andthey

recognizedmypotentialwhenIcouldnot.Iwanttothankmysister,Mollie,whoisboth

incrediblysmartandhard-working.Finally,Ineedtothankmywife,Heather,and

daughter,Violet.HeatherprovidedmetheloveandsupportIneedtofinish–while

providingasympatheticearthroughouttheprocess–andIwillbeforeverthankful.Violet,

Ihopeyoudiscoverthesustainingjoysofreading,writing,andwatchingfilms.Ilook

forwardtowatchingmovieswithyouintheyearstocome.

iii

Abstract

InpostwarAmerica,asHollywoodexperiencedprofoundeconomicandindustrial

changes,filmcriticsPaulineKael,Jonas,Mekas,andParkerTylerhelpedAmericans

reassessthecinema’svaluetoAmericanculturewhiledemonstratingthepoliticalvalueof

filmcriticism.ThisdissertationprovidesanalysisoffilmcriticsPaulineKael,JonasMekas,

andParkerTyler’scritiqueofthe“NewAmericanCinema”thataccountedforthecultural

andindustrialchangesthatinfluencedAmericanindependent,experimental,and“New”

Hollywoodcinemaproducedfrom1959-71.IntheircriticismoftheNewAmericanCinema,

Kael,Mekas,andTylerchallengedproposedbinariesbetween“high”and“low”culture,fine

artandpopularculture,andmainstreamandmarginalculture,andtheymovedAmerican

filmcriticismbeyondaestheticanalysisthatwasmotivatedbyanxietiesaboutthecinema’s

lackofculturalvalue.Butcrucially,Kael,Mekas,andTylerusedfilmcriticismtoanalyze

Americanidentityandsocialvaluesintermsofclassandtaste,genderandcultural

discourse,andsexualityandaesthetics.PaulineKaelchallengedhierarchiesof“high”and

“low”cultureinhercelebrationofthe“NewHollywood”aspopularcultureandpopulist

art.JonasMekaspromotedAmericanindependentandexperimentalcinemabychallenging

middle-classvaluesofconsumptionandconformity.ParkerTylerprovidedanalysisof

experimental“underground”cinema’srepresentationsofsexualityandappropriationof

queeraesthetics.Ultimately,Kael,Mekas,andTylerusedtheircriticismoftheNew

AmericanCinematochangedomesticreceptionofthecinemabydisclosingthepolitical

valueoffilmcriticismandtheculturalvalueofcinema.

iv

PublicAbstract

Inthe1960s,filmcriticsPaulineKael,JonasMekas,andParkerTylerchangedhow

Americansthoughtaboutthecinema.InrespondingtotheAmericanexperimental,

independent,andNewHollywoodcinemathatconstitutedtheNewAmericanCinema

(1959-71),Kael,Mekas,andTylerusedfilmcriticismthatappearedinmainstream

publicationsliketheNewYorker,alternativepublicationsliketheVillageVoice,and

specializedartandcinemamagazinestodemonstratethecinema’svaluetoAmerican

cultureandtoanalyzesocialissuesthroughfilmwriting.IntheircriticismoftheNew

AmericanCinema,Kael,Mekas,andTylercreatedapoliticalfilmcriticismthatanalyzed

Americanidentityintermsofclass,gender,andsexuality,andtheyappealedtoeducated

readers,whowereinterestedinseriouscriticismthatdidmorethanpromoteHollywood’s

latestrelease.ThesecriticsalsobroughtgreaterrecognitiontoAmericanexperimental,

independent,and“New”Hollywoodcinema.Insum,Kael,Tyler,andMekaschanged

AmericanfilmcriticismbydemonstratingtheculturalvalueoftheAmericancinema,

initiatingagreaterawarenessofAmericansocialandculturalissuesthroughfilmwriting,

andtheyanticipatedcontemporarypopularfilmreceptionthatfocusesonidentityand

alternativefilmreceptionthatconsidersnon-mainstreamcinema.

v

TableofContents

IntroductionA“New”Sensibility:FilmCriticismandReceptionoftheNew1AmericanCinemaChapter1 ReceivingtheNewAmericanCinema 34Chapter2 AmericanCinemaasPopularArt:PaulineKaelandtheNew Hollywood 65Chapter3 JonasMekas’VisionaryCinema:TheNewAmericanCinema AndCulturalRenewal 95Chapter4 AgainstPropaganda:ParkerTyler’sSubculturalCriticism andtheUnderground 134Conclusion PopularCultureisPoliticalCulture:TheLegacyofCriticsofthe

NewAmericanCinema166

Bibliography 177

1

Introduction

A“New”Sensibility:FilmCriticismandReceptionoftheNewAmericanCinema

IntellectualshavedebatedtheAmericancinema’scultural,aesthetic,andmoral

valuesinceitsearlydaysofproduction.Silentcinema,producedintheearlytwentieth

century,waspopularwithworking-classandimmigrantaudiences,whoappreciatedits

directvisualappeal,butintellectualsoftendismissedthiscinemaasa“numbing,escapist

drugforthemasses.”1Attheendofthe1920s,Hollywoodstandardizedproductionwith

the“studiosystem”andcontrolledexhibitionanddistributionuntilthedissolutionofthe

systemin1948.WhilemostAmericansenjoyedthecinemaasentertainmentduringthis

“goldenage”ofthestudiosystem,intellectualscontinuedtoworryaboutthecinema’s

deleteriouseffectonculture.DuringtheSecondWorldWar,MarxistintellectualTheodor

Adorno,anémigréfromGermany,arguedthataudienceswhosuccumbedtotheeasy

pleasureofculturalconsumptionlikecinemaspectatorshipwouldbeinterpellatedas

subjectsofmassideology.Adornofailedtoconsideraudienceagencyorresistance,buthis

argumentsinfluencedapostwargenerationofMarxistculturalanalysis.Inthe1940sand

50s,AmericanartcriticslikeClementGreenbergembracedAdorno’sargumentsaboutthe

dialecticaloppositionofartandpopularculture,and,inhisinfluential1939essay“Avant-

GardeandKitsch,”Greenbergarguesthat“kitsch”likeHollywoodcinemawouldallow

“totalitarianregimestoingratiatethemselveswithsubjects.”2

1Qtd.InPhillipLopate,introductiontoAmericanMovieCritics:AnAnthologyfromtheSilentsUntilNow,ed.PhillipLopate(NewYork:LibraryofAmerica,2008),xiv.2ClementGreenberg.“Avant-GardeandKitsch.”InTheCollectedEssaysandCriticism,Volume1:PerceptionsandJudgements,1939-44,ed.byJohnO’Brian(Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,1986),26.

2

Bythe1950s,however,asMarxistintellectualsworriedabouttheeffectsofpopular

culture,apioneeringgenerationoffilmcriticsinitiatedadifferentconversationaboutthe

Americancinema.PostwarfilmcriticslikeJamesAgeeandOtisFergusonrecognizedthe

culturalvalueofHollywood,whichintellectualscontinuedtodismissasdisposablemass

culture,buttheirreassessmentofthecinemareflectedalargershiftinhowAmericans

perceivedculture.DuringtheearlyColdWar,AbstractExpressionismsymbolized

Americanvaluesoffreedomandindividuality,whichcontrastedwiththeauthoritarian

natureofSovietcommunism,andaneducatedmiddle-classaudienceembracedthisformof

modernistart.PainterJacksonPollackappearedonthecoverofTimemagazinein1949,

andhispaintingsrepresentedtheascendencyofpostwarAmericanart.Butasabstract

expressionwasconsumedbyamiddle-classaudience,modernistculturalproductionthat

appealedtoanintellectualelitewasinstitutionalizedintheacademyandartistic

developmentslikeMinimalismrespondedtoAbstractExpression’spopularitywith

formalistabstraction.However,asplitbetweenmodernist“high”art,whichwasreceived

byelitesinartmuseums,symphonyhalls,anduniversities,andmainstreammodernistart

likeAbstractExpressionism,whichwaspopularizedthroughpublicationsconsumedbya

middle-classreadership,createdthespacenecessaryforaseriousreceptionofpopular

culture,andfilmcriticslookedtoplacefilmappreciationinthisvacuum.

Americanattitudesaboutthecinemaandpopularculturecontinuedtochange

duringthe1960sinanotherdirectionasAmericansembraced“arthouse”cinemaanda

newculturalsensibility.WriterSusanSontagexplainsthis“newsensibility”byconsidering

how“thebeautyofthemachine,orofthesolutiontoamathematicalproblem,orapainting

byJasperJohns,orafilmbyJean-LucGodard,andofthepersonalitiesandmusicofthe

3

Beatles[areall]equallyaccessible.”3Sontagarguesthatculturaldistinctionsbetween

popularcultureandfineartcollapsedasartistslikeAndyWarholandRobert

Rauschenbergmixed“high”and“low”culturalforms,andasintellectualsbegantotake

popularculturemoreseriously.Sontag’sfilmcriticismalsodemonstrateshowAmerican

intellectualsbegantoconsiderthecinemaasanobjectofinquiry.InAgainstInterpretation,

acollectionofessayspublishedin1966,SontaganalyzesfilmsbyFrenchdirectorsRobert

Bresson,AlainResnais,andJean-LucGodard,whowereprominentarthousedirectors,but

shealsoconsiderspopularAmericangenrefilms.Inheressay,“Theimaginationof

disaster,”SontagarguesthatAmericanscience-fictionandhorrorgenrefilmsreflect

culturalanxietiesaboutscience,technology,andnuclearweapons;however,atthesame

time,Sontagconsidersthesefilmsrepresentativeofa“naïveandlargelydebased

commercialart.”4DespiteSontag’sforcefulexplicationofanewsensibilitythaterased

distinctionsbetweenfineartandpopularculture,herfilmcriticismwas,ironically,rooted

inanearlierparadigmthatdismissedAmericanpopularculture.

AsintellectualsembracedfilmcriticismandscholarslikeAnnetteMichelson,

founderofthejournalOctober,contributedtheoreticalreviewstoArtforum,Marxist

intellectualslikeDwightMacdonaldcontinuedtoreviewfilmsthroughoutthe1960sby

affirmingtheoppositionbetweenartandentertainment.However,bothintellectualsnew

tocriticismlikeSontagandMichelson,andoldercriticslikeMacdonald,didnotaccountfor

thechangesinproduction,distribution,andreception,thatresultedintheNewAmerican

3SusanSontag,“Onecultureandthenewsensibility,”inAgainstInterpretation(NewYork:Farrar,StrausandGiroux,1966),304.4“SusanSontag,“Theimaginationofdisaster,”inAgainstInterpretation(NewYork:Farrar,StrausandGiroux,1966),224.

4

Cinema,whichattemptedtoreformthecommercialcinemaandcreateviablealternative

cinemas.This“new”cinemademandeda“new”reception,andtheemergentfilmcriticism

ofPaulineKael,JonasMekas,andParkerTylerwasuniquelysuitedtothetask.Unlike

criticslikeSontagorRenataAdler,whoreviewedfilmsfortheNewYorkTimesin1968,

thesecriticswerecommittedtobothfilmwritingandthecinema.Thefilmwritingofall

threecriticsalsoappealedtoaneducated,middle-classreadershipthatcouldunderstand

andwereinterestedinaestheticandculturalanalysis.PaulineKaelwrotefortheeducated,

middle-classreadershipthatconsumedtheNewYorkerandproducedinfluential

compilationsofheressaysuntilretiringfromcriticismin1991.ParkerTylerbegan

reviewingfilmsinthe1940s,buthiscriticismreachedfullmaturityinhisanalysisof

experimental“underground”cinemaofthelate1960s.JonasMekas,whowasapoet,

filmmaker,exhibitor,anddistributor,wrotecriticismfortheVillageVoicethatuniquely

definedtheNewAmericanCinemaforayounger,liberalreadership.Thesecritics

demonstratedsignificantdifferencesintheirintentions,style,andinterestsbutwere

unitedintheirdesiretoprovidetheseriousreceptionthatthevarietiesofNewAmerican

Cinemademanded.

TheNew“American”Cinemamaysuggestanationalistresponseto“newwave”

cinemasand,likeAbstractExpressionismbeforeit,affirmAmericanexceptionalism

throughademonstrationofartisticfreedom.However,theNewAmericanCinemawas

moreofaresponsetoindustrialchangesintheAmericancinemathananationalistproject,

andcriticalresponsestoitweredeterminedbydomesticculturalchangesthataffectedthe

discourseoffilmcriticism.Mekasarguedthatexperimentalcinemacouldreformaspectsof

theAmericancharacter,butthiswasanattempttoappealtomale“youth”audiencethat

5

wantedtosignalculturalrebellion.ParkerTyler,whohadbeenimmersedintheavant-

gardeofthe1920sand30s,turnedtofilmcriticismwhenmodernismwascommodified

andcooptedtopromoteAmericanexceptionalism,andheusedhiscriticismtochallenge

Americanvaluesratherthanpromotethem.IalsoviewPaulineKael’ssupportofan

AmericanpopulistartaslessameansofpromotingAmericanexceptionalismthanasan

attempttochallenge“highbrow”criticalattemptstoelevatethecinema’sculturalstatus

throughacelebrationofEuropeanarthousecinema.Kael’ssupportofpopulistartwas

basedinherworking-classpopulistcommitments,andshechallengedEuropeancinemain

ordertocritique“highbrow”reception.

Infact,mostimportantly,PaulineKael,JonasMekas,andParkerTylerusedtheir

criticismoftheNewAmericanCinematomovefilmcriticismbeyondanxietiesaboutthe

cinema’svaluetoacriticalconsiderationofAmericansocialvaluesandidentityrelatedto

class,gender,andsexuality.Kaeldemonstratedthatartandentertainmentwerenot

diametricallyopposed,ascriticslikeGreenbergandDwightMacdonaldsuggested,andshe

valuedthecinemaasbothpopulistartandpopularculture.Mekasbelievedthe“mass”

audienceyearnedforartratherthanentertainment,andheusedfilmcriticismtoquestion

Americanvaluesofconsumptionandconformitywhilearguingcinematicexpressioncould

leadtoculturalrenewal.ParkerTylerprovidedasubculturalanalysisofthemoviesthat

subverteddominantsocialandsexualvaluesbychallengingheteronormativity.Itisthe

goalofthisdissertation,then,toputPaulineKael,JonasMekas,andParkerTylerinto

conversationinordertoanalyzetheNewAmericanCinema’sfullcomplexity.Considering

thefilmcriticismofKael,Mekas,andTylerasadialoguerevealshowAmericanpopular

cultureofthe1960srepresentedanegotiationbetweenthemainstreamandmarginsand

6

suggestshowargumentsabouttheproposeddialecticsof“art”and“entertainment,”

“Hollywood”and“experimentalfilm,”and“high”and“low”culture,missthecomplex

interdependenceoftheperiod’sculturalproductionthatwouldevolveinthefollowing

decadesintopostmodernism’scollapseofdistinctionsbetween“high”and“low”culture

andfineartandpopularculture.

Furthermore,filmcriticismhasalsobeenunderexaminedandunderappreciated

withinacademicfilmandmediastudies.Whilescholarsmayignorejournalistfilmcriticism

duetoitslackoftheoreticalanalysisorclearmethod,itisimportanttorememberthat

scholarsandfilmcriticswriteforfundamentallydifferentaudiences.Scholarsappealto

specializedreadershipsthatdemandrigorousanalysisandacarefulattentiontocontext,

andeventhemostintellectualfilmcriticwritesforageneralreadership.However,popular

criticismhasnotbeencompletelyneglectedinfilmstudies,andIidentifytwoprimary

focusesoftheliterature:scholarshavefocusedonfilmcriticismasaliterarypracticeanda

rhetoricalgenreofessayisticwritingorientedaroundthecritic’sperformativevoice;and

scholarshavefocusedonfilmcriticism’srelationshiptoanxietiesaboutfilm’scultural

status.Thesecontributionsareimportanttounderstandingpopularcriticalreception,but

scholarsneedtopaymoreconsiderationtotherolethatfilmcriticismplayedin

questioningandchallengingdominantAmericansocialandpoliticalvalues,whichthe

criticaldialogueamongKael,Mekas,andTylerilluminates.Thisdissertation,therefore,

providesavaluablecontributiontoacademicliteratureonfilmcriticismbyanalyzinghow

PaulineKael,JonasMekas,andParkerTylercollectivelyanalyzedandcritiquedtheNew

AmericanCinemainwaysthatsupportedorchallengednormativeaspectsofAmerican

identity,intermsofclass,sexuality,andgender,andthesecriticschallengeddominant

7

ideologiesrelatedtoheteronormativity,capitalistconsumption,andclass-basedcultural

hierarchies.

IalsobuildontheworkofculturalstudiesscholarsDickHebdigeandSarah

ThorntontochallengeMarxistargumentsaboutpopularculture’ssupportofdominant

ideologyandtoprovideaconsiderationofaudienceresistanceandagency.Scholarship

focusedoncriticism’sroleinpromotingthecinemaasaformof“masscult”culturefailsto

distinguishbetweendifferentaudiencesegmentsortypesoffilmproduction,butmyfocus

onthecriticalreceptionofexperimentalcinemainthecontextofproduction,distribution,

andexhibitionresistsconflatingdifferentcinematicformsandrevealshowdifferencesina

cinema’scircuit-of-cultureleadtodifferenttypesofreception.Ialsoexaminehowthe

criticismofKael,Mekas,andTylerreflectshowaudiencesegmentswithinthemainstream,

andsubculturesoutsideofit,assertagencyandfightforculturalmeaning.5This

dissertation,therefore,providesavaluablecontributiontoliteratureontheNewAmerican

Cinemabyprovidingadetailedstudyofreceptionthatdemonstratesthecomplex

intersectionofmainstreamandmarginalfilmmakingpractices,andIcomplicateformalist

accountsoftheNewAmericanCinemathattreatexperimentalfilmproductionasan

autonomousculturalpractice.Finally,byextendingittotheworkofcriticslikeKael,Tyler,

andMekas,IexpandontheworkofscholarsDavidE.JamesandJuanA.Suárez,whohave

provideddetailedconsiderationsofhowchangesinAmericanpopularcultureofthe1960s

influencedthedevelopmentoftheNewAmericanCinemaandtheexperimental

“underground”cinema.

5See:SarahThornton,ClubCultures:Music,Media,andSubculturalCapital(Middletown,WesleyanUP,1996);DickHebdige,Subculture:TheMeaningofStyle(NewYork:Routledge,1988).

8

FilmCriticismasaLiteraryEndeavor

Scholarsfocusedonfilmcriticismasaliterarypracticehavefocusedonfilmcritics’

proseandauthorialvoices,butthisscholarshipoftenfailstoconsidertheideological

aspectsofcriticalfilmwriting.Forinstance,theanthology,AmericanMoviesCritics:An

AnthologyfromtheSilentsUntilNow,editedbyPhilipLopate,collectsreviewsandessays

fromthesilenttocontemporarycinema,andLopate,whoisaliteraryscholarandcreative

writer,considersthiscriticismasa“belletristictradition.”6Lopateexplainsfilmcriticism’s

transitionfromamateurtoprofessionaloccupation,buthedoesnotconsiderhowcriticsof

the1960salsochangedthediscourseoffilmcriticismbyfocusingonidentityandAmerican

socialvalues.Forinstance,afterdiscussingthedebatebetweenAndrewSarrisandPauline

Kaeloverthe“auteur”theory,whicharguedthedirectorwasthe“author”ofthefilm,

LopatecontendsthatKael“pushedAmericanfilmcriticismfurtherintoanewzoneof

essayisticheadiness.”7Lopate’sfocusonKael’sproseprovidesaninterestingconsideration

offilmcriticismasagenreofessayisticwriting,butheignoresherferventdefenseof

Americanfilmaspopulistart.LopatealsorecognizesParkerTyler’sfocusof“sexualityand

gender,”8buthedoesnotexplainthatTylerinspiredacriticalshifttoagreateranalysisof

therelationshipbetweensexualpoliticsandaestheticsinthe1970s.9Finally,likemost

anthologiesfocusedonHollywood,LopateconsidersJonasMekasa“proponentof

experimentalfilm”withoutconsideringhisprofessedambitiontopopularizethiscinema.

6PhillipLopate,introductiontoAmericanMovieCritics:AnAnthologyfromtheSilentsUntilNow,ed.PhillyLopate(NewYork:LibraryofAmerica,2008),xiii.7Ibid,xvii.8Ibid.9Ibid,xviii.

9

Inanessayentitled“TheGhostofPaulineKael,”AmandaShubertfocusesonthe

literaryaspectsofKael’scriticism,which,Shubertcontends,reflectedadistinctlyfeminine

aesthetic.Shubertexplains,“LikemuchoftheliteratureIloved,Kael’sworkbelongedtothe

pastbutcamealivetomeinthesuspendedpresentofthereadingexperience.”10In

focusingonKael’s“voice,”Shubertarguesthatshecreatedan“aestheticofcritical

subjectivity[that]claimedamasculineauthority[andwas]unapologeticallyfeminine.”11

AnanalysisofKael’srelationshiptoamale-controlleddiscourseoffilmcriticismis

important,butShubert’sclaimthatKael’saestheticwas“unapologeticallyfeminine”isnot

supportedbyherfilmcriticism.ShubertarguesthatKael’sfeminineaestheticwasreflected

throughherconversationalstyleandincorporationofautobiography,butarguingthese

traitsareuniquely“feminine”suggestsgenderstereotypes.Kaelwasnottheonlyfilmcritic

toemployaconversational,self-referentialstyle,andprominentmalecriticslikeJames

Ageeappealedtoreadersthroughconversationalprose.Shubertalsofailstoaccountfor

thelargerdiscourseoffilmcriticismanddoesnotconsiderhowKael’spopulistsupportof

Hollywoodrespondedtoanxietiesaboutfilm’sculturalstatus.

ProminentfilmscholarDavidBordwellalsoconsiderstheliteraryandcultural

influenceofpioneeringAmericanfilmcriticsofthe1940s.Bordwell’sTheRhapsodes:How

1940sCriticsChangedAmericanCultureprovidesanalysisofcriticsParkerTyler,Manny

Farber,OtisFergusonandJamesAgee,and,likeLopate,Bordwellexplainshowthesecritics

placedfilmcriticism“intotheworldofletters.”12Bordwellarguesthatthesecritics

10AmandaShubert,“TheGhostofPaulineKael,”inTalkingAboutPaulineKael:Critics,Filmmakers,andScholarsRememberanIcon,ed.WayneStengel(Lanham:RowmanandLittlefield,2015),160.11Ibid,164.12DavidBordwell,TheRhapsodes:How1940sCriticsChangedAmericanFilmCulture(Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,2016),1.

10

initiatedamoreseriousanalysisoftheAmericancinema,buthedoesnotplacetheir

criticisminconversationwithMarxistintellectuals,whocriticizedpopularculture,

because,asheexplains,“…allfourcriticsfinessedthemassculturecontroversy…[but]…

didn’tfightonthatterrain.”13Bordwell,instead,providesclosereadingsofeachcritic’s

essays,reviews,andbooksandconsiderstheirproseandtheperformativeaspectsoftheir

“voices.”Nonetheless,Bordwelldoesconsiderthecritics’roleinlargerdebatesaboutfilm’s

positionvis-à-visAmericanculture.Forinstance,Bordwellexplainshowthe“rhapsodes,”

thetermheusestodescribethefilmwritingofTyler,Farber,Ferguson,andAgee,were

influencedbyNewCriticism,whichemergedinthe1930sasamethodofliteraryanalysis

basedinclosereading.Hearguesthatdespitethefactthe“rhapsodes”wereunableto

screenfilmsrepeatedly,theircarefulattentiontoform,narrative,andcharacter,wasbased

intextualanalysisthatresembledthecriticalmethodofNewCriticsfocusedonliterary

texts.

BordwellfurtherdevotesanentirechaptertoParkerTyler’searly-careerfilm

criticism.InachapterfocusedonTyler’s1940’soutput,whichconsistsofthreebookson

classicalHollywood,14BordwellexplainstheconnectionbetweenTyler’scriticismand

reflectionism,whichhedefinesas“theideathatpopularcultureinsomemannerreflects

thestateofsociety.”15AccordingtoBordwell,reflectionismtakesacoupleforms:afilmcan

reflectacountry’snationalcharacterorreveala“society’sanxieties,concerns,and

unresolvedproblems.”16Yet,Iwouldsubstitute“ideology”for“reflectionism”toaddressa

13Ibid,27.14TheHollywoodHallucination(NewYork:CreativeAgePress,1944);TheMagicandMythoftheMovies(NewYork:HenryHoltandCo.,1947);andChaplin:LastoftheClowns(NewYork:TheVanguardPress,1948).15DavidBordwell,How1940sCriticsChangedAmericanFilmCulture(Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,2016),114.16Ibid,115.

11

commonomissioninscholarshipaboutTyler’scriticismonHollywood:Bordwelldoesnot

discusshowTyler’swritingchallengedmainstreamAmericansocialandsexualvalues.17In

fact,throughoutthetext,BordwellportraysTylerasapoliticallyneutralaesthetewith“no

axtogrind,”butTyler’scorrespondencerevealshisprofessedantipathytoavarietyof

postwarsocialmovementsevenasheofferedacritiqueofheteronormativity,whichwas

radicalandtotallyuniqueinthe1940s.18Tyler’squeercriticismprovidedachallengeto

normsofpostwarAmericansocietyrootedinthenuclearfamily,traditionalgenderroles,

andcompulsoryheterosexualitythatformedthebasisofmanyHollywoodnarratives.At

thesametime,hiscriticismwasreactionaryinitsrejectionofsecond-wavefeminism,the

NewLeft,andtheBlackPowerMovement.

Bordwell’sfocusonTyler,likehisbookasawhole,isprimarilylimitedtothe1940s,

buthedoesprovidesomeconsiderationofTyler’slate-careercriticism.However,Bordwell

focusesonTyler’slate-1960’scriticismofthearthouseandignoreshisstudyofpostwar

Americanexperimentalfilm,UndergroundFilm:ACriticalHistory.19Atthetimeof

publicationin1969,UndergroundFilmwastheonlybooktoprovideasustainedaesthetic

andanalysisof1960sexperimental“underground”cinemathatconsiderthiscinema’s

socialandsexualvalues.Bordwell’sbriefanalysisofTyler’srelationshiptoexperimental

filmproductionalsoignoreshiscritiqueoftheunderground’ssexualpolitics.Bordwell

explainshow“themotifs[Tyler]wroteaboutinHollywoodfilmsbecametropesofthe

Americanavant-garde,”and“thenarcissism,eroticsymbolism,andcamplurkinginthe

17Ibid,118.18Ibid,117;Tyler’sarchive,locatedattheHarryRansomCenteratTheUniversityofTexas,Austin,containsTyler’sprofessionalandpersonalcorrespondence,aswellasoriginalmanuscriptsofhispublishedbooks.19See:ParkerTyler,UndergroundFilm:ACriticalHistory(NewYork:DaCapoPress,1995).

12

crevicesof1940sstudiofilmsscamperedintoviewinUndergroundfilms.”20Thereisno

doubtthatthefilmsofAndyWarhol,GeorgeandMikeKuchar,JackSmith,andKenneth

AngerusedHollywoodtropesforcreativere-invention,butBordwellminimizesthe

politicalimplicationsofexperimentalfilmsthatsubvertedthesocialvaluesencodedin

Hollywoodcinema.Incontrast,IdemonstratehowTyler’scriticismoftheunderground

wentbeyondaestheticstoaddresssexualpoliticsandtheunderground’sappropriationsof

queeraesthetics.

“Middlebrows”and“Highbrows”

Scholarshiponfilmcriticismhasalsoengagedwithanxietiesaboutfilm’scultural

andaestheticvalue.ThisbodyofliteratureengageswithMarxistcritiquesofpopular

cultureandaddresseshowchangesinAmericancultureaffectedthereceptionofAmerican

filmandthediscourseoffilmcriticism.Byconsideringfilmcriticism’srelationshipto

modernistartreceptionandachangingculturalsensibility,thisliteratureprovidesan

importantstartingpointformyconsiderationofhowPaulineKael,JonasMekas,and

ParkerTyler’sfocusonAmericansocialvaluesandidentitybroadenedthediscourseoffilm

criticismbeyonditsemphasisonaestheticsanddebatesaboutthecinema’sculturalvalue.

However,likescholarshipfocusedonfilmcriticismasaliteraryendeavor,thisliterature

failstoaccountforcriticism’sfocusonthesocialandpoliticalissuesrelatedtoAmerican

identity.Thisscholarshipalsoaffirmsanxietiesaboutfilm’scriticism’s“middlebrow”value,

whichissurprisingwhenconsideringhowculturalstudiesandAmericanstudies

20Ibid,136.

13

scholarshiphaslongforegroundedthepoliticalandsocialvalueof“lowbrow”and

“middlebrow”culturalformsliketelevisionorromancenovels.21

Ananxietyaboutfilmcriticism’sculturalworthlikewisepervadesGlennJellenik’s

2015article,“TheproblemofPaulineKael:aconsiderationofacademicandmainstream

criticism,”whicharguesthatfilmcriticismisinherently“mainstream”and“middlebrow.”

InassessingPaulineKael’scriticism,Jellenikwrites,“Kael’sauto-polemicsarelessself-

contradictionthanpartandparcelofhercentralformulaforthemainstreamcritic.”22

AccordingtoJellenik’sanalysis,mainstreamcriticsaremerely“weathervanes,”wholack

anidentifiablecriticalmethod,anddenounceorsupportHollywoodastheirwhimsand

readers’expectationsdictate.Incontrast,“theacademiccriticisbasicallyboundto

system.”23Buriedattheendofhisessay,Jellenikoffersafamiliarcomplaintaboutpopular

culture:“This[mainstream]criticism,byitsverynatureanddesignexiststofeedthe

gapingmawofconsumptionandconsumerism.Mainstreamcriticsregularlyengagewith

manyofthesameissuesastheiracademiccounterparts,butthesecriticsrarelypossessthe

desireofincentivetoexpandcriticalconceptswithsufficientforce.”24Jellenik’sreferenceto

the“gapingmawofconsumption”suggestsMarxistargumentsaboutpopularculture’s

ideologicalsupportofconsumercapitalismandlackofaestheticsophistication,buthefails

torecognizehowKael’spopulistappreciationofAmericanfilmswasacriticalintervention

intoseveraldebatesoftheperiod.Kael’speerssoughttoelevatethecinema’scultural

21See:JaniceRadway,ReadingtheRomance:Women,PatriarchyandPopularCulture(ChapelHill:TheUniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,1991);Radway,AFeelingforBooks:TheBook-oftheMonthClub,LiteraryTasteandMiddle-ClassDesire(ChapelHill:TheUniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,1997);JoanRubin,TheMakingofMiddlebrowCulture(ChapelHill:TheUniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,1992).22GlennJellenik,“TheproblemofPaulineKael:aconsiderationofacademicandmainstreamcriticism,”PostScript,Vol.35,Issue1,September22,2015,2.23Ibid.24Ibid,5.

14

statusthroughformalistanalysisandanappreciationofarthousecinema,butshe

defendedtheAmericancinema’svalueaspopularentertainment.Kaelalsodefendedgenre

filmmakingwhilemaintainingconsistentstandardsbasedinherbeliefthatafilmmaker’s

primaryresponsibilitywastocreatecompellingnarratives.Finally,Kaelregularly

correspondedwithscholarsandteachers,whowrotetoherseekingadviceabouthowto

properlyunderstandandappreciatethecinema.25Thiscorrespondencecontradicts

Jellenik’sconstructedbinaryof“mainstreamcriticism”versus“academicanalysis,”which

alsofailstoconsiderthecomplexnatureofculturalreceptionthatwasnotboundbyclear

demarcationsof“high”and“low”culture.

IncontrasttoJellenik’sdismissaloffilmcriticismasa“middlebrow”endeavor,

RaymondHaberskiJr.’sIt’sOnlyaMovie:FilmandCriticsinAmericanCultureassesseshow

criticsofthe1960srespondedtoculturalanxietiesaboutthecinema’sstatusbysimply

elevatingitfrom“lowbrow”cultureto“masscult”objectofappreciationforaneducated

middle-classaudience.AsHaberskiexplains,importschangedAmericanconceptionsofthe

moviesbyintroducingaudiencestofilmmakingthatdepartedfromHollywood’saesthetic

andsocialvalues.However,Haberski’smaincontentionisthatcriticismchangedfilm’s

culturalstatusbymakingitappealingtoaneducatedmiddleclassasthefineartsand

literatureturnedtoformalistabstraction,whichhadleftaculturalvacuumthatcouldbe

filledbypopularculture.HearguesthatmodernistartlikeAbstractExpressionismmay

havebeenusedtopromoteAmericanexceptionalism,butamiddle-classaudiencewanted

toconsumesophisticatedcultureeveniftheylackedtheknowledge,interest,orcultural

capitaltoappreciateabstractfineart.Filmcritics,whomeducatedaudienceslookedtoas

25PaulineKael’sarchiveattheLilyLibraryatIndianaUniversitycontainsKael’spapersandcorrespondence.

15

culturalauthorities,understoodthismiddle-classdemandforaccessibleartandpromoted

filmappreciation.AsHaberskiexplains,“Moviegoingcametoseemheroicbecauseitwas

partofalargermovementinAmericanculturetoredefinewhatartmeantandtherole

moviesplayedinAmericanlife….Thereasoncriticswereimportantandspokewith

authority…wasbecausetheideaofartstillhadrelevanceamongthegeneralpublic.”26

Further,arthousecinemawasmoreexperimentalthanmostHollywoodfilmsofthe

early1960s,and,asHaberskiexplains,“massculture[likecinema]begantoreplacethefine

artsasthemostrelevantandsignificantparadigmoftheday.”27Yet,Haberskireduces

differencesintheproduction,distribution,andexhibitionofexperimental,arthouse,and

Hollywoodandconsidersthemallformsof“mass”culture.Thisconflationfailstoaddress

how,forinstance,theartisanalshortsofexperimentalNewAmericanCinemadidnot

resembletheHollywoodfilmsthatMarxistcriticsdismissedas“masscult”or“kitsch.”

Haberskialsomissesanopportunitytoconsidertherelationshipbetweenexperimental

cinemaandlargerartmovementsofthe1960s.IndescribingPopArt,Haberskiwrites,

“PopArtists,itseemstome,hadbuiltonatrendclearlystartedbymoviecriticswhotook

objectstraditionallytreatedasonetypeofcultureand,byplacingthemonanewcultural

andepistemologicalenvironment[sic]hadgivenmoviesnewmeaning.”28Haberskiargues

thatfilmcriticismandPopArtre-contextualizedpopularculturalformsthatintellectuals

hadpreviouslydismissedas“low”culture,butheignoresAndyWarhol,whowasthemost

prominentPopartistandtheexperimentalfilmmakerwhoactivelyconnectedthecinema

26RaymondHaberski,It’sOnlyaMovie!FilmandCriticsinAmericanCulture(Lexington:TheUniversityPressofKentucky,2001),4.27Ibid,104.28Ibid,148.

16

tothefinearts.IwouldarguethatWarholalsoplacedexperimentalcinemaintoadifferent

culturalcontextbyapproachingthisfilmmakingwithanirreverencethatbeliedthe

seriousnessofavant-gardeartsdiscoursesandbypromotingthiscinematoamainstream

audience.

Finally,Haberski’sclaimsareorientedaroundreceptionofthearthouse,ontheone

hand,andHollywood,ontheother,buthisconsiderationoftheNewAmericanCinemais

relegatedtoasingleparagraphthatdescribesJonasMekas’attempts“toplacedomestic

filmmakersalongsidetheirinternationalcounterparts.”29HaberskiarguesthatMekasused

“New”AmericanCinematosignifyaperiodoffilmproductionanalogoustotheEuropean

NewWavesforpromotionalpurposes,butMekasprimarilyviewedthiscinemaasan

industrialchallengetoHollywood,whichhaddominatedtheAmericancinemasincethe

1930s.Ultimately,oneoftheproblemsofHaberski’smethodisthatheconsidersdebates

betweencriticswithoutprovidingspecificattentiontotheirreviewsandessays.For

instance,hischapteronthedebatebetweenPaulineKaelandAndrewSarrisusefully

outlinestheirargumentovertheauteurtheory,butheignoresthecomplexityandoften

contradictorynatureofKael’scriticism.InassessingKael’spositioninthedebate,Haberski

reducesherpositiontotheclaimthat“[s]hefoundtheauteurtheorydetrimentaltothe

successwonoverculturalconservativesandartsnobswhohadshunnedmoviesfor

generations.”30Here,HaberskinotesKael’sdefenseoffilmaspopularculture,buthe

ignoreshercelebrationofprominentauteurs.CarefulattentiontoKael’sreviewsofthe

NewHollywoodrevealsthatKaeldidnotrejectauteurism,asHaberskisuggests,but

29Ibid,117.30Ibid,129.

17

arguedinoppositiontoAndrewSarristhatauteurismwasnotbasedinthedirector’s

“interiority”oruseofmise-en-scènebutintheirrevisionsofgenrefilmmaking.Kael’s

appreciationofauteurismconfirmedtheimportanceofpopulistcinemawhileplacingthis

“masscult”formintoanartsdiscoursethatcelebratedtheevolutionofformandgenre.

ScholarGregTaylor,bycontrast,focusesonMannyFarberandParkerTyler’s

“vanguardcriticism”toconsidertherelationshipbetweenmodernismandpopularculture.

Taylorarguesthat“vanguard”criticsturnedtheirattentiontofilminresponsetothe

popularizationofmodernistartlikeAbstractExpressionism.Taylorexplains,“Herewasan

unsullied,authenticpopformthatseemedpositivelyrefreshingnexttothedullof

mannerismofmainstreamabstractexpressionism.”31UnlikecriticsAndrewSarrisand

PaulineKael,whohelpedaneducatedmiddle-classaudienceappreciatefilm,Tylerand

Farberwerenotattemptingtochangefilm’sculturalstatus.Infact,Tyler’s“camp”criticism

wasa“connoisseurshipofdetritus”32thatwasbasedinhiswholesalereinterpretationsof

Hollywoodnarratives.33TaylorarguesthatunlikecriticslikeJamesAgeewhoencouraged

theirreaderstotakefilmseriously,Tylersimplyviewedthemoviesasmaterialforhisown

creativeinvention,andhiscriticismrepresentedtheoppositeimpulseofIrisBarry’sFilm

LibraryattheMuseumofModernArt:accordingtoTaylor,Tyleraffirmedhiscultural

superioritybydemonstratingjusthowinanethemoviesactuallywere.34Byfocusingonthe

aestheticnatureofcamp,TaylorignorestheideologicalaspectsofTyler’scriticism.Taylor

concedesthatcampprovidedmarginalizedviewersanopportunitytoactasauthoritiesbut

31GregTaylor,ArtistsintheAudience:Cults,Camp,andAmericanFilmCriticism(Princeton:PrincetonUP,1999),28.32Ibid,52.33Ibid,51.34Ibid.

18

alsoconfinescamptoan“attitudetowardkitsch.”35Inotherwords,campactually

maintainedbinariesof“high”and“low”bydrawingattentiontopopularculture’slackof

aestheticsophistication.However,thisunderstandingofcampignoresitssubversive

potentialandimportancetoqueeraesthetics.TayloralsoignoreshowTyler’scamp

analysiscritiquedthedominantsocialvaluesencodedinHollywoodfilms.Tylerviewed

studio-producedcinemaasacommodifiedmassculturethatwasnotcharacterizedby

authorialvision,andhecritiquedHollywood’scollectiveanxietiesabouthomosexuality

sublimatedthrougharelentlessemphasisonthenuclearfamilyandheterosexualromance.

LikeHaberski,Taylorfurtherconflatesdifferentcinemasbyconsideringthemallas

“movies,”explaininghowfilms“area‘massart’bydefault:theyarepartofmassculture,

andwehavedesperatelywantedtotreatthemasartworks.”36Here,Taylornotonly

ignoresdifferencesinproduction,distribution,exhibition,andartisticintent,buthisuseof

“middlebrow”and“vanguard”alsobecomesconfusedinhisdiscussionofcriticaldebates

betweenTylerandMekas.TaylorarguesthatTyler’slate-careerembraceofaesthetic

analysis,whichcontradictedhisearlierdismissaloffilm’saestheticvalue,wasanattempt

toremaininthe“vanguard”asJonasMekasembracedapromotionalcriticism.Andyet,

TaylorinsistsMekasmaintainedhis“vanguard”statusdespitehisattemptstopopularize

experimentalcinemaandintegratethiscinemaintoawiderpopularculture.Theproblem

withTaylor’suseoftermslike“middlebrow”and“vanguard”isthatthesetermsfailto

accountforcultural,subcultural,andaudiencenegotiationbetweenpopularcultureand

fineart.CulturalStudiesscholarshavedemonstratedhowculturecanbeusedforresistant

35Ibid,52.36Ibid,150.

19

purposes,butTaylordismissestheirinsightsandignoreshowaudiencesassertagencyby

resisting“highbrow”attemptstocontrolmeaning.37

CulturalExchangeandtheNewAmericanCinema

OtherscholarlyaccountsoftheNewAmericanCinemaprivilegedformalanalysis

butdidnotconsiderhowculture’snewsensibility,politicalconcerns,ortheshifting

discourseaboutthecinema’svalueinformedareceptionnecessaryforAmerican

independentandexperimentalcinema.Formalistaccountstypicallyfailtoconsiderhow

experimentalfilmreflectedanegotiationbetweenpopularcultureandfineart,andthis

scholarshipoftenreinscribeddistinctionsbetween“high”and“low”culturebypositioning

experimentalfilmasdialecticallyopposedtoHollywood.Forinstance,P.AdamsSitney’s

studyofpostwarAmericanexperimentalfilm,VisionaryCinema:TheAmericanAvant-

Garde,providedformalisttextualanalysisofexperimentalfilm,butSitney’sfocuson

aestheticsandexpressionsofthefilmmaker’ssubjectivitysuggestedthiscinemawasnot

influencedbyalargerculturalcontext.38Sitney’sformalistapproachalsoinformedhis

introductiontoananthologyoffilmcriticismfromFilmCulture,aninfluentialfilmjournal

establishedbyJonasandAdolfasMekasin1954.Ratherthanfocusingonthesocio-cultural

changesthatcreatedadifferentreceptionofthecinema,andhelpedpublicationslikeFilm

Culturefindreaders,Sitneydevoteshisintroductiontothedevelopmentof“graphic”and

“subjective”film,focusingsolelyontheaestheticaspectsofexperimentalfilm.39Inhis

discussionoftheNewAmericanCinema,Sitneyexplainshowthiscinemacombined

37Ibid,152;DickHebdige’sSubculture:TheMeaningofStyle(1979)isanimportantculturalstudiesbookthatdemonstrateshowworking-classculturecanbeasiteofresistanceagainstdominantculturalvalues.38See:VisionaryFilm:TheAmericanAvant-Garde,1943-1978(NewYork:OxfordUP,1979).39P.AdamsSitney,“AReader’sGuidetotheAmericanAvant-GardeFilm,”inFilmCultureReader,ed.P.AdamsSitney(NewYork:PraegerPublishers,1970),5.

20

aestheticaspectsof“socialdocumentaryandtheavant-gardepsychodrama,”buthefailsto

providefurtherexplanationoftheindustrialchangesthatallowedfornewtypesof

filmmakingthatinfluencedthesedevelopments.40Sitney’sformalistrefusalto

contextualizeexperimentalfilmproductionandexplainhowtheNewAmericanCinema

wasamulti-layeredresponsetoindustrialandculturalchangesalsoignoreshowthis

cinemarepresentedanegotiationbetweenpopularcultureandmarginalfilmmaking

practiceslikesecond-waveexperimentalcinemaofthe1940s.Finally,Sitneyignoresthe

ideologicalaspectsofMekas’criticismsuchashisresponsetoa“crisisofmasculinity,”

whicharguedthatartisanalfilmmakingcouldleadtoculturalrenewalbyprovidinga

mediumforfreeexpression.41

Inanothervein,scholarshavearguedthattheNewAmericanCinemarepresented

analtogetheralternativecinemathatexistedapartfromthemainstream.JeffreyK.Ruoff’s

1991article,“HomeMoviesoftheAvant-Garde:JonasMekasandtheNewYorkArtWorld,”

publishedinCinemaJournal,arguesthatMekascreatedanalternativecinemathat

constitutedan“artworld”anddescribeshowMekaswas“dedicatedtotheestablishmentof

filmasanartform.”42However,RuoffignoresMekas’professeddesiretointegratetheNew

AmericanCinemaintopopularculturebyconnectingthiscinematootherchallengestothe

Vietnam-erastatus-quo.RuoffalsocontendsthatthehomevideoaestheticofMekas’films

representedtheclose-knitNewYorkartworldandinterpellatedtheviewerasamemberof

40Ibid,9.41Instead,SitneynotesthatMekashas“hasbeenmostathomeinhisdiscussionsofinformalZen-orientedworks.”See:“AReader’sGuidetotheAmericanAvant-GardeFilm,”inFilmCultureReader,ed.P.AdamsSitney(NewYork:PraegerPublishers,1970),9.42JeffreyK.Ruoff,“HomeMoviesoftheAvant-Garde:JonasMekasandtheNewYorkArtWorld,”CinemaJournal,Vol.30,No.3(Spring,1991),6.

21

it.43Here,Ruoff’sanalysisisreminiscentofDavidE.James’argumentthatfilm“allegorizes”

andencodesitsmodeofproduction;but,atthesametime,RuoffcontendsthatMekas’

criticismwasessentialtohiseffortstocreateasubculturalcinema.44Thisclaimignores

that“anartworldofavant-gardefilm”existedasearlyasthe1920s,andRuoffattributesto

Mekas’criticismaninsularitythatbelieshisattemptstoreachamainstreamaudience.

Ratherthan“establish”anisolatedartworld,Mekasusedpromotionalfilmcriticismto

reachthewidestpossibleaudience.

IncontrasttoRuoff’sclaimthatMekasattemptedtocreateacinemathatexisted

apartfromthemainstream,DavidE.JamesacknowledgesMekas’desiretoreform“the

mass-marketstudio-producedfeaturefilm.”45InAllegoriesofCinema:AmericanFilminthe

Sixties,Jamesprovidesadetailedconsiderationoftheculturalandindustrialchangesthat

influencedthedevelopmentofAmericancinemaofthe1960swhileanalyzingthecomplex

intersectionsbetweenpopularandmarginalfilmmakingpracticesthatinfluencedtheNew

AmericanCinema.ScholarsfollowingSitneyhavealsofocusedonissuesofidentityinterms

ofgender,examininghowexperimentalcinemawassupportedbyanartsdiscoursesthat

affirmedthesuperiorityofmaleartists.LaurenRabinovitzencouragesscholarstoadopta

“newhistoricalorientation[that]wouldpurposelyshowhowavant-gardecinemahasbeen

inscribedasasocialsitefor,ratherthanaknowableobjectof,activeculturalconflictsover

language,power,andresistance.”46ThesescholarsprovidevaluableanalysisthatIexpand

43Ibid,15.44Ibid,22;InAllegoriesofCinema:AmericanFilmintheSixties,DavidE.Jamesarguesthatcinemaencodesand“allegorizes”itsmodeofproduction.45DavidE.James,IntroductiontoToFreetheCinema:JonasMekasandtheNewYorkUnderground,ed.DavidE.James(Princeton:PrincetonUP1992),8.46LaurenRabinovitz,“WearingtheCritic’sHat”inToFreetheCinema:JonasMekasandtheNewYorkUnderground,ed.DavidE.James(Princeton:PrincetonUP1992),270;Furthermore,Rabinovitz’sPointsof

22

uponbyfocusingontherolefilmcriticsplayedinaccountingfortheuniqueindustrialand

culturalchangesthatproducedtheNewAmericanCinema,andIbuildonRabinovitz’s

scholarshipthroughmyfocusonideologyandidentity.

Finally,thisdissertationisinfluencedbyJuanA.Suárez’sBikeBoys,DragQueens,

andSuperstars:Avant-Garde,MassCultureandGayIdentitiesinthe1960sUnderground

Cinema,whichanalyzeshowundergroundcinemawasinfluencedbyaculturalexchange

betweenpopularcultureandfineartandfocusesonthepoliticalnatureofqueercinema.47

SuárezchallengestheideapositedbyParkerTylerthattheundergroundwassimplyan

“echo”ofanearlieravant-gardeandexplainshowitwas“stronglyinfluenced

by…contemporaryculturalandaestheticcurrents.”48InSuárez’saccount,underground

cinemareflecteda“newsensibility”byusingpopularculturesuchascomicsbooksand

Hollywoodfilmsforqueerreinvention.SuárezexplainshowthefilmmakingofJackSmith,

AndyWarhol,BruceConner,andGeorgeandMikeKucharused“imagesfromcommercial

culture”toconstructabstractexperimentalfilmsthatchallenged“borderlinesbetween

highandlow.”49Atthesametime,henoteshowtheformalexperimentationofBruce

Connerandstructuralistcinemathatemergedatmid-decaderespondedtoavant-garde

developmentslikeMinimalism.Thismixtureofhighandlow,ofpopularcultureandfine

Resistance:Women,Power,andPoliticsintheNewYorkAvant-gardeCinema,1943-1971providesanideologicalandsocialanalysisofavant-gardecinema.47AlthoughIviewthe“underground”asasubsetoftheNewAmericanCinema,whichIexplaininthefirstchapter,SuárezviewstheNewAmericanCinemaas“thedirectpredecessoroftheunderground.”Suárezexplainsthat,incontrasttothenarrativefilmsoftheearlyNewAmericanCinemathatrecalledtheFrenchNewWave,the“’underground’hadgreatcriticalfortune,duetoitsdescriptivepoweranditsculturalhistory,whichpointedtoboththemodernistandtheavant-gardistcomponentsofthemovement.”See:BikeBoys,DragQueens,andSuperstars:Avant-garde,MassCulture,andGayIdentitiesinthe1960sUndergroundCinema(Bloomington,IndianaUP,1996),74,81.48Juan,A.Suárez,BikeBoys,DragQueens,andSuperstars:Avant-garde,MassCulture,andGayIdentitiesinthe1960sUndergroundCinema(Bloomington,IndianaUP,1996),xvi.49Ibid,xvii.

23

art,demonstrateshowtheundergrounddidnotbelongsolelytotheartworldorpopular

culturebutrepresentedaculturalnegotiationreflectiveofanewsensibility.Indecentering

thetext,Suárezalsodemonstrateshowfilmmakersusedpopularculturetoexploresexual

identity.Hisfocusonhis“casestudies,”analyzinghowfilmsbyKennethAnger,JackSmith,

andAndyWarholappropriatedpopularcultureassourcematerialfortheirfilms,

demonstrateshowexperimentalfilmmakersusedpopularculturetocreateaqueercinema.

Suárezfurtheranalyzeshowpopularculture’s“newsensibility”ofthe1960sposed

aproblemforcriticswhoseviewswererootedinanearliercriticalparadigm.Heexplains,

“theirruptionofpopformsinto1960sexperimentalAmericanfilmpresentedan

interpretiveproblemforreviewersschooledintheideologiesofpostwarmodernism,

whichstressedclear-cutculturaldivisions.”50Inmakingthisargument,Suárezlinksthe

criticismofDwightMacdonald,AmosVogel,andParkerTyleronthegroundsoftheir

sharedantipathytotheunderground:“advocatesoftheundergroundconflatedthefilm’s

socialandpoliticalagendasandtheiraestheticmerits.”51AsSuárezexplains,formodernist

critics,“thisattitudewastooclosetothetendentiousideologicalcriticismpracticedby

CommunistPartyintellectualsinthe1930s.”52Here,however,Ifindhisconflationof

MacdonaldandTylermisleading.Tyler’spublishedcriticismandarchivedcorrespondence

revealthatheneverbelievedinthepoliticalcommitmentsofmodernismandwasnot

involvedin,forexample,debatesaboutart’srelationshiptoStalinismorthePopularFront.

Rather,Tylerdemonstratedaninchoatesenseofanarchicsubversionrootedinhis

aestheticcommitmenttoSurrealism.ButwhatismoresurprisingisthatSuárezignores

50Ibid,91.51Ibid,92.52Ibid,93.

24

Tyler’sroleinprovidinganeededreceptionofqueercinemaanddoesnotconsiderhow

Tyler’scriticismusedpopularcultureforsubculturalpurposes.Suárezalsomarginalizes

filmcriticismas“theavant-garde’smostimportantepiphenomenon,”butIemphasizethe

essentialrolefilmcriticismplayedincreatingamoreseriousunderstandingofcinema’s

ideologicalvalueandsubculturaladdresstomultipleaudiences.53AsIrecognize,aqueer

cinemacouldnotsucceedwithoutareceptionthatwaswillingtoengagewithitschallenges

tonormativeAmericanvalues.DespitetheselacunaeinSuárez’sarguments,whichthis

dissertationaddresses,hismonographprovidesanimportantanalysisofhowexperimental

filmmakersmixedfineartandpopularculturethroughcampandpastichetocreateaqueer

cinemathatchallengedheteronormativity.

BuildingontheRoleFilmCriticismHasPlayedinFilmStudies:A‘New’Sensibility

Thefourchaptersofthisdissertationultimatelybuildonfilmstudiesinterrogations

intofilmcriticismandreceptionbyforegroundingthreemajorfilmcritics’importanceto

thereceptionandcomplexnegotiationamongtheindependent,experimental,and

Hollywoodcinema,thatfrom1959-75,constitutedthe“NewAmericanCinema.”Thefilm

criticismofPaulineKael,JonasMekas,andParkerTylerconsideredthesocial,cultural,and

industrialchangesthatproducedtheNewAmericanCinema,andthisdissertationputs

theircriticismintoadialoguetobetterunderstandhowAmericanfilmproductionblended

popularcultureandfineart,and“high”and“low”culture,tocreatea“new”cinema.This

dissertationalsochallengesformalistaccountsofexperimentalcinemathatplacetheNew

AmericanCinemainoppositiontoHollywoodorconsideritanautonomousformof

culturalproduction:Iincludethe“NewHollywood”aspartoftheNewAmericanCinemato

53Ibid,71.

25

challengeasimpledialecticbetweenmainstreamandmarginalfilmproduction.54Finally,

thefilmcriticismofPaulineKael,JonasMekas,andParkerTylerchallengedanaesthetic

filmcriticism,whichwasinfluencedbyanxietiesaboutfilm’sculturalstatus,byexpanding

itsfocustoincludeanalysisofAmericanidentityandsocialvaluesrelatedtothe

relationshipsofclassandtaste,genderandculturaldiscourse,andsexualpoliticsand

aesthetics.

Myfirstchapter,entitled”ReceivingtheNewAmericanCinema,”providesan

overviewofchangesinthepostwarAmericanfilmindustrythatallowedforthecreationof

theNewAmericanCinema.AlthoughsomescholarshipontheNewAmericanCinemais

primarilyfocusedoncinema’sformalaspects,itisimportanttounderstandhowchangesin

production,distribution,exhibition,andreceptioncreatedthespacenecessaryfornew

typesofcinema.Hollywood’sdecliningpowerinthepostwarU.S.fragmentedafilmculture

ithadcontrolledunderthestudiosystem,while,inthe1950s,the“arthouse”introduced

Americanstoinnovativefilmmakingthatinfluencedindependentdirectorswhocombined

arthouseaestheticqualitieswithaspectsofsocialdocumentarytocreatetheNew

AmericanCinemain1959.Itisinthecontextthat,between1959-75,PaulineKael,Jonas

Mekas,andParkerTylercrystallizedtheindustrialandculturaldifferencesthatproduced

theNewAmericanCinemawhileprovidingdefinitiontoaheterogenousarrayof

filmmakingthatrangedfromhandmadeexperimentalshortstostudio-producednarrative

features.CriticslikeGregoryBattcockandJonasMekasdefinedthisnewcinemaintermsof

54TheNewHollywoodconsistedofauteur-drivencommercialcinemaproducedbytheHollywoodstudiosfrom1967-75.

26

itsrejectionofclassicalfilmgrammarandgreatersocialcommitmentas“NewAmerican

Cinema.”

Thischapteralsointervenesinscholarlyliteraturethatprimarilyconsiders

independentfeaturesandexperimentalshortsasconstitutiveoftheNewAmericanCinema

byincludingthe“NewHollywood.”NewHollywoodreferstoauteur-drivenstudio

filmmakingproducedintheU.S.after1967,aspartoftheNewAmericanCinema.Itisclear

thatstudiodirectorswereinfluencedbytheincreasedvisibilityofexperimentalcinema

becausetheyincorporateditsformalinnovationsintotheirfilms.Beginningin1967,

Hollywoodfilmmakersbegantocreatemoreexperimentalworkandexploretaboosocial

themes,buttheindustry’speriodofexperimentationendedwiththesuccessof“high

concept”inthemid-1970s.However,itismycontentionthatauteuristNewHollywood

filmmakingfrom1967-75sharedaspiritofaestheticandsocialexperimentationwiththe

independentandexperimentalfilmmakingbestassociatedwiththeNewAmericanCinema.

Bypromotingauteurismandplacingfilmintoalargerculturalconversation,criticserased

someofthedifferencesinproductionthatdistinguishedexpensivestudioproductionsfrom

handmadeexperimentalshorts.Filmswerenowpersonalexpressionsoftheircreators

ratherthancommodities.AllthreecriticsIconsider–PaulineKael,JonasMekas,and

ParkerTyler–helpedinitiateamoreseriousdiscussionofcinemathatmadeaudiences

considercinemaasanimportantandlayeredculturalexpressionthatexploredserious

socialissues.

Inthesecondchapter,entitled“AmericanCinemaasPopulistArt:PaulineKaeland

theNewHollywood,”IconsiderPaulineKael’sroleinpopularizingtheNewHollywoodfor

aneducatedaudienceandherdefenseofcinemaaspopulistart.Kael’sreviewofBonnie

27

andClydeintheNewYorkerprovidedacriticalreconsiderationofthefilmthathelpedit

findanaudienceandbecomealandmarkoftheNewHollywood.Inherreview,Kaelargued

thatBonnieandClydewasbasedinatraditionofAmericantragedy,andherdefenseofthe

filmaspopulistartchallengedargumentsthatfilmshouldaspiretobecomefineart.Kael

alsousedclosetextualreadingthatsuggestedtheinfluenceofNewCriticism’sliterary

analysis,butwithoutdismissingfilm’sentertainmentvalue.Here,Ichallengeassessments

ofKaelasacapriciousantagonist,whochallengedeither“highbrow”criticsorthetastesof

massaudiencesasherwhimsdictated.Instead,IarguethatKael’scriticismblendedaspects

of“high”and“low”culturaltastesbutconsistentlyrespectedaspectslikeperformanceand

narrativethatmadecinemaaccessible,andsherecognizedhowthecinemabelongedto

uniquelyAmericanculturaltraditionthatresistedthehighbroworaspirationalpretensions

ofEuropeanart.

However,KaelalsoexplainedhowtheNewHollywoodrepresentedanevolutionof

commercialfilmmaking,andsheprovidedamodelforteachers,students,andprofessional

adultsforhowtoappreciatethiscinema.IncontrasttoJonasMekas,Kaeldidnotadvocate

foranalternativecinema;butsheappreciatedhowtheNewHollywoodupdatedgenre

filmmakingthroughgreaterformalandnarrativesophistication.Despiteherspatwith

AndrewSarrisovertheauteurtheory,Kaelchampionedherownsetofauteurs,including

MartinScorsese,RobertAltman,andStevenSpielberg,whosynthesizedHollywoodgenre

filmstocreateanewtypeofHollywoodfilm.Kael’sliteraryandessayisticstylemadeher

compellingtoteachersandeducatedreaders,whowereinterestedinculturebutnewto

filmappreciation.Apartfromherpublishedessays,Kael’swealthofcorrespondence

demonstrateshowherreadersbecameinterestedinthecinemathroughherfilmwriting

28

andillustrateshowhercriticismfilledagapbetweeninstitutionalizedfilmstudiesand

“consumer’sguide”reviewsfoundinnewspapersandmagazines.Finally,Kael’scriticismof

theNewHollywoodrepresentsamomentwheneducatedaudiencestookHollywood

seriously,andshewasinstrumentalincultivatinginherreadersasenseoffilm

appreciationrootedinagreaterappreciationofHollywood’shistory.

Mythirdchapter,entitled“JonasMekas’‘VisionaryCinema’:TheNewAmerican

CinemaandCulturalRenewal,”considersJonasMekas’“MovieJournal”columns,published

inTheVillageVoice.MekaswasinstrumentalinpopularizingtheNewAmericanCinema

throughhisproduction,distribution,andexhibitionefforts,buthiscriticismdeservesfar

moreattentionthanithasreceived.Inthischapter,Iprovideacomprehensiveanalysisof

his“MovieJournals,”between1959and1971,whichspanthereceptionperiodoftheNew

AmericanCinema.Mekas’criticismcelebratedanartisanal,experimentalcinemabased

mostlyinthemesofculturalrenewalwhilechallengingMarxistargumentsthatthecinema

wasmerelypartofacultureindustrythatsupportedcapitalism.MekashopedtheNew

AmericanCinemacouldbecomeaviablealternativetoHollywood,andhispromotionalfilm

writingspoketoayouthaudience,lookingtochallengetheVietnam-erastatus-quo.Inthe

process,hearguedthattheAmericancinemacouldchallengeacultureofconsumptionand

conformity,andhesoughttoaligntheNewAmericanCinemawithcontemporaneous

BebopandBeatliterature,whichposedaparallelculturalchallengetothepoliticaland

sexualColdWarconformities.

AlthoughLaurenRabinovitzhasfocusedonhowtheavant-garde’scriticaldiscourse

marginalizedwomenfilmmakers,littleattentionhasbeenpaidtohowMekas’film

29

“revolution”contributedtoanartsdiscoursethatprivilegedmaleartists.55LiketheBeat

writerswhoinspiredhim,Mekasexplicitlycharacterizedhisrevolutionintermsofmale

culturalrenewal,and,likeotherdiscoursesrelatedtoa“crisisofmasculinity,”Mekas

arguedthatpersonalexpressioncouldprovideAmericanmenfreedomfrompoliticaland

economicconformity–whileignoringtherepressivegendernormsthatmadewomenfeel

equallystifled.Mekasalsochampionedmalefilmmakers,whohearguedwereuniquely

abletodiagnosisandconfrontacultureincrisis.InhissupportoffilmmakerStan

Brakhage,whomMekasconsideredtheparadigmaticartist,MekasevokedRomantic

notionsoftheartist,workinginisolationtocreatetranscendentworksofart.Despitethe

ostensiblyradicalnatureofMekas’versionsoftheNewAmericanCinema,heexpressedan

ambivalenceabouthomosexuality.Inthischapter,myattentiontotheconservativeaspects

ofMakes’criticismchallengesattemptstorepresenthimassimplyacountercultureavatar.

Atthesametime,Mekas,likeKael,shouldberecognizedforintegratingfilmcriticismintoa

largerculturalconversation,althoughMekas’advocacyofthecinemaasanagentof

culturalchangemadehiscriticismunique.

Myfourthchapter,“AgainstPropaganda:ParkerTyler’sSubculturalCriticismand

theUnderground,”considersParkerTyler’slate-careercriticismofexperimental

“underground”cinema.Tyler’sUndergroundFilm:ACriticalHistoryisoneofthefirst

evaluativestudiesofexperimentalNewAmericanCinemacelebratedbyMekasfrom1959-

71,buthiscriticismalsochallengedextantcriticalparadigmsbyprovidingaspecifically

radicalqueer,subculturalassessmentofthemovies.ScholarslikeDavidBordwellhave

55See:LaurenRabinovitz,PointsofResistance:Women,Power,andPoliticsintheNewYorkAvant-gardeCinema,1943-1971(Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress,1991).

30

consideredhowTyler’searlyworkonHollywoodblendedaspectsof“high”and“low”by

usingaplayfulavant-gardesensibility,buttheyignorehislongstandingcommitmentto

experimentalcinema,separatinghiscriticismintohisearlyworkonHollywoodandlater

workontheexperimentalunderground.However,myinvestigationintoTyler’sarchive

providesawealthofcorrespondencethatdemonstrateshiscloseconnectionto

experimentalcinema,datingbacktothe1930s.Tyler’srelationshiptotheavant-garde

informedacriticalethosthatchallengedmainstreamvalueswhileupholdingstrict

aestheticstandards,andhisbeliefincriticalobjectivitymadehimresistthe“partisan”

supportofMekasorofwriterslikeP.AdamsSitney,whowereinvolvedintheproduction,

distribution,andexhibitionofexperimentalNewAmericanCinema.

Tyler’scriticalobjectivityalsoprovidedhimthefreedomtocriticallyanalyzethe

NewAmericanCinema’ssexualpolitics,whichwriterselidedortooeasilyconsideredan

expressionofradicaldifference.Crucially,Tyler’squeersensibilityallowedhimto

understandhowtheexperimentalundergroundexploitedaqueeraesthetictoappealtoa

youthaudiencethatwantedtobeshockedbya“radical”cinema,andTyleranalyzedhow

AndyWarholusedcamptocreateacomicqueeraestheticthatdenieditspoliticalimport.

Yet,Tyleravoidedanessentialistsupportofqueercinema,andhewasgenerallyopposed

tosocialmovements.Despitehislove-haterelationshipwiththequeeraestheticslikecamp,

Tyler’scritical,queersensibilitymadehiscriticismsubculturalwhilehiscriticismalso

anticipatesthepoliticalandculturalstudiesturnthatbothalternativeandacademicfilm

criticismwouldtakeinthecomingdecades.WhilehiscontemporarieslikeDwight

Macdonalddebatedthecinema’sculturalstatus,Tylerplacedfilmcriticisminanaesthetic

artsdiscoursewhileprovidinganalysisofthecinema’sroleinmaintainingthestatus-quo.

31

Tylerwasapioneeringqueercritic,whocrystallizedthereceptionofanemergentqueer

cinema,andhispublishedoutputmorecloselyresemblescontemporaryacademics,who

publishinacademicfilmjournalsandfocusonideology,thanhispeerslikeDwight

MacdonaldandClementGreenbergwhodebatedthecinema’sculturalstatusin

newspapersandmagazines.

Myconclusion,entitled“PopularCultureisPoliticalCulture:TheLegacyofCriticsof

theNewAmerican,”considershowPaulineKael,JonasMekas,andParkerTylerchanged

Americanfilmcriticismbyassertingthecritic’sauthorityandbychallengingdistinctions

betweenartandpopularculture.HollywoodhadlongcontrolledreceptionoftheAmerican

cinema,butitspostwareconomicdeclineallowedcriticsworkingoutsideofthefilm

industryanopportunitytoinfluencediscourseaboutthecinema.Asaconsequence,critics

begantoreviewAmericaindependentandexperimentalcinema,whichallowedthemto

demonstratethecomplexnegotiationbetweenmainstreamandmarginalculture.Jonas

MekasconsideredseriousexperimentalfilmmakerslikeStanBrakhagealongsidepopular

culture.PaulineKael’sreviewsofNewHollywoodexplainedhowAmericanpopularculture

couldbebothinnovativeandsociallycommitted.ParkerTylerused“high”modernist

criticismtoanalyze“low”commercialcinema,andherecognizedhowundergroundcinema

tookinspirationfromfineartandpopularculture.Finally,Kael,Mekas,andTylerwrotefor

NewYorkCity-basedmagazinesthatassociatedtheirfilmwritingwiththecity’scultural

authority.Kael’sreviewsintheNewYorkerplacedcinemainthecontextofdowntownNew

Yorkculture,andthebohemianethosandcounterculturepoliticsoftheVillageVoiceand

EvergreenReviewhelpedlegitimizeMekas’andTyler’scritiquesofmiddle-class,suburban

valueswhileplacingcinemainthecontextofvanguardAmericanartandfiction.

32

ContemporarycriticismoftheAmericancinemathatprovidesanalysisintermsof

AmericanidentityandsocialvaluesowesadebttothepioneeringcriticismofPaulineKael,

JonasMekas,andParkerTyler.Byputtingthesecriticsinconversation,thisdissertation

revealsthenuancedandcomplexculturalnegotiationbetween“high”and“low”culture,

popularcultureandfineart,andmainstreamandmarginalfilmmakingproductionthatthe

NewAmericanCinemarepresents.ThecriticaldialogueofKael,Mekas,andTylerfurther

revealsthesocialdimensionsoftheNewAmericanCinemarelatedtotherelationships

betweenclassandtaste,genderandculturaldiscourse,andsexualityandaesthetics.In

criticismthataccountedfortheculturalandindustrialchangesthatchangedtheAmerican

cinemainthe1960s,Kael,Mekas,andTylerchangedfilmcriticismbychallengingacritical

paradigmbasedinanxietiesaboutthecinema’slackofculturevalue,andtheyhave

influencedAmericanfilmcriticismthatanalyzeshowthecinemainformsunderstandings

ofwhatitmeanstobeAmerican.

However,toproperlyunderstandhowPaulineKael,JonasMekas,andParkerTyler

changedAmericanfilmcriticismbyassertingthecritic’sauthorityandmovingAmerican

filmcriticismbeyondanxietiesaboutthecinema’sworth,itisimportanttounderstandhow

theindustrialchangesthataffectedthepostwarAmericanfilmindustry,andthecultural

changesthataffectedAmericanreceptionofthecinema,providedcriticsagreaterlevelof

influenceoverhowAmericansunderstoodthecinemainthe1960s.Hollywood’spostwar

declineinthe1940sand50screatedthespacenecessaryforalternativeindependentand

experimentalfilmproduction,butcriticsplayedavaluableroleinreceivingthiscinema.In

addition,postwarculturalchangessuchasthepopularityofarthousecinema,theincrease

inalternativeexhibitionspaces,andthesegmentationoftheAmericanfilmaudience

33

furtherchangedhowAmericansunderstoodthecinemabyassertingthevalueofcinemaas

cultureandbycreatinganaudiencethatwouldbereceptiveofchallengingindependent,

experimental,and“New”Hollywoodcinema.CriticsPaulineKael,JonasMekas,andParker

TylergavedefinitiontotheheterogenousarrayoffilmmakingthatconstitutedthisNew

AmericanCinemabyconsideringtheuniqueculturalandindustrialchangesthatproduced

it,andthey“created”theNewAmericanCinemaintheircriticism.

34

Chapter1

ReceivingtheNewAmericanCinema

The1960smarkedaperiodofprofoundsocialandculturalchangeinAmerican

societythatwasdefinedbyadualsenseofanxietyandpossibility.AsfilmscholarDavidE.

Jamesexplains,“Modernismcollapsednolessdecisivelyintheartsthaninsociety,andasit

didsoAmericanliterature,painting,dance,andmusicallleaptfromtheruins,breaking

intowhatappearedtobeentirelynewconcatenationsofpriorities,methods,aspirations,

andsocialfunctions.”1Thedeclineofpreviousculturalformsandtheenergyofsocial

activismchangedAmericanpopularculture,asJamesexplains,butconservativeaspectsof

anearlierpostwarcultureremained.AmericanselectedRichardNixon,andthehorrorof

Vietnamsubtendedandthreatenedtoovershadowcountercultureexpressionsofpeace

andlove.Yet,thedecade’sprofoundsocialchangewasalsoconcurrentwithanartistic

efflorescencethatproducedtheNewAmericanPainting,theNewAmericanPoetry,andthe

NewAmericanCinema.WhileAmericansseeminglyhadaviabledomesticalternative

cinemaproducedbyindependentandexperimentalfilmmakers,Hollywoodresponded

withinnovative,auteur-drivencinemaatdecade’send.Inthecourseofadecade,the

Americancinema,whichHollywoodhadrigorouslydefinedandcontrolledfortheprevious

fourdecades,changedtoincludeadizzyingarrayoffilmsproducedbothinandoutsideof

thestudios.InanalyzingthechangestheAmericancinemaunderwentinthe1960s,critics

createdthe“New”AmericanCinemaintheiressaysandreviewsbysynthesizingtheunique

industrialandculturalchangesthatproducedthiscinema.

1DavidE.James,AllegoriesofCinema:AmericanFilmintheSixties(Princeton:PrincetonUP,1989),4.

35

TheindustrialchangesthatproducedtheNewAmericanCinemaandthecultural

changesthataffectedreceptionoftheAmericancinemaalsoprovidedtherightconditions

forPaulineKael,ParkerTyler,andJonasMekastoexpandfilmcriticismbeyondan

aestheticanalysismotivatedbyanxietiesaboutthecinema’sculturalstatus.Inexpanding

thefocusofcriticalfilmwriting,Kael,Mekas,andTylerdemonstratedhowcriticismcould

provideapowerfultoolforpoliticalandsocialanalysisofAmericansociety,andthey

providedanecessaryreceptionoftheAmericancinemathatemergedafterHollywood’s

postwardecline.FilmcriticswerenolongerbeholdentoHollywood,andtheywroteabout

arthousecinema,independentfeatures,andhand-madeexperimentalshorts.Incriticism

thatconsideredthechangesinproduction,distribution,andexhibitionthatproducedthe

NewAmericanCinema,PaulineKael,JonasMekas,andParkerTylerchangedAmericanfilm

criticismbyconsideringAmericanidentityandsocialvaluesintermsofclassandtaste,

genderandculturaldiscourse,andaestheticsandsexuality,andtheydemonstratedhow

theNewAmericanCinemamixed“high”and“low”culture,popularcultureandfineart,and

marginalandmainstreamcinemas.PaulineKaeldefendedcommercialAmericancinemaas

popularcultureandpopulistart.JonasMekasarguedthatartisanalexperimentalcinema

couldleadtoculturalreformationbychallengingmiddle-classvaluesofsocialconformity

andcapitalistconsumption.ParkerTylerprovidedaqueerandsubculturalreceptionofthe

1960’sexperimental“underground”thatcritiqueditssexualpoliticsandappropriationof

queeraesthetics.

DefinitionoftheNewAmericanCinema

The“NewAmericanCinema”encompassesindependent,experimental,and“New”

Hollywoodfilmsproducedfrom1959-1975,butitsartisticheterogeneityanddifferencesin

36

production,distribution,andexhibitionmakesitacontested,mutabletermthatdescribesa

periodofAmericanfilmhistoryintransition.Critics’definitionsoftheNewAmerican

Cinemarevealedthetypeofcinematheyprivilegedinformaloraesthetictermsorhoped

wouldreplacetheindustrialstatus-quothathadbeenestablishedbythestudiosystem.In

fact,theAmericancinemachangedonsomanylevelsinthe1960sthatdebatesaboutthe

NewAmericanCinemaalwaysreflectedlargerdebatesabouttheAmericancinema.

Therefore,“NewAmericanCinema”islessadefinitionaltermthanapolemicalattemptby

criticsandwriterstoprivilegespecifictypesoffilmmakingandtheirproductioncontexts

withinacinemaundergoingrapidchange.DefinitionsoftheNewAmericanCinemawere

alsopositionedvis-à-visHollywood.Supportersofindependentandexperimentalcinema

positionedthesecinemasinoppositiontoHollywoodtochallengeitsaestheticand

industrialhegemonyandtoasserttheartisticsuperiorityofnon-commercialcinema.

However,moreoftenthannot,thecompleterefutationofHollywoodwasarhetorical

tactic,andmostcriticsviewedHollywoodwithalevelofambivalence.

IndustrialChanges

TheNewAmericanCinemawasmadepossiblebytheprofoundeconomicand

industrialchangesthataffectedpostwarHollywood.Priorto1948,thevertically-integrated

Hollywoodstudioscontrolledtheproduction,distribution,andexhibitionofthevast

majorityofAmericanfilms.Actors,directors,andwriterssignedrestrictivecontractswith

themajorstudios,whichincludedMGM,Fox,Paramount,WarnerBros,andRKO,

colloquiallyknownasthe“BigFive.”Thestudiosownedandcontrolledthesets,lights,

cameras,andothermeansofproduction.Hollywoodfilmmakingwasrunlikeanassembly

line,andthestudioscontrolledallaspectsofproductiontoreducecostsandmaximize

37

profits.Beyondproduction,thestudioscontrolleddistributionandownedthetheaters

responsibleforexhibition.Studiofilmswerethensoldinpackagesthatrequiredexhibitors

topurchaselessdesirablefilmsinordertoexhibitpopular“A”films.Thismonopolistic

systemendedwhenthe1948UnitedStatesv.ParamountPicturesSupremeCourtcase

forcedstudiostodivestfromtheatricalexhibition.Whilemostofthestudiossurvivedthe

collapse,Hollywoodenteredaperiodofeconomicdecline,andlosseswereespecially

pronouncedinthelate1960s.Forinstance,Hollywoodexperiencedsignificantlossesfrom

1968-71that“exceeded$500million.”2

Inthe1960s,Hollywoodexperiencedthefirstwaveofcorporateconsolidations,

whichchangedhowfilmswereproduced,distributed,andexhibited.Thestudioscutthe

numberofproductionsbutspentmoreperfilm,andHollywoodattemptedtomake

theatricalexhibitions“events”throughlimited-runscreeningsofprestigepictures.This

practiceof“roadshowing”reliedonhigherticketprices,reservedseating,andexhibitions

withintermissions.AsfilmscholarJustinWyattexplains,roadshowexhibitionattemptedto

maketheatricalexhibition“bigger,grander,andmorespectacularthantelevision.”3But,as

Hollywoodspentmoreperfilm,itsproductionmodelbecamerisky.Hollywoodenjoyed

postwarhitslikeQuoVadis(1951),TheRobe(1953)TheTenCommandments(1956),

Spartacus(1960),WestSideStory(1961),LawrenceofArabia(1962),MyFairLady(1964),

andTheSoundofMusic(1967)butsufferedeconomicfailureslikeCleopatra(1963)The

FalloftheRomanEmpire(1964),andDoctorDoolittle(1967),leadingtoacycleofboom-or-

2JustinWyatt,“Marketing/DistributionInnovations,”inTheNewAmericanCinema,ed.JonLewis(Durham:DukeUP,1998),61.3Ibid,65.

38

bust.4WhattheabovelistalsodemonstratesisthedegreetowhichHollywoodbegan

expendingsignificantmoneyandresourcesonlavishepicsandmusicalswiththepotential

offinancialfailure.

In1975,Hollywood’seconomicfortunesbegantoreverse.Theindustryenjoyedan

era-defininghitwithJaws(1975),followedbythesuccessesofRocky(1976)andStarWars:

ANewHope(1977),allexamplesof“high-concept”cinema.Simplydefined,“highconcept”

filmsfeatureclearnarrativesthatcanbesummarizedinadvertisingtaglines.Hollywood

alsobeganfunnelingmoreresourcesintoadvertisingandpromotionforpotential

blockbusters.AsJustinWyattexplains,“Thestudioslookedtotentpolefilms,asingleone

whichonitsowncouldsupportastudio’syearlydistributionschedule.”5Underthestudio

system,thestudioshadproducedalargenumberoffilms,lookingtoprofitoneachfilm,but

theynowsoughttorecouptheiryearlyexpenseswithasinglehit.AsfilmscholarTimothy

Corriganexplains,thestudiosabandoneda“fairlylucidlogicofprofitableinvestment”in

favorofgamblingonblockbusters.6ThesuccessofStarWarsrevealedHollywood’snew

relianceoncross-promotionandsynergisticmarketing.GeorgeLucaslicensedStarWars’

charactersandcontenttovarietyofproductsandservices,markingthebeginningofthe

blockbusterfilmasamulti-marketing,multi-mediaevent.

StarWars’successencouragedHollywood’s“blockbustersyndrome,”buttherisk

inherentinproducingexpensiveblockbusterfilmsforcedthestudiostoseekguaranteed

revenuestreams.Inthe“corporate-era”ofthe1980s,thestudiosbecamepartofcorporate

4Thefilm’sboxofficegrossesmadeitoneofthetopgrossingfilmsof1963,butthefilm'sincrediblyhighproductioncostsultimatelymadeitafinancialfailure.5Wyatt,“Marketing/DistributionInnovations,”83.6TimothyCorrigan“AuteursandtheNewHollywood,”inTheNewAmericanCinema,ed.JonLewis(Durham:DukeUP,1998),46.

39

portfoliosalongsidecablechannels,magazines,andothermediaplatforms.Hollywood

againembracedmonopolisticcontrolbutreplacedthevertically-integratedsystemwith

corporatesynergy.Thesuccessoftheblockbusterinthemid-1970sultimatelyallowed

HollywoodtoreassertcontroloftheAmericancinema,andtheindependentand

experimentalcinemathatwasanimportanttotheNewAmericanCinemawaspushedback

tothemargins.Hollywood’scontrolandconsolidationoftheAmericancinema,whichonly

increasedinthe1990s,alsoaffectedAmericanfilmcriticism.InthemidstoftheNew

AmericanCinema,longformcriticslikeKaelachievedmainstreamsuccessandrecognition,

buttheriseoftheblockbusterminimizedtheinfluenceofcriticswhoconsidered

challengingHollywoodfilmmakingorcriticslikeTylerandMekaswhowroteabout

independentandexperimentalcinema.

Hollywood’seconomicdifficulties,whichcreatedthespacenecessaryforthenew

typesofcinemathatconstitutedtheNewAmericanCinema,wasprecipitatedbytherise

andpopularityoftelevision.Televisionsenteredurbanandsuburbanhomesinthe1950s,

andtheconsequencesforthefilmindustrywerealmostimmediate.WarnerBrothers

experienceddramaticlosseswith“netprofitsfallingfromarecord$22millionin1947to

$2.9millionin1953–adeclineofnearlyninetypercentinjustsixyears.”7Yet,Hollywood

sawpotentialinthisnewmarket.Thenewtelevisionnetworksneededprogramming,and

thestudioswereabletoproduceitquicklyandcheaply.AccordingtoChristopher

Anderson,televisionallowedHollywoodtorealize“ambitionsthattheindustryhad

harboredfordecades,”andexecutivesattemptedtorefashionthestudiosintomulti-media

7ChristopherAnderson,HollywoodTV:TheStudioSystemintheFifties(Austin:TheUniversityofTexasPress,1994),2.

40

conglomerates.8Inadditiontoproducingnewprogramming,thestudioslicensedtheir

extensivebackcatalogstothenetworks,providingthemanimportantrevenuestream.

Licensingfilmstotelevisionalsocreatedanentirelynewtypeoffilmconsumer.Filmwent

fromanephemeralcommoditytosomethingthatcouldbestudiedandre-watched.Asa

consequence,thenextgenerationoffilmmakersandviewerswasmorevisuallyliterateand

awareoffilmhistory.

Televisionchangedreceptionofthecinemabyallowingviewerstore-watchfilms

andidentifykeyaspectsofadirector’sstyle.Consequently,criticsbegantoconsiderthe

directorasafilm’s“author,”whichwouldinfluencereceptionofthe“New”Hollywood

orientedaroundauteurs.Inhisstudyoftherelationshipbetweentelevisionandthe

Hollywoodstudios,ChristopherAndersonfurtherdemarcatesthe“old”Hollywoodfrom

the“new”bythedifferencesintheirproductionmodels.Andersonexplainsthatthe“old”

Hollywoodconsistedofthevertically-integratedstudios,butthe“new”Hollywoodwas

definedbythestudios’reorganizationinto“subsidiariesoftransnationalmediaandleisure

conglomerates.”9Butitisalsoimportanttoconsiderhowproductionisarticulatedtoa

largerreceptioncontext,andeventhe“auteurtheory”canberelatedtoproduction.The

auteurtheorydefinesfilmproductionastheproductofasingularcreativevisionand

challengesthefactthatHollywoodcinemawasproducedthroughanindustrialproduction

model.However,asfilmscholarTimothyCorriganexplains,eventheauteurtheoryneeds

tobeunderstood“withincontemporaryindustrialandcommercialtrajectories.”10“Auteur”

directorsbecamecelebrities,and,asAndrewSarris,whoadoptedtheauteurtheoryfor

8Ibid,21.9Ibid,5.10Corrigan“AuteursandtheNewHollywood,”47.

41

Americanreaders,argues,“[theauteurtheory]helpedpushmoredirectorsuptothefirst

paragraphofareviewevenaheadoftheplotsynopsis.”11

Inanotherway,televisionchangedreceptionbybolsteringperceptionsoffilmas

“art”incertaincontexts.Thismayseemcounterintuitivesincetelevisionisaformof

commercialmassculture,andcriticsargueditrequiredpassiveviewership.Forinstance,

artcriticslikeClementGreenberg,whodismissedcinemaasdebasedandacademicized

simulacrumofgenuineculture,”nowthoughtoftelevisionasanappropriatemediumfor

filmexhibition,becauseitrequiredpassiveviewership.12IncontrasttoGreenberg,Pauline

Kaelvaluedcinemaasanartform,andshearguesthattelevisionmadetheatricalexhibition

moreimportant.In“MoviesonTelevision,”publishedintheJune3,1967issueoftheNew

Yorker,Kaelcriticizesthepoorsynchronizationandthedistortionofthefilmimage,buther

largercritiqueisthattelevisionpresentsfilmswithoutcontext.13Televisionlumpedfilms

togetherwithoutprovidingappropriatelinksbetweenaestheticstylesandperiodsoffilm

history.”14Showingmoviesontelevisionmadefilmviewershiptoopassive,whichonly

affirmedMarxistcritiquesofpopularculture.But,atthesametime,television’sdistortion

offilm’svisualaspectsdemonstratedtheimportanceoftheatricalexhibition.Inorderto

appreciatevisually-sophisticatedfilmslike2001:ASpaceOdyssey(1968),audiencesstill

hadtoattendatheatretoseefilmproperlyexhibited,andtheatricalexhibitionprovided

audiencesasocialexperiencethatcontrastedwiththeisolationofwatchingfilmsathome.

11AndrewSarris,“NotesontheAuteurTheoryin1962,”inFilmCultureReader,ed.P.AdamsSitney(NewYork:Praeger,1970),130.12ClementGreenberg,“Avant-GardeandKitsch,”inTheCollectedEssaysandCriticism,Volume1:PerceptionsandJudgements,1939-44,ed.JohnO’Brian(Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,1986),1213PaulineKael,“MoviesonTelevision,NewYorker,June3,1967,122.14Ibid,120.

42

ArtHousesandImports

Hollywood’spostwardeclineprovidednewopportunitiesforforeignimportsand

arthousecinemathatchangedhowAmericansunderstoodthecinema.JonasMekastook

inspirationfromthearthouse,whichheappreciatedasinnovativecinemathatremained

commerciallyviable,andPaulineKaelcelebratedNewHollywoodcinemathatwasinspired

bytheFrenchNewWave.15But,mostimportantly,arthousecinemathatchallenged

Americans’expectationsofthecinema’ssocialandaestheticqualitiescreatedanaudience

thatwouldbereceptiveofchallengingindependent,experimental,andNewHollywood

cinemainthenextdecade.Thepopularityofarthousecinemawasmadepossiblebythe

industrialchangescausedbytheParamountcase,whichmandatedthatthestudiosdivest

fromexhibition.AsHollywoodproducedfewerfilmsandlostcontrolofexhibition,the

studiosraisedrentalprices,pricingoutsmallertheatresoperatingontightmargins,and

theatreslookedtoexhibitdifferentkindsofcinema.Thearthousesthatemergedinthe

1950sareassociatedwithforeigncinema,but,asfilmhistorianBarbaraWilinskyexplains,

“TheartfilmindustrydefineditsfilmsagainstclassicalHollywoodproductandpotentially

offeredalternativestomainstreamfilminstitutionsthroughproductioncompanies,

distributionfirms,exhibitionsitesandfilmsocieties.”16Arthousetheatresfurther

differentiatedthemselvesfrommainstreamtheatresbyrelyingon“notionsofartand

prestige.”17Thisprestigecouldbesignifiedbyformalistcinemawithoutcommercial

15ParkerTyleralsoproducedabookaboutEuropeancinema.See:ClassicsoftheForeignFilm:APictorialTreasury(Secaucus:CitadelPress,1962).16BarbaraWilinsky,SureSeaters:TheEmergenceofArtHouseCinema(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2001),12.17Ibid,79.

43

ambition,butarthousessignifiedprestigethroughpromotionalmaterialsandintheir

theatricalspaces.

Writersnotedthedifferencesbetweenarthouseandmainstreamtheatres.ATime

magazinearticleissuefroma1963issuededicatedto“CinemaasanInternationalArt”

contrastsanarthousewithaconventionaltheatre:“Itwasn’tthesortofplacepeople

usuallyseeamoviein.NoboorishMoorisharchitecture,nochewinggumunderthe

seats.”18Here,theauthorcomparestheelaboratemoviepalacesofclassicalHollywood

withanarthousetheatrethatwasunderstatedandarchitecturallymodernist.Arthouse

theatresalsosignified“prestige”inotherways.Ratherthanofferingcandyandpopcorn,art

houseconcessionsservedcoffeeandpastries,andtheatresprovidedprogramsnotesthat

emphasizedthecinema’svalueasanartform.Ofcourse,arthousesalsohaddifferent

programmingthanmainstreamtheatres.Arthouseswereimportantexhibitionspacesfor

documentaries,independentcinema,experimentalshorts,andeducationalfeatures,and

thisprogrammingemphasizedthecinema’s“intellectuallyactiveandparticipatory

nature.”19Crucially,this“active”sensemetthehighbrowrequirementthat“art”require

thoughtfulengagementratherthanpassiveamusement.

Despitetheirvariedprogramming,arthouseswerethemostimportantexhibition

spacesforimportedcinemainthe1950s,andthesetheatreshelpedinitiateamoreserious

receptionofthecinemabyintroducingAmericanstoinnovativecinema.WhileHollywood

struggledinthepostwarperiod,nationalcinemasinEuropeflourished.Theeconomic

havoccausedbyWorldWarIIforcedEuropeancountriestodecreasespendingon

18“AReligionofFilm,”TimeMagazine,Sept.20,1963,78.19Wilinsky,SureSeaters,89.

44

importedproductslikeAmericanfilms,andEuropeancountriesinvestedresourcesintothe

developmentoftheirownnationalcinemas.ImmediatelyfollowingtheWar,themost

popularimportswithAmericanaudienceswereBritishfilmsproducedbyArthurRankand

Italianneorealistfilms,notablyRome,OpenCity(1945)andTheBicycleThief(1948).20The

Italianfilms,inparticular,surprisedAmericansbecauseoftheirfrankdepictionsof

violenceandsocialhardship,andneorealism’suseofdocumentarymethodsintroduced

Americanstoagreatersenseofcinematicrealisminnarrativefeatures.However,France

producedthemostpopularfilms.Inthe1950s,Frenchcinemahadbeenpopularwith

Americancollegestudents,whoappreciateditssexappeal,andthepopularityofFrench

starslikeBrigitteBardotcreatedafamiliaritywithFrenchcinemathatbolsteredthe

popularityoftheNewWavethatbeganin1959.FilmhistorianTinoBalioexplains:“Since

Bardotvirtuallypersonifiedtheyouthofthe1950sandwasespeciallypopularwithcollege

students,herfilmssetthestageforthereceptionoftheFrenchNewWave.”21Intheearly

1960s,critics-turned-filmmakersJean-LucGodardandFrançoisTruffautmadeformally

ambitiousfilmsappreciatedbyanarthouseaudienceandinauguratedaFrench“New

Wave”thatchallengeda“traditionofquality”basedinliteraryadaptations.Thefilmsofthe

FrenchNewWavewerewell-receivedbyAmericanfilmcriticsbutwereonlyonepartof

theforeignartfilmmarket.ForeignauteursfromoutsideofEuropelikeAkiraKurosawaor

SatyajitRaybroadenedAmericans’viewofthecinemathroughfilmsthatremain

20NotableRankfilms:TheLifeandDeathofColonelBlimp(1943),BlackNarcissus(1947)andTheRedShoes(1948).21TinoBalio,TheForeignFilmRenaissanceonAmericanScreens,1946-1973(Madison:TheUniversityofWisconsinPress,2010),9.

45

touchstonesofclassroomcurriculumandrepertoryscreenings,buttheFrenchNewWave

wasthemostinfluentialonthefilmmakerswhoproducedtheNewAmericanCinema.22

ArthousecinemacompellededucatedAmericanstoreconsiderthecinema’s

culturalvaluebyprovidinganalternativetoHollywood.Although“foreign”artcinema

includedarangeofstyles,genres,andproductioncontexts,TinoBalioarguesthatthe“only

generalizationsonecouldmakeaboutthestyleofthesefilmsisthattheydepartedmoreor

lessfromHollywoodnarrativenorms.”23FilmhistorianRickWorlandalsoexplainshow

EuropeancinemadifferedfromHollywood:“Europeanfilmsoughttoconfronttheworld’s

mostintractablesocial,politicalpsychologicaldilemmas,whileHollywoodseemingly

retreatedintotechnicolorfantasyanddiversion.”24Thearthouseexposedaudiencesto

cinemathatdepartedfromclassicalHollywoodinformalandnarrativeterms,andforeign

cinemachallengedAmericanexpectationsaboutsexandviolencebypresentingmore

lenientdepictions.HollywoodhadbeensubjecttorigidcensorshipthroughtheProduction

Code,alsoknownastheHay’sCode,thatprovided“moral”guidelinesaboutwhatcouldbe

depictedonscreen,whichbothprohibitedfilmmakersfromconfrontingtaboosocialissues

likehomosexualityanddirectlyrepresentingsex.Whileforeignfilmswerestillsubjectto

censorship,theyweremoresexuallyexplicitandfrankintheirdepictionsofviolencethan

mostAmericanfilms.

Exhibitorsemphasizedforeignartfilm’sluridorprurientelements,suggesting

theseelementsinadvertisementseveniftheywereabsentintheactualfilms.TinoBalio

22NotableFrenchNewWavefilms:Hiroshima,MonAmour(1959),Breathless(1959),andThe400Blows(1959).23Balio,TheForeignFilmRenaissanceonAmericanScreens,6.24RickWorland,SearchingforNewFrontiers:HollywoodFilmsinthe1960s(Hoboken:JohnWileyandSons,2018),114.

46

explainshow“foreignfilmdistributorsunderstoodthatsexsoldfilmsandfreelyborrowed

techniquesfromtheexploitationmarketto‘sexup’filmtitlesandadvertisingtolure

customers.”25“Sexappeal”wasinstrumentaltothesuccessofforeignfilminAmerica.

Distributorsandexhibitorsoperatedwithsmallpromotionbudgets,anditwasdifficultto

advertisefilmsthatlackedstarsorwerepresentedindifferentlanguages.Inorderto

appealtoAmericanaudiences,exhibitorsusedpromotionalmaterialsthatdrewfromthe

exploitationmarketandconflatedartandadultfilms.Forupscaleaudiences,thisconflation

likelyengenderedasenseofanxiety,butarthouseswerenottheonlytheatresto

emphasizesexintheatricalpromotion.BarbaraWilinskydescribeshowthe“increasing

sexualemphasisofmainstreamfilmadvertisingcertainlyinfluencedtheboundariessetby

filmadvertisers.”26Ofcourse,filmcriticsplayedanimportantroleinaffirmingthecultural

valueofarthousecinema,distinguishingitfromadultorexploitationfilms.

AlternativeExhibition

ExhibitionofAmericancinemathatexistedoutsideofHollywood’scontrolwas

essentialtothesuccessoftheNewAmericanCinemainthe1960s.Experimentaland

independentfilmmakersneededspacestoexhibittheirwork,butalternativeexhibition

spacesalsoinfluencedreceptionofthecinemabytreatingitasanartformthatrequired

thoughtfulattention.Inthe1920sand30s,experimentalcinemascreenedatcinéclubsand

“little”theaters,andpostwaraudiencesvieweditattravellingexhibitions,festivals,

colleges,universities,andindependenttheatres.Inthe1940s,experimentalfilmmakers

likeMayaDeren,whoheldscreeningsattheProvincetownPlayhouse,exhibitedtheirown

25Balio,TheForeignFilmRenaissance,8.26Wilinsky,SureSeaters,127.

47

work,demonstratinganindependentethosthatchallengedHollywood’scommercialism.

However,artmuseumsprovidedanespeciallyimportantvenuefortheexhibitionofnon-

commercialcinema.In1935,theFilmLibraryattheMuseumofModernArtinNewYork

CityhelpedchangeAmericanfilmreception.TheLibrary,initiallycuratedbyIrisBarry,

soughttopreserveandexhibitimportantcinematohelpaudiencesappreciatecinemaasan

artform.FilmscholarHaideeWassonexplains:“MoMa’swasathen-unfamiliarexercisethat

laidanenduringfoundationthathelpedcreateacommonsenseaboutcinema:filmisanart

withahistorythatmatters.”27Byplacingfilminthemuseum,MoMachallengedthenotion

thatfilmwasmainlyentertainmentanddisposablepopularculture,andBarryinstructed

audiences,whocouldbeloudandboisterousduringscreeningsatcommercialtheatres,in

thepracticeofthoughtfulappreciation.Cinemathusbecamemorethanentertainment:it

becameanartformtocontemplateandappreciate.Intheprocess,MoMaplayedan

essentialroleincreating“anemergentsensibilityforanewkindofcinema”thattook

cinemaseriously.28

AcrossinthecountryintheBayArea,FrankStauffacherpresented“ArtinCinema”

attheSanFranciscoMuseumofArtfrom1946to1954.StauffacherandFosterexplainthe

philosophybehind“ArtinCinema”intheirfirstseriesannouncement:“Wehopethatthis

serieswillaccomplishseveralpurposes:thatitwillshowtherelationbetweenthefilmand

theotherartmedia–sculpture,painting,poetry:thatitwillstimulateinterestinthefilmas

acreativeartmediuminitself,requiringmoreofaneffortofparticipationonthepartofthe

audiencethantheHollywoodfantasies,beforewhichanaudiencesitspassivelyand

27HaideeWasson,MuseumMovies:TheMuseumofModernArtandtheBirthofArtCinema(Berkeley,UniversityofCalifornia,2005),5.28Ibid,188.

48

uncreatively;andthatitwillgiveassistancetothosecontemporaryartistswholaborin

obscurityinAmericanodistributionchannelsfortheirwork.”29Thestatementarticulates

howexhibitorsinartinstitutionsuniquelyconceptualizedfilm’sroleinAmericanculture.

First,StauffacherandFoster,likeBarry,linkcinematofineartassociatedwith“high”

culture,andtheychallengeargumentsthatcinemawassimplydisposablelowculture.

Second,byconceptualizingviewersas“active”participants,StauffacherandFostercounter

Marxistcritiquesthatcinemawasaproductthataudiencespassivelyconsumed.Instead,

theyarguethatcinemacouldrequireanactiveengagementthatencouragedanawareness

ofaestheticsandideology.Intheirprograming,StauffacherandFosteralsorecognizedthe

constraintsnoncommercialfilmmakersfaced,andtheywantedtoprovideacircuit-of-

culturethatwouldsupportalternativecinema.LikeMoMa,the“ArtinCinema”screened

bothcommercialandexperimentalcinema,andStauffacher,whoproducedfilms,was

interestedinhelpingaudiencesseenewfilmsthatwerenotwidelyavailablewhileserving

abroadereducationalmandate.

InNewYorkCity,Cinema16beganscreeningsin1947,oneyearafter“Artin

Cinema,”andbecameanimportantexhibitionsitefordocumentary,scientificfilms,and

experimentalfilmuntilclosingin1963.Cinema16existedoutsideoftheinstitutional

structureslikeMoMabutwasrunasanon-profittheaterformemberswhopaidannual

dues.Cinema16’snon-profitstatusalsohelpeditavoidstrictcensorshipandprovided

Vogelasenseofprogrammingfreedom.30Vogel,likeBarryandStauffacher,viewedhis

29FrankStauffacherqtd.inScottMacDonaldintroductiontoArtinCinema:DocumentsTowardaHistoryoftheFilmSociety,eds.ScottMacDonaldandFrankStauffacher(Philadelphia:TempleUP,2006),2.30Cinema16’snon-profitstatuswasessentialtoitsabilitytoscreenfilmsthatwouldhavebeensubjecttocensorshiplikeKennethAnger’sFireworks(1947)andStanBrakhage’sLoving(1957).

49

programmingaseducationalbutdemonstratedapoliticalapproach.FilmhistorianScott

MacDonaldexplains,“Insteadofacceptingmoviegoingasanentertainingescapefromreal

life,Vogelandhiscolleaguessawthemselvesasaspecialbreedofeducator,usingan

explorationofcinemahistoryandcurrentpracticenotonlytodevelopamorecomplete

senseofthemyriadexperiencescinemamakespossible,buttoinvigoratethepotentialof

citizenshipindemocracy.”31Vogelviewedthecinemaasademocratizingmediumthat

couldleadtosocialchange,but,unlikeIrisBarry,hedidnotimposebourgeoisnotionsof

artappreciationthatrequiredquietreception.Cinema16wasanimportantsocialvenue,

whereaudienceswould“vociferouslydemonstratetheirapprovalordisapprovalwhile

filmsplayed.”32Yet,Cinema16’saudiencestillattentivelylistenedtolecturesbycriticsand

filmmakersandengagedindebateanddiscussionaboutscreenings.

VogelalsoinfluencedJonasMekas’distributioneffortsandpromotionalfilm

criticism.In1948,Cinema16beganlistingfilmsavailableforrentalinitsprogramnotes,

andthetheaterquicklybecameaninfluentialdistributorofexperimentalcinema.

MacDonaldexplains,“WhilesomeofthefilmsVogelchosetodistributearenolonger

widelyknown…othersweretobecomelandmarksinthepostwarexplosionofavant-garde

filmmaking.”33DespiteVogel’ssuccessindistributingexperimentalcinema,Mekasformed

theFilm-Maker’sCooperativetodistributeAmericancinemaVogelignored.TheCo-op’s

rentalscutintoVogel’sbottomline,butVogel’scelebrationofpersonalexpressionand

argumentsaboutthecinema’sdemocratizingpotentialinfluencedMekas’beliefthatcinema

31ScottMacDonald,introductiontoCinema16:DocumentsTowardaHistoryoftheFilmSociety,ed.ScottMacDonald(Philadelphia:TempleUP,2002),1.32Ibid,14.33Ibid,16.

50

couldbeanagentofculturalreformation.34Cinema16’sfailure,whichwashastenedby

inadequatepromotion,convincedMekasthattheNewAmericanCinemawouldneed

adequatepromotiontobesuccessful.35In1963,asCinema16facedincreasedcosts,and

competitionfromotherexhibitionspaces,Hollywood,andtelevision,thetheatre’slackof

promotionexacerbatedthefinancialdifficultiesthateventuallyforcedittoclose.36Mekas

learnedavaluablelessonfromCinema16’sclosure,andhedecidedtopromotethefilmshe

distributedthroughhisownfilmwriting.

Reception

ShiftsinproductionandexhibitionledtonewreceptioncontextsfortheAmerican

cinema.Criticswereespeciallyimportanttotheartmarket,becausearthouseaudiences

wereeducatedandlikelytoconsultprofessionalreviewers,andachangingcultural

discourseaboutthecinema’svalueencouragedintellectualstotakefilmseriously.Beyond

journalisticnewspaperandmagazinereviewers,intellectualslikeSiegfriedKracauerwrote

book-lengthworksthatconsideredtherelationshipbetweenthecinemaandpolitics,and

AmericansbegantoreassessthevalueofHollywoodcinema.AsDavidBordwellexplains,

postwarAmericancriticsreevaluatedclassicalHollywoodcinema,initiatingan“aesthetic

approachtoAmericanfilmthatrecognized‘somethingdeeplyartfulwasatthebaseof

studiocinema.’”37AndrewSarris’adoptionofthe“auteurtheory”fromFrenchcriticsina

1962FilmCultureessayfurtherchangedhowAmericansthoughtaboutthecinema.Sarris

visualizedtheauteurtheoryasamodelofconcentriccircles:theoutercirclerepresented

34Ibid,9.35Ibid,5.36Ibid,6.37DavidBordwell,TheRhapsodes:How1940sCriticsChangedAmericanFilmCulture(Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,2016),140.

51

technique;thenextcirclerepresentedpersonalstyle;andthefinalcirclerepresented

“interiormeaning.”Themostimportantofthesecircleswasthefinalone.Sarriswrites,

“Thethirdandultimatepremiseoftheauteurtheoryisconcernedwithinteriormeaning,

theultimategloryofthecinemaasanart.Interiormeaningisextrapolatedfromthe

tensionbetweenadirector’spersonalityandhismaterial.”38Theauteurtheoryprovided

audiencesaneasywayto“read”andunderstandfilms.HollywooddirectorslikeOrson

WellesandJohnHustonwerenowauteurs,whosepersonalvisionsdifferentiatedtheir

filmsfromthemassofanonymousstudioproductions,andthistheoryinfluencedAmerican

receptionofforeigncinema.DirectorsJean-LucGodard,MichelangeloAntonioni,and

IngmarBergmanbecamecelebrities,andtheirfilmswerelessassociatedwiththenational

cinemasthanwiththedirector’spersonaltrademark.Theauteurtheorywasultimately

importanttoAmericanfilmreception,becauseaudiencesnowidentifiedcinemawith

marqueedirectorsratherthanwiththeindustrialcontextoftheHollywoodstudios,which

createdadiscourseaboutcinemathatconsidereditartisticratherthancommercial.

ShiftsinreceptionencouragedHollywoodtoproducefilmsfordifferentmarket

segments,whichcreatedamorevariegatedAmericanfilmaudience.Underthestudio

system,theAmericanfilmaudiencewasrelativelymonolithic,becauseHollywood

producedfilmsforageneralaudience.However,Hollywood’spostwardeclineforceditto

producefilmsforspecificaudiencesegmentsliketheyouthmarket,andthisaudience

segmentationwasimportanttotheNewAmericanCinema,whichwouldneverappealtoa

massaudience.Inthe1950s,Hollywood’sfinancialdeclineforcedthestudiostoseeknew

markets,andtheybeganproducingfilmsforteenagers.Postwarprosperityhadcreateda

38Sarris,“NotesontheAuteurTheoryin1962,”133.

52

youthculturecenteredaroundmusic,fashion,magazines,andmovies,andAmerican

teenagershadtimeandmoneythatbusinessessoughttoexploit.AsAmericanstudies

scholarThomasDohertyexplains,theteenyearsbecamean“autonomousandinmost

casesaprivilegedperiodinanindividual’slife.”39Althoughthese“privileged”teenyears

wereprimarilylimitedtowhitesuburbanyouth,thismarketwaslargeandaffluent,and

Hollywoodtargeteditwithfilmsaboutgenerationalconflict.Notablejuvenilefilmslike

RebelWithoutACause(1955)weresetinafamiliarmiddle-classmilieubutexploredyouth

rebellion.40YouthfilmslikeBlackboardJungle(1955)werelikewisecenteredaround

themesofteenageangstandgenerationaldistrust,butfilmsliketheTheWildOne(1953)

andRockAroundtheClock(1956)featuredyouthculturethroughmotorcyclesandrockn’

roll.DohertyarguesthatHollywood’sfocusontheyouthmarketmarkedtheendoffilm’s

universalappeal,buttheAmericanfilmaudienceofthe1960ssegmentedintotheadultart

house,juvenile,andmainstreamadultmarkets.Nonetheless,Hollywood’sfocusonthe

youthmarketinitiatedaculturalshiftthatwouldallowtheNewHollywoodinthenext

decadetoappealtoayounger,liberalaudience.

TheNewAmericanCinema

TheindustrialandculturalchangesthatchangedtheAmericancinemamade

educatedAmericansopentotheindependent,experimental,andNewHollywoodCinema

thatchallengedtheconventionsoftheclassicalHollywoodfilm.Thearthousehadchanged

American’sperceptionsofthemovies,andalternativeexhibitionspaceshadcompelled

Americanstoappreciatethecinemaasart,butAmericanslookedtocriticstounderstanda

39ThomasDoherty,TeenagersandTeenpics:TheJuvenilizationofAmericanMoviesinthe1950s(Philadelphia:TempleUP,2002),34.40Ibid,83.

53

cinemaintransition.Criticsandwriterswould,therefore,attempttoprovidedefinitionto

the“NewAmericanCinema,”whichencompassescinemarangingfromwell-financed

studiofeaturestohandmadeexperimentalshorts.Whilethiscinemaresistseasydefinition,

scholarslikeP.AdamsSitneyandwriterslikeGregoryBattcockdefinetheNewAmerican

Cinemaasconsistingofexperimentalshortsproducedfrom1959-71thatrejectedthe

Hollywoodfilm.Incontrast,theNewHollywood,thecommercialsubsetoftheNew

AmericanCinema,consistsofstudio-producedfilmsandcinemawithsignificantstudio

distribution.TheNewHollywood,whichbeginsin1967withTheGraduate(1967)and

BonnieandClyde(1967),extendsintothemid-1970sbutconcludeswithHollywood’sshift

tothe“blockbuster,”followingthesuccessofJaws(1975).IndependentNewAmerican

Cinemaincludesexperimentalandnarrativecinema,butNewHollywoodcinemaconsists

solelyofnarrativefeatures.WriterslikeSheldonRenanfurtherexplainthattheNewYork

“underground”wasanimportantsubsetoftheNewAmericanCinema,butitisimportant

torememberthattheNewAmericanCinemawasproducedacrossthecountryevenifitis

associatedwithNewYorkCitybecauseofMekas’influenceandthesheernumberof

experimentalfilmsthatemergedfromitsfilmcommunity.41Yet,thisassociationmayalso

bearhetoricalattemptbywriterstopositiontheNewAmericanCinemaasanantithesisto

Hollywood.

InMekas’periodization,thetwofilmsthatmarkthebeginningoftheNewAmerican

CinemaareShadowsandPullMyDaisy,bothproducedin1959.Theseindependentfilms

usedepisodicstructures,improvisation,andformaltechniquesdrawnfromneorealism,

cinéma-vérité,anddocudramaslikeLionelRogosin’sOnTheBowery(1956).Shadowsand

41TheBayArea,inparticular,wasanimportantsiteofexperimentalfilmproductionanddistribution.

54

PullMyDaisywerenarrative,butmostfilmsfromtheNewAmericanCinema’sfirstperiod

(1960-5)wereexperimentalshortsthatexploredsubjective“vision”throughcinematic

form.FilmmakersKenJacobs,RonRice,BruceBaillie,JonasMekas,andStanBrakhage

producedpersonalcinemathatexploredsomeaspectoftheiridentity.P.AdamsSitney

considersthiscinema“lyricalfilm,”which“postulatesthefilm-makerbehindthecameraas

thefirst-personprotagonist.”42Initssecondperiod(1966-71),theNewAmericanCinema

shiftedtostructuralistand“expanded”cinema,whichinitiateda“divorce[from]the

cinematicmetaphorofconsciousnessfromthatofeyesight”toanexplorationofcinematic

form.43ThestructuralistcinemaofTonyConrad,MichaelSnow,HollisFrampton,andPaul

Sharitswasconcernedwithformandtemporality,andAndyWarhol’suseofthree-screens

inChelseaGirls(1966)furtheranticipatedthemulti-mediaaspectsofexpandedcinemathat

includedintermediaworks,filmswithmultiplescreensandprojectors,andperformance

elements.Expandedcinemamadecinemaanimmersivemulti-mediaevent,but,asfilm

scholarGeneYoungblooddescribes,thiscinemacontinuedtoprioritizepersonal

expression:“Someareseekingthosenewfacts,thosenewexperiences,throughthe

synestheticresearchofexpandedcinema.”44

TheNewYork“underground,”whichincludesthefilmmakers,distributors,and

exhibitorsthatsupportedNewYork’sexperimentalandindependentcinema,wasan

influentialsubsetoftheNewAmericanCinema.Undergroundcinemawasformally

experimentalandstronglyassociatedwithqueerpoliticsandtransgressivecontent.45

42P.AdamsSitney,VisionaryFilm:TheAmericanAvant-Garde,1943-1978(NewYork:OxfordUP,1979),142.43Ibid,370.44GeneYoungblood,ExpandedCinema(NewYork:E.P.DuttonandCo.,Inc.,1970),68.45ThefilmsofKennethAngerare,perhaps,mostrepresentativeofqueerexperimentalfilm.AngerlivedinLosAngeles.However,GregoryMarkopouloswasalsoanimportantqueerfilmmaker.

55

FilmmakersJackSmithandAndyWarholshockedaudienceswithsexuallygraphicfilms

thatexploredqueerdesireandchallengedbourgeoissocialconventions.Beyonditsformal

experimentationandtransgressivevalue,undergroundcinemadocumentedNewYork’s

experimentalcinemacommunityandrepresentedthecity.Warholcastactorsfromhis

professionalandsocialcircle,experimentalfilmmakersappearedineachother’swork,and

undergroundcinemawasproducedinthecity,exhibitedatCinema16,theCharles,and

FilmForum,anddistributedbytheFilm-MakersCooperative.Finally,undergroundcinema

exploredaspectsofNewYorkCityandurbanlife.Forexample,ChelseaGirlsrepresented

downtownbohemia,andShirleyClarke’sTheConnection(1961)andCoolWorld(1963)

depictedthelivesofmarginalizedNewYorkers.UndergroundcinemaalsomadeNewYork

itssubjectinthetraditionofmodernistfilmsthatexploredcities.MarieMenken’sGo!Go!

Go!(1962-4)usedaerialshotsandfootagefromstreetsinrapidlyeditedsequencesto

representthefreneticpaceofurbanlife.

Writersfurtherused“underground”toencompassallthird-waveAmerican

experimentalcinema.InIntroductiontotheAmericanUndergroundFilm,SheldonRenan

examinestheundergroundcinema’scharacteristicsandprovidesageneralhistoryof

experimentalfilmproduction.Inmanyways,Renan’shistoricalfocusmostclosely

anticipatesParkerTyler’sUnderground:ACriticalHistory.Renanattemptstodefinethe

characteristicsofexperimental“underground"cinema:“TheUndergroundfilmisacertain

kindoffilm.Itisafilmconceivedandmadeessentiallybyonepersonandisapersonal

statementbythatperiod.Itisafilmthatdissentsradicallyinform,orintechnique,orin

content,orperhapsallthree.Itisusuallymadeforverylittlemoney…anditsexhibitionis

56

outsidecommercialchannels.46Renan’sdefinitionisvague,but,likeMekas,hecontrasts

theunderground’spersonalandartisanalqualitieswithHollywood’sfactory-like

productions.Theunderground’soppositiontoHollywoodisclearestintermsofRenan’s

acknowledgementofproductionconstraintsandtheimportanceofalternativeexhibition

channels,buthisaestheticanalysisislessspecific,andheconcedes,“…itisalsotruetoday

therearefewtechniquesexclusivetotheunderground.”47

Renanalsoexaminesthemeaningof“NewAmericanCinema,whichemergesfrom

the“NewAmericanCinemaGroup.”RenanexplainshowtheNewAmericanCinema

rejectedHollywoodandAmericancommercialculture:“TheNewAmericanCinematakesin

theundergroundfilm,butisbroaderthanit.ItisthetotalrebellionintheUnitedStates

againstthedominationoffilmbyHollywoodandothercommercialfactors.”48Itwasa

commontacticofwriterstocontrastexperimentalcinemawithHollywood,butRenan’s

definitionprovidesmoreconfusionthanclarity.Infact,RenanarguesthattheNew

AmericanCinemabothembracedandrejected“commercialfactors”:“[i]nunderground

films,asincommercialfilms,thefateofaparticularworkmayrestmoreonelementsof

businessandpublicitythanonafilm’sactualvirtue.”49Renanexplainsthatthe

undergroundformedits“ownestablishment,”butheisneverclearaboutthepolitical

importofthiscinema:wasthissubsetoftheNewAmericanCinemaaradicalalternativeto

Hollywood?Orsimplyaviablecommercialalternative?Renan’sinabilitytoclearlydefine

theNewAmericanCinemaforceshim,instead,toconsidertheNewAmericanCinema’s

46SheldonRenan,AnIntroductiontotheAmericanUndergroundFilm(NewYork:E.P.DuttonandCo,1967),17,emphasisorg.47Ibid,36.48Ibid.49Ibid,209.

57

socialcharacteristicsintermsofitsrepresentationsofsex,inchoatesenseofsocialprotest,

andinterestinthemagicandoccult.But,elsewhere,Renangivesupatspecificity:“Manyof

themajorworks,like[Stan]Brakhage’sDogStarMan,JackSmith’sFlamingCreatures,[Ken]

Jacobs’BlondeCobra,and[Ron]Rice’sChulmlum,donotfitspecificmolds.Theyhavea

calculatedeffect.Theyhavethingstosay.”50Therefore,Renan,likeMekas,wouldresortto

definingtheNewAmericanCinemainvaguespiritualterms:“Justastheavant-gardefilms

ofthetwentiescameoutofaclimateofriotousanarchy,theundergroundfilmshaveissued

fromavolatileenvironment.Inthiscaseitistheclimateofthenewman.”51

Thedifficultyinconsolidatingadiffuserangeofcinemaunderasingleterm

compelledwriterstocelebratetheNewAmericanCinema’ssenseofartisticpossibility.

However,ifthatfailed,theycouldsimplycompareittoHollywood.Intheeditedcollection,

TheNewAmericanCinema,GregoryBattcockexplains,“TheNewAmericanCinemaisa

termsufficientlyelastictoembraceanextraordinaryvarietyofartisticallyandsometimes

technicallyamateurishambitiousproductionsthathaverecentlyattractedcriticalattention

toNewYorkCityandelsewhere.”52BattcockacknowledgestheNewAmericanCinema’s

“technicallyamateurish”quality,but,likeRenanandMekas,celebratestheNewAmerican

Cinema’sindividualexpression:“Theentire,andonlypurposeofeveryproductionisto

expresstheartisticintentionofitsmaker.”53Elsewhereinthecollection,AndrewSarris

emphasizestheNewAmericanCinema’sabilitytooffendbourgeoissensibilities:“[o]utrage

isnotonlyoneofthehistoricfunctionsoftheavant-garde;itistheonlyadvantagethe

50Ibid,35.51Ibid,42.52GregoryBattcock,introductiontoTheNewAmericanCinema:ACriticalAnthology,ed.GregoryBattcock(NewYork:E.P.DuttonCo,1967),12.53Ibid.

58

outsiderpossessesagainstthesuperiorresourcesoftheinsider.Ultimatelythemost

insidiousenemyofartisgoodtaste.”54Sarris’sdemarcationof“insider”and“outsider”

supportedadialecticbetweenHollywoodandexperimentalcinemathatmovedbeyond

industrialdifferencestoconsidertasteandculturalidentity.Sarrisconcludeswitha

warning,“Iftheavant-gardefacesanythreatall,itissimplythatsquaresarebecoming

morehipthanhipsters,thatcommercialmoviesaremoresalaciousthanunderground

movies,andthatsuburbiaismoreaudaciousthanbohemia.”55

LikeSarris,P.AdamsSitneyrejectedanyrelationshipofinterdependencebetween

thecommercialandexperimentalcinemas.Instead,inSitney’sview,theNewAmerican

Cinematookinfluencefromartisticpracticeslikemodernistpaintingandavant-garde

literature.ThisargumentisconsistentwithSitney’ssupportofculturaldemarcations

betweenartandentertainment,andhetreatsexperimentalfilmasanautonomouscultural

production.Sitney’sbeliefinexperimentalcinema’sartisticautonomyisbestreflectedin

VisionaryFilm:TheAmericanAvant-Garde,1943-78,whichprovidesextensiveformal

analysisofpostwarAmericanexperimentalfilm.Sitneycategorizescinemaaccordingtohis

analysisofthefilmmakers’“theoretical”intention,andheisprimarilyinfluencedby

literaryandfineartcriticism.Sitneyexplains,“JustasthechiefworksofFrenchfilmtheory

mustbeseeninthelightofCubistandSurrealistthought…thepreoccupationsofthe

Americanavant-gardefilm-makerscoincidewiththoseofourpost-Romanticpoetsand

AbstractExpressionistpainters.”56Sitneyfurtherrejectsanyrelationshipornegotiation

54AndrewSarris,“TheIndependentCinema”inTheNewAmericanCinema:ACriticalAnthology,ed.GregoryBattcock(NewYork:E.P.DuttonCo,1967),54.55Ibid,55.56Sitney,VisionaryFilm,ix.

59

betweentheexperimentalandcommercialcinemas:“Thepreciserelationshipoftheavant-

gardecinematoAmericancommercialfilmisoneofradicalotherness.Theyoperatein

differentrealmswithnexttosignificantinfluenceoneachother.”57Yet,evencriticslike

AnnetteMichelson,whostudiedexperimentalcinema,rejectedSitney’sargumentthat

cinemaexistedapartfromthesocietyinwhichitwasproduced.Michelsonexplainsthatan

“aestheticofautonomy…[by]nomeansviolatesorexcludestheircriticalviewofsociety.”58

IncontrasttoSitney,filmscholarDavidE.Jamesexplainsthecomplexdialogue

betweenAmericanexperimentalcinemaandHollywood.InAllegoriesofCinema:American

FilmintheSixties,Jamesarguesthatfilm’s“modeofproduction”isallegorizedbythetext

and“remainsthecentralinterpretativestrategy.”59Whilefilmproductionisencoded,

Jamesemphasizestheimportanceofintertextualitybyconsideringhow“the

underground’soppositiontoHollywoodwasaccompaniedbydialogueswithit.”60Here,

Jamesexplainshowtheunderground’sattemptstosubvertHollywood’sformaland

ideologicalaspectsrepresentsadialoguebetweenmainstreamandmarginalcinema.This

dialoguechallengesargumentsthatexperimentalcinemaisanautonomouscultural

production,which,is,atbest,autopicnotionand,atworst,anelitistrefutationofpopular

culturethatupholdsdistinctionsbetween“high”and“low”culture.AlthoughJamesheralds

the“expropriationoftheapparatusfromthecorporation...[as]thesignalachievementof

undergroundfilm,”hisemphasisonintertextualitysuggeststhat1960’sexperimental

57Ibid,viii.58AnnetteMichelson“FilmandtheRadicalAspiration”inTheNewAmericanCinema:ACriticalAnthology,ed.GregoryBattcock(NewYork:E.P.DuttonCo,1967),96.59James,AllegoriesofCinema,11.60Ibid,141.

60

undergroundcinemademonstratedaformalsynthesisorasubculturalmutationof

dominantcodes.61

JamescomparesStanleyKubrick’s2001:ASpaceOdyssey(1968)andStan

Brakhage’sMothlight(1963)tofurtherdemonstratehowHollywoodandAmerican

experimentalcinemaproducedinthe1960schallengedthe“limits”oftheirrespective

modesofproduction.StanBrakhage’sfilm,Mothlight,isanartisanalshortcomposedof

mothwings,seeds,andothernaturalobjectsadheredtofilmstrip.Mothlightisa

meticulouslyproducedfilm,anditsemphasisonthenaturalworld,hand-madeaspects,and

emphasisonthecinematicimagemakeitakindof“pure”cinema.Incontrast,Stanley

Kubrick’sspaceepic,2001:ASpaceOdyssey,isanexpensiveHollywoodproductionthat

useselaboratesetdesignandextensivepost-production.ButKubrick’sfocusoncinematic

formandattentiontoeverydetailofthemise-en-scènelikewisecreatesa“pure”cinema.

Comparingthesenominally“experimental”films,separatedbyinsuperabledifferencesin

theirresources,providesaninstanceinwhichpureformalambitionsuggestsanabilityto

containindustrialdifferences.AsJamesacknowledges,thesefilmsare“atypical”intheir

relativepurity,62but,duetoprofoundeconomicandstructuralinstability,Hollywood

cinemaofthelate-1960sbecamesitesof“alternativeproductionpossibilities.”63

Consequently,asJamesargues,NewHollywoodfilmswouldsuggest“somemetaphorical

relationtotheirownmanufacture”byallegorizingacommercialcinemainflux.64

61Ibid.62Ibid,12.63Ibid.14;ThissenseofconfusionledHollywoodtosupportfilmslikeEasyRider(1969),whichJamesdescribesasa“35mmersatzundergroundfilm.”64Ibid.

61

TheNewHollywood

“NewAmericanCinema”isassociatedwithprimarilyassociatedwithindependent

andexperimentalcinema,butIincludethe“New”HollywoodasasubsetoftheNew

AmericanCinematorecognizehowAmericanfilmproductionofthe1960srepresenteda

negotiationbetweenmainstreamandmarginalfilmpracticesandtochallengeproposed

binariesbetweenmainstreamandexperimentalcinema.Scholarshavealsoconsideredthe

NewHollywood,whichdescribesauteur-drivenHollywoodfilmsproducedfrom1967-75,

partoftheNewAmericanCinema,becausethistermsynthesizestheindustrialandcultural

factorsthatchangedtheAmericancommercialfilmindustry.FilmscholarJonLewis

explainshowindustrialandsocialchangesinformedhisunderstandingoftheNew

AmericanCinema:“Ifirstbegantousethetitle‘TheNewAmericanCinema’foracourseI

introducedbackin1983.AtthetimeIwasinterestedintheapparentdeclineofonenew

Americancinema–theso-calledauteurrenaissance,thattookshapeafterthestudios

adoptedtheMPAARatingsSystemin1968.”65Lewisarticulatestheriseofauteurismtoa

looseningofcensorship,butmarksthestartoftheNewHollywoodoneyearaftermy

periodization,whichbeginswithBonnieandClyde(1967)andTheGraduate(1967).

Changesinreceptionandcriticaldiscoursealsolevelleddifferencesbetweenmainstream

andmarginalcinemas.Forinstance,theauteurtheorychangedreceptionbypersuading

Americanstothinkofcinemaintermsofauthorship,whichrelegatedproductiontoalesser

consideration.Asaresult,the“auteur”couldmovebetweendifferentproductioncontexts

aslongastheymaintainedalegiblestyle,andauteurssynthesizedandborrowedfrom

classicalHollywoodfilms,arthouseimports,andexperimentalcinema.

65JonLewis,introductiontoTheNewAmericanCinema,ed.JonLewis(Durham:DukeUP,1998),1.

62

TheNewHollywoodwasalsoinfluencedbytheFrenchNewWave,whichprovided

amodelforambitiouscinemathatretainedacommercialviability.Americandirectorslike

ArthurPennwereinspiredbyJean-LucGodard’sformalinnovations,andNewHollywood

directorsrespondedtoFrenchNewWavecinemathatupdatedAmericangenrefilms.

Importantly,asPaulineKaelrecognized,theNewWave’sinfluenceontheNewHollywood

representedtheinfluenceofHollywoodcomingfullcircle.FrenchdirectorsFrançois

TruffautandJean-LucGodardtookinspirationfromHollywoodauteurslikeJohnHuston

andHowardHawkswhiledrawinginspirationfromAmerican“B”andfilms,andFrench

directorsupdated“lowbrow”Americangenrefilmsthroughinnovative,auteuristcinema.

Jean-PierreMelvilleupdatedtheAmericannoirwithLeSamouraï(1967)andLeCercle

rouge(1970),andGodardcreatedauniquescience-fictionfilm,Alphaville(1965).In

recognizingthedialoguebetweenHollywoodandauteuristNewWavecinema,itisclear

thatcriticalcelebrationsofthearthouseorauteurismthatrejectHollywooddemonstratea

lackofhistoricalawareness.ItislikewiseimportanttorecognizehowtheNewWave

inspiredthegenerationwhocreatedtheNewHollywoodtowardagreaterformalambition.

Finally,theestablishmentoftheMPAAratingsin1968andadesiretoattract

youngeraudiencescompelledHollywoodtoanewlevelofrealismandsocialengagement.

Younger,liberalaudiencestoleratedrepresentationsofsexandviolencethatolder

generationswouldnot.Forinstance,TheGraduate(1967),BobandCarolandTedandAlice

(1969),andMidnightCowboy(1969)presentedhonestdiscussionsandrepresentationsof

sex,andBonnieandClyde,TheWildBunch(1969),AClockworkOrange(1971)andTaxi

Driver(1976)allfeaturedscenesofgraphicviolence.TheNewHollywoodwasalso

influencedbythesocialupheavalofthesixties,andfilmmakersembracedagenerational

63

distrustthe“establishment’s”authority.GenerationalconflictsubtendedmanyNew

Hollywoodfilms,andthisconflictcouldbesubtextthatrequiredreadingtheviolenceofthe

WildBunchasacommentaryontheVietnamWar,orexplicit,asitwasinEasyRider(1969)

andFiveEasyPieces(1970),whichfeaturedprotagonistswhorejectedmainstream

Americansociety.Ultimately,theNewHollywood’sformalambitionsandsocial

commitmentsharedaculturalandaestheticsensibilitywithexperimentalandindependent

NewAmericanCinemaandrevealshowmainstreamandmarginalfilmproductionofthe

1960swasneverasopposedassomecriticslikedtosuggest.

ReceivingtheNewAmericanCinema

WhiletheNewAmericanCinemaencompassesaperiodoffluxinAmericanfilm

culturethatexistedfornearlyfifteenyearsbeforeHollywoodre-assertedcontrolwiththe

blockbuster,filmcriticsbecameparticularlymainstreambecausetheyhelpedAmerican

audiencesappreciateandunderstandachangingfilmculture.Underthestudiosystem,

Americanaudienceshadlesschoiceaboutthetypesoffilmstheycouldseedueto

Hollywood’scontrolofexhibitionandthelackofcinematicalternatives.Yet,withmore

options,filmcriticshelpedAmericanaudiencesunderstandforeignimports,independent

cinema,and“New”Hollywoodcinema.Industrialchangesalsoengendereda

reconsiderationoffilm’sroleincultureandcompelledwriterstotakefilmmoreseriously.

WhatMarxistcriticsconsidered“passive”entertainmentduringHollywood’s“goldenage”

becameregardedbyeducatedAmericansasanartforminthepostwarperiod,andcriticsof

the1950shelpedchangethereceptionoftheAmericancinema.JamesAgeepopularizeda

straight-forwardformofcriticisminformedwithaliterarysensibility.MannyFarber

consideredfilminaestheticterms,andSiegfriedKracauer’s“psychologicalhistory”of

64

Germanfilmprovidedanideologicalanalysisthatexploredhowfilminfluencedtheriseof

Nazism.66

Yet,PaulineKael,JonasMekas,andParkerTyler’sfilmwritingexpandedAmerican

criticismbeyondafocusonHollywoodcinema,andtheyprovidedacriticalreceptionof

Americanindependent,experimental,and“New”Hollywoodcinemathatwasmade

possiblebythecommercialfilmindustry’spostwardecline.Thesecriticsalsorespondedto

theindustrialandculturalchangesthatproducedtheNewAmericanCinema,andtheir

essayisticfilmcriticismcompellededucatedAmericanstotakecinemaseriously.As

innovativecinemaandaseriousreceptionchallengedMarxistargumentsaboutthe

cinema’sroleaspassiveentertainment,Americansreassessedthecinema’svalueand

embracedanewsensibilitythatchallengedculturaldistinctionsbetweenpopularculture

andfineart.Inrespondingtoademandforfilmcriticismaboutformallyinnovativeand

socially-committedcinema,PaulineKael,JonasMekas,andParkerTylerusedcriticismof

theNewAmericanCinematoinitiateagreaterconsiderationofAmericanidentityand

socialvaluesrelatedtoclass,gender,andsexuality.Inexpandingthepurviewandfocusof

criticalfilmwritingbeyondaestheticanalysisandananxietyaboutthecinema’scultural

worth,Kael,Mekas,andTylerdemonstratedhowfilmcriticismcouldbeapowerfultoolfor

politicalandsocialanalysisofAmericansociety.

66See:DavidBordwell,How1940sCriticsChangedAmericanFilmCulture(Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,2016),4.

65

Chapter2

AmericanCinemaasPopulistArt:PaulineKaelandtheNewHollywood

OnDec.29,1969,GeorgeShelps,“workinginanewfieldcalled‘communication’”at

TempleUniversity,wrotePaulineKaelaletter.Shelpsbegins,“BeforesomeonedoesaPhD

dissertationonthefilmcriticismofPaulineKael,I’djustliketomakeafewcomments.1

Shelp’sletterencouragesKaelto“disentangleaestheticjudgementsfrompurelysocial-

communicative[ones],”butimplicitinhisreferencetoaPh.D.dissertationwasabeliefthat

filmcriticismdidnotwarrantseriousstudy.However,atthemomentShelpswaswriting,

Americanfilmculturewasundergoingimportantchanges.Filmstudieswereentering

collegeanduniversityclassrooms,andAmericanswerereassessingthevalueofpopular

culturelikecinema.Inwritingforaneducatedreadership,lookingtounderstandand

appreciatethecinema,PaulineKael’sreceptionofthe“NewHollywood”challenged

“highbrow”filmcriticismthatdismisseda“low”Americancinemaandcelebrateda“high”

Europeanartcinema.Incontrasttohercontemporaries,KaelappreciatedHollywoodas

popularcultureandpopulistart,andshevaluedtheNewHollywoodasartisticand

entertainingcinemathatupdatedtheclassicalHollywoodfilm.

PaulineKael,filmcriticattheNewYorkerfrom1968-91,wroteforareadership

interestedinhighculturethatwantedtosignaltheirsocialstatusandeducationthrough

goodtasteandknowledgeofcinema,butKael’sfocusonnarrativeandcharactermadeher

criticismaccessibleforreadersnewtofilmappreciation.2WhileKael’swritingwas

1CorrespondencefromGeorgeShelpstoPaulineKael.29December1969,Box9,PaulineKaelArchive,LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington,Indiana.2MaryCoreyexplainshowtheNewYorkers’popularityinpostwarAmericawasrelatedto“theexceptionalincreaseinthenumberofeducated,middle-classliberals,”andsheprovidessurveydatafrom1949that

66

considered“sociological,”shewasnotideologicallikeParkerTylerorSiegfriedKracauer.3

Infact,KaelparticularlydislikedKracauer,whomsheaccusedofpreferring“’unfortunate

socialconditions”toentertainment.4UnlikeJonasMekas,whopromotedanalternative

cinemathatchallengedthestatus-quo,KaelcelebratedtheNewHollywoodaspartofa

largertraditionofAmericancinema.KaelarguedthatthebestAmericancinemawasbased

in“Americantragedy,”rootedincomedyandviolence,andsheappreciatedthecinema’s

roleasentertainmentforimmigrantandworking-classaudiences.Kaelalsocelebrated

mainstreamfilmgenreslikethemusical,5western,andgangsterfilmattimewhencritics

embracedformalistcinemaand“auteurism.”6Thus,KaelcelebratedtheNewHollywoodfor

itsconnectiontoapopulistculturalpastthathercontemporariesrejectedtocelebratethe

radicaloralternativeaspectsofthe“New”AmericanCinema.

BythetimeKaelwashiredattheNewYorkerin1968,readershadacceptedthatfilm

wasmorethanmass-producedentertainment,andKael’sinsistentfocusontheAmerican

revealsthat“most[readers]hadattendedcollege…[and]Threequartersofthemagazine’ssubscribershadanannualincomeofover$5,000ayear,atatimewhenthenationalaveragefamilyincomehoveredaround$1,900.”See:MaryCorey,Theworldthroughamonocle:theNewYorkeratmidcentury(Cambridge:HarvardUP,1999);2,12;Kael’scorrespondence,archivedattheLillyLibraryatIndianaUniversityatBloomington,furtherdemonstratestheaffluenceandhigheducationlevelofherreaders.Manyofheradultreaderswerecollege-educatedprofessionals,includingdoctors,lawyers,andcollegeprofessors,andtheyrevealedtheireducationthroughrepeatedreferencestofineartandliterature.Inaddition,letterwritersdemonstratedaneagernesstobecomeknowledgeableaboutthecinemainordertobeculturallyliterate.3WilliamJohnstonJr,writingfromtheClaremontGraduateSchoolonFeb.10,1967,accusesKaelofonlybeing“secondarilyinterestedinmoviesasanartformandprimarilyconcernedwiththeirpotentialitiesforreflectingsociologicaltruthsanduntruths.”Heconcludes,“Sheisasocialcritic.”See:CorrespondencefromWilliamJohnstonJr.toPaulineKael.10February1967,Box9,PaulineKaelArchive,LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington,Indiana.4PaulineKael,ILostitattheMovies(Boston:Little,BrownandCo.,1965),284.5KaelusedherreviewofFiddlerontheRoof(1971)todefendthemusicalasanimportantfilmgenre.WhileFiddlerofferedthe“pleasureofbigboldstrokes,”Kaelworriedsnobbishaudienceswouldignoreapopularmusical.See:PaulineKael,ILostitattheMovies(Boston:Little,BrownandCo.,1965),138.6KaelcriticizedtheauteurtheoryandAndrewSarris.In“CirclesandSquares,”publishedinFilmQuarterlyin1973,KaelexplainedtheimportanceofwritersandcrewmembersbesidesthedirectorwhomadeHollywoodfilmssuccessful.Inthelate1960s,ascriticscriticizedHollywood,Kaelcontinuedtocelebratethe“geniusofthesystem.”

67

cinema’spopulistoriginsdemonstratesthedegreetowhichcriticsofthe1960saccepted

film-as-art.WhatfurtherdistinguishesKael’scriticismwashersupportoffilmas

commercialentertainment.ThisisnottosaythatKaeldidnotcriticizeHollywood’sprofit

motive;shedidsorepeatedlyandoften.KaelwasespeciallyconcernedwithHollywood’s

profligatefinancialwasteandshifttocorporatecontrol,butshecontinuouslydefendedit

asaninstitution.ComparedtocriticslikeJonasMekasandParkerTyler,Kaelwas

politicallyconservative.UnlikeMekas,whodemandedthecinemachallengevaluesofsocial

conformityandcapitalistconsumption,Kaelrarelymentionscivilrights,second-wave

feminism,theVietnamWar,studentactivism,andotherpoliticalissuesinhercriticism.

Kael’scriticismwasalsolessovertlypoliticalthanTyler’scriticismoftheNewAmerican

Cinema.Tylercreatedaradical,queercriticismthatchallengeddominantAmericansocial

andsexualvalues,butKaelwasmorefocusedonchallengingculturalhierarchiesthat

demarcated“high”and“low”culture.

Kaelfirstbecamepopularafterthepublicationofabest-sellingbook,ILostitAtthe

Movies,whichcompellededitorWilliamShawntohireherasaNewYorkerstaffwriter.

Insteadofappealingtoreadersthroughanovertpoliticalsensibility,theNewYorker

appealedtoreaders’interestsinfineartand“high”culturewhilepromotinganexcessive

levelofconsumerism.Forinstance,theJune3,1967issuethatpublishedKael’sfirstarticle,

“MoviesonTelevision,”promotedexoticvacations,“executivefurniture,”andchampagne

inthemarginsthatborderedherprose.7LiteraryscholarTomPerrinhasarguedthat

modernistartcriticalofcapitalistexcesswas“seeminglyconspicuousfromitsabsence”in

ordernottocontradictorchallengetheNewYorker’sfocusonconsumptionoroffendits

7TheNewYorker,June3,1967,120-34.

68

advertisers.8 WhileKael’sreviewsoffilmsbyJean-LucGodardandLuisBuñueldidinject

modernismintothemagazinetosomedegree,theydidlittletocounteracttheNewYorker’s

cosmopolitanconsumerism.IncontrasttotheNewYorker,counterculturepublicationslike

theVillageVoiceprovidedabetterplatformforcriticismoftransgressivecinema.

Inwritingforareadershipthatincludededucatedprofessionals,collegestudents,

andsocially-mobilereaders,lookingtoappreciatecinemaingreaterdepthanddetail,

Kael’sNewYorkerfilmreviewsandessaysmodelledafilmappreciationthatcelebrated

NewHollywoodasanevolutionofclassicalHollywoodcinema.9Consequently,Kael

critiqued“radical”newcinemathathercontemporarieslikeMekascelebrated,andshewas

criticaloffilmswithpretensionstowards“art.”Butcrucially,Kaelwantedtheeducated

segmentofherreadership,whomayhavebeeninclinedtodismisscommercialAmerican

cinemaas“low”culture,toappreciatehowHollywood’senduringroleasapopular

entertainmentenrichedsupposedlymoreartisticcinema.Inthisregard,Kaelchallenged

criticswhoembracedformalistcriticismorwhocelebratedtheartisticsuperiorityof“high”

Europeanarthousecinema.InherreviewofBonnieandClyde(1967),whichhelped

establishthefilmasalandmarkoftheNewHollywood,KaelfocusedonhowArthurPenn

employedaspectsofAmericantragedyinnewways.Shewouldlikewisedemonstratehow

NewHollywooddirectorslikeMartinScorseseandRobertAltmanupdatedgenerictropes

oraspectsofclassicalHollywoodfilmmaking.Aboveall,Kael’scriticismemphasizedthe

8TomPerrin,“OnBlustering:DwightMacdonald,ModernismandtheNewYorker,”inWritingfortheNewYorker:CriticalEssaysonanAmericanPeriodical,ed.FionaGreen(Edinburgh:EdinburghUP2015),229.9Kaelregularlycorrespondedwithyoungercollegestudents,wholackedanunderstandingoffilmhistory,andmanyoftheseyoungerreadersaspiredtobecomewritersandcritics.

69

importanceofAmericanpopulistartistictradition,andsherejectedthewholesaleembrace

ofthe“new”thatcharacterizedMekas’promotionalcriticism.

Kael’sreadersengagedwithherinfrequentcorrespondencethatcomplicates

generalizationsaboutthemainstreamfilmaudienceandchallengesargumentsthatthe

NewHollywoodsimplyappealedtoaliberalyouthaudience.Itisimportanttoconsiderthe

complexnatureofthe“mainstream,”whichsuggestsahomogeneitythatbeliesits

variegatednature.AsSarahThorntonargues,themainstreamisactuallyacollectionof

subcultures,and“[r]eferencestothemainstreamareoftenawayofdeflectingissues

relatedtothedefinitionandrepresentationofempiricalsocialgroups.”10Thesocialgroups

withinthe“mainstream”filmaudiencecanbetheorizedasaspectrumwithupperand

lowerregisters.Anupper-middle-classfilmaudiencesoughttoreproducetheirsocial

positionthroughfilmappreciation.Asinlife,theywouldrelyontheireducationand

discriminationtosignaltheirsocialstatusanddifferentiatethemselvesfromlower-class

segmentsofthegeneralfilmaudience.Audiencesegmentswereseparatedbyclass,

education,andgeography,and“taste”wasthemanifestationoftheirsocio-economic

differences.Ingeneral,audienceswhoappreciatedfilmas“art”tendedtobewealthier,

bettereducated,oraspiredtoclassmobilitybasedonanassessmentofthepublications

thattargetedthisdemographicwithupscaleadvertising.Kaelwrotespecificallyfora

readershipthatwantedtoappreciatethecinemaforitsartisticvalueandmayhavelacked

anunderstandingorappreciationoffilm’shistoryasapopulistculturalform.

10SarahThornton,ClubCultures:Music,Media,andSubculturalCapital(Middletown,WesleyanUP,1996),114.

70

Inechoingherappreciationoffilmasformofpopularculture,Kael’s

correspondencefurtherdemonstrateshowcriticsofthe1960swereuniquelyabletoshape

receptionoftheAmericancinema.Hollywoodanditsadvertisinghadcontrolledreception

anddiscourseabouttheAmericancinemafordecades,but,inthe1960s,readerslookedto

criticslikeKaeltounderstandthecinema.LettersdemonstratehowKael’sreaders

perceivedherasanauthorityonthecinemawhilesuggestingherimportancetothe

emergentfieldoffilmstudies.Inparticular,teachersandinstructorswroteKaeltoaskfor

heradviceinhowtoimplementfilmstudiesintotheircurriculum.Kael’sliteraryapproach

madeheragoodmodelforinstructorslookingtointegratecinemaintoEnglishcourses,but

heremphasisonnarrativeandcharacter,whichprivilegedcontentoverform,supported

theaspectsofcinemathatmadeitanaccessibleformofpopularculture.Kael’scriticism,

whichanalyzedsocialissuesrelatedtosexandviolence,alsochallengedcriticswho

privilegedformalaspects.However,Kael’sreadersechoedherappreciationoftheNew

HollywoodasAmericanpopulistart,and,likeKael,writersfocusedonnarrativeand

characterratherthanaestheticaspects.ThisreciprocationofKael’s“populist”criticismisa

testamenttoherefficacyasacriticanddemonstrateshowcriticsoftheNewAmerican

CinemawereuniquelyabletoshapediscourseabouttheAmericancinema.

“Americantragedy”

Kael’s1967reviewofBonnieandClydearguesthatArthurPenn’sfilmremained

steepedinalargertraditionofAmericantragedyandthegenrefilmmakingofclassical

HollywooddespiteitsstylisticborrowingsfromtheNewWaveandappealstoayounger

generation’ssensibility.BonnieandClydewasanearlyNewHollywoodfilmthatmixed

HollywoodstorytellingwiththeFrenchNewWave’sformalinnovations.Infact,thefilm’s

71

subjectmatter,therobberiesperpetuatedbyitstitularcharacters,hadbeenasourceof

severalearlierHollywoodfilms.11ButBonnieandClyde’swriters,DavidNewmanand

RobertBrenton,weresoinfluencedbytheFrenchNewWavethattheyaskedFrançois

TruffautandJean-LucGodardtodirect.12Bothrefused,butArthurPenn,whoultimately

directedthefilm,employedasenseofpastiche,includingslapstickallusionstothe

KeystoneKopsandjumpcutsreminiscentofJean-LucGodard’sBreathless(1959).Although

BonnieandClyde’sscenesofgraphicviolenceandsexualinnuendogeneratedcontroversy,

itsuseofironyandformalinnovationsappealedtoyoungerviewers.Thefilm’sbluegrass

score,playedbyLesterFlattandEarlScruggs,alongwithitsfaded,sepiatonealsoprovided

aknowingwinktoaudiencesfamiliarwithAmerica’spast.

Kaeldistrustedexpressionsofyouthrebellion,butsheconsidersBonnieandClyde

the“mostexcitinglyAmerican[sic]Americanmovie”forusingelementsofAmerican

tragedyandHollywoodcinemafromthepast.13Whilepopularwithyoungeraudiences,

conservativecriticsdislikedBonnieandClydedespiteitsfamiliargenreaspects.Bosley

Crowther,chieffilmcriticattheNewYorkTimesfrom1940-1967,14acknowledgeshow

someviewersbelievethefilm“achievessomesortofmeaningfulstatementsfortimesin

whichwelive,”buthearguesthatthefilm’sviolenceanddishonestyobviatedany

meaningfulstatementthatPennwastryingtomake.15CrowtherconcludesthatBonnieand

11OtherversionsofBonnieandClyde:YouOnlyLiveOnce(1937),TheyLiveByNight(1948)andGunCrazy(1950).12KaelconsideredFritzLang’sYouOnlyLiveOnce(1937)tobethebestversion.13Kael,“BonnieandClyde,”NewYorker,Oct.21,1967,147.14Inaletter,oneofKael’sreadersinformsher:“IfnothingelseyouhavetaughtmetheremoretofilmcriticismthanBosleyCrowther.”See:CorrespondencetoPaulineKael.Oct.21,1968,Box9.PaulineKaelArchive,LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington,Indiana.15BosleyCrowther,“Run,BonnieandClyde,”NewYorkTimes,September3,1967,57.

72

Clydefailstorepresenteitherthe“thinkingofourtimesoraswholesomeentertainment.”16

PennclearlytriedtomakeBonnieandClydeentertaining,whichisevidentintheaction

scenes,carchases,andshoot-outs,buthewasalsotryingtomakeastatement.Yet,

Crowther’scomplaintswerecenteredonthefilm’slackofhistoricalverisimilitude,andhe

wasupsetaboutthefilm’sevidentcynicism.BymanipulatingthestoryofBonnieandClyde

torepresenttothecynicismofthelate1960’syouthculture,CrowtherarguesthatPenn

hadsuccumbedtoafaddishdesiretodepictAmericansocietyastheenemy,butheignores

howPennplayfullyupdatedgenretropesfromgangsterfilmsthathadalwaysprovideda

critiqueofmainstreamAmericanvalueshoweverimplicit.

BonnieandClydealsodividedthecriticsattheNewYorker.LikeCrowther,Penelope

Gilliatt,whoreviewedBonnieandClydeuponitsinitialrelease,thoughtthefilmcynically

appealedtotheyoungergeneration.Gilliattarguesthatthefilmismoreartificethanart:

“Themovieisfullofscenesofgigglingandshowoff,butthemoodsbelongtothecharacters,

nottothefilm.”17SheconcludesthatBonnieandClydeismadefortelevisionfanswillingto

acceptglibrepresentationsofviolence:“LikethekidsofthepresentTVgeneration,Bonnie

andClydeunconsciouslyassumethatbloodismakeupandthatbang-bang-you’redeadwill

beoverbythenextinstallment.”18IncontrasttoCrowtherandGilliatt,JacobBrackman

dissented,viewingitasanappropriatereflectionofthetime.Brackmanexplains,“[Bonnie

andClyde]laysclaimtoourfeelingofdesperationandinescapablefailure.”19InBrackman’s

view,thefilmreflectedthedespaircausedbythesocialunrestofthe1960s,butthelackof

16Ibid,66.17PenelopeGilliatt,“TheCurrentCinema:TheParty,”NewYorker,August19,1967,77.18Ibid,79.19JacobBrackman,“TheGraduate,”NewYorker,July27,1968,60.

73

criticalconsensusreflectsthedegreetowhichBonnieandClydewasrifeforinterpretation.

CriticslikeBrackmaninterpretedthefilm’scynicismasanappropriatestatementofsocial

discontentwhilestatus-quocriticslikeCrowthersawitasadishoneststatementofnaive

opposition.

Inpreviousessays,KaelhadcriticizedEuropeanfilmmakersforself-indulgentfilms

thatexpressedculturalennuiandboredaudiences,butKaelexplainswhyBonnieandClyde

inspiresstrongreactions:“Toaskwhypeoplereactsoangrilytothebestmoviesandhave

solittlenegativereactiontopooronesistoimplytheyaresounusedtoexperienceofartin

moviestheyfightit.”20BonnieandClydealsoevokedauniquelyAmericanmixofinnocence

anddangerbutwasremarkableforits“absenceofsadism.”AsKaelexplains,“Thebrutality

thatcomesoutofthisinnocenceisfarmoreshockingthanthecalculatedbrutalitiesof

meankillers,”andClyde’sineptitudemadehisparoxysmsofviolencesurprising.21Kael

concludesthatthefilm’s“romance,”Penn’sportrayalofClydeasbumblingand

incompetent,andthefilm’suseofviolencemixedtheconventionsofcomedyandgangster

genrefilmsinnewwaystoprovideacounterpointto”art”cinemasteepedinanihilistic

cynicism.Incontrast,asKaelexplains,StanleyKubrick’sDr.Strangelove(1964)“ridiculed

everythingandeverybodyitshowed,butconcealeditsownliberalpieties,thusprotecting

itselffromridicule.”22

KaelappreciatedBonnieandClydebecauseitwassteepedinalargerAmericanartistic

tradition,andshearguesthatpopularculturelikecinemawasuniquebecauseitlacked

“high”culturepretensions.InBonnieandClyde,Kaellocatestheessentialelementsof

20Kael,“BonnieandClyde,154.21Ibid,158.22Ibid,170,emphasisorg.

74

Americantragedy:“thetoughnessaboutwhat[Americans]havecomeoutofandwhat

we’vebeenthrough–thehonestytoseeourselvesastheYahoochildrenofyokels–isa

goodpartofAmericanpopularart.”23Whilehercontemporariesproducedcriticismthat

wasmotivatedbyculturalanxieties,KaelarguesthattheAmericancinemashoulddraw

fromarichAmericandramatictradition,andsheexplainshowBonnieandClyde’smixture

ofcomedyandpathosdemonstrates,“IfthereissuchthingasAmericantragedy,itmustbe

funny.”24American“tragedy”alsoencompassedpopularculturethatrepresenteddifficult

periodsofAmericanhistory.Inherreview,Kaelexplainshowshespenttimewithher

friendsrecountingtheirfamilies’experiencesduringtheDepression,andareader

responded,“…wewerethedispossessedDustBowlrefugeesofthedayandfeltprettymuch

likefailures,becauseIguesswethoughtourfathershadfailed.”25BonnieandClyde

rekindledthetragedyoftheDepressionand,likeapalimpsest,layeredonthe

contemporarydespairofthelate-1960s.

ByplacingBonnieandClydeinalargertraditionofAmericanpopulistartandcinema,

KaelremindsherreadersthattheNewHollywooddidnotrepresentaradicalbreakbut

wasthenextstepinHollywood’sevolution.BonnieandClydewasinfluencedbygangster

genrefilmsbutrepresentedHollywood’sinfluencecomingfull-circle:Hollywoodhad

influencedEuropeanNewWavecinema,whichnowinfluencedcontemporaryHollywood.

Inrecognizingthisrelationship,KaelchallengescriticismthatdismissedtheAmerican

commercialcinemabycelebratingtheartisticsuperiorityoftheEuropeanarthouse.

23Ibid,159.24Ibid.25CorrespondencefromThomasLudwigtoPaulineKael12December1968.Box10,PaulineKaelArchive,LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington,Indiana.

75

However,theNewHollywoodwasalsowellsuitedtoaneducatedreadershipnewtofilm

appreciation.BonnieandClydewasartisticbutstillaccessible,andKaelinstructsher

readersto“read”thefilminrelationtoahistoryofHollywoodcinemaandAmerican

tragedy.Kaelfurtherarguesthat,byunderstandingBonnieandClyde’suseofgenre

conventions,theNewYorkerreadershipcouldappreciatethe“art”ofcinemathrougha

recognitionofitsevolution.IncontrasttoherpeerswhodismissedHollywoodas“low”

culture,KaeldemonstrateshowAmericanswereproducingartisticandentertaining

cinemainanovertlycommercialcontext.

OneofKael’srecurringconcernswastherelationshipbetweentasteandart,whichshe

exploredinoneofhercleareststatementsofcriticalintention,“Trash,Art,andtheMovies,”

publishedintheFebruary1969issueofHarpers.26Thearticle’sthesisfurthersupportsof

Kael’sargumentinherBonnieandClydereview:filmwasaformofpopularentertainment

thatwasmostvitalwhenitresistedbourgeoisnotionsof“high”cultureandfineart.AsKael

explains,partofthejoyofwatchingfilms,asRogerCorman’slow-budgetAmerican

InternationalPicturesremindsher,isthatwe“don’thavetotake[movies]seriously.”27In

fact,formiddle-classaudiences,themoviescouldprovidea“breather,avacationfrom

properbehaviorandgoodtasteandrequiredresponses.”28Kaelcritiquesfilmcriticism

overlyfocusedontechnique,bolsteringherdecisiontofocusonactingandnarrative,which

madefilmentertainingandaccessiblepopularculture.Incontrast,techniquewasonly

worthconsideringforhowithelpedexpressastory,andKaelexplainsthat“totalkabouta

26InKael’searlycareerasastaffwriterattheNewYorker,shealternatedeverysixmonthswithPenelopeGilliatt.Asaresult,sheoftenwroteforpublicationsotherthantheNewYorker.27Kael,“Trash,Art,andtheMovies,”89.28Ibid,92.

76

movielike‘TheGraduate’intermsofmovietechniqueisreallyabadjoke.29Here,Kael

rejectsattemptstoelevatefilm’sculturalstatus,andshearguesthatcinemawasimportant

preciselybecauseitallowedaudiencestoescapethesocialnormsofmiddle-classlife.

KaelcontinuedtopreferfilmslikeBonnieandClyderootedinAmericanpopular

culture,andsheexplainshowtheAmericancinemaexpressedanimportantsenseof

nationalidentity.AsKaelwrites,Americanmoviestookinfluence“notfromthedesiccated

imitationofEuropeanhighculture,butfromthepeepshow,theWildWestshow,themusic

hall,thecomicstrip–fromwhatwascoarseandcommon.”30ItmayappearthatKaelis

supportingAmericanexceptionalismbyrelatingBonnieandClydetouniquelyAmerican

formsofpopularculture,butsheisrespondingtocriticswhoaffirmedculturalhierarchies

thatdismissed“low”Americanpopularcinemabycelebrating“high”Europeanartcinema.

Kaelalsorejectsargumentsthatthecinemabecameartwhenitreflectedelementsofwhat

audiencesappreciatedinhighliteratureorfinepainting.Incontrast,whatmadethe

Americancinemauniquewasitsabilitytoincludepastculturalforms–theWildWest

show,themusichall,thecomicstrip–andcreatenewmeaningsfromthoseforms.These

filmscouldberichandnuancedwhileremainingpopulistinorientation.

Incelebratingcinemaaspopularculture,Kaelarguesthatthe“singlemostintense

pleasureofmoviegoing”tobetheescapefromAmericanmiddle-classsocialnorms.”31

Cinematicpleasurecouldleadtoaestheticappreciation,but,asKaelexplains,the

“responsibilitytopayattention”andtreatfilmasaseriousartformhinderedreal

29Ibid,97.30Ibid,103.31Ibid,104.

77

appreciation.32Kaelencouragesherreaderstoappreciatethe“art”oftheirpopular

commercialcinema,explaininghow“it’seasierforus,asAmericans,toseeartinforeign

filmsthaninourown,becauseofhowwe,asAmericans,thinkofart.”33Americanswere

taughtthatartis“civilizedandrefined,cultivatedandserious,cultural,beautiful,European,

Oriental:it’swhatAmericaisn’tanditsespeciallywhatAmericanmoviesarenot.”34Inthis

conceptionofculture,“goodtaste”waspredicatedonanaspirationalengagementwithfine

artand“high”culture,butKaelarguesthatthisunderstandingofculturedeniedthe

Americancinema’spast.TheAmericancinemawaspopularbecauseofimmigrantand

working-classaudiences,andKaelworriesthatreceivingcinemalikefineartwouldtake

“moviesbackintotheapprovedcultureoftheschoolroom–intogentility.”35This

transitionmightmakecinemarespectableandalleviatetheanxietiesof“highbrow”critics,

butitwouldlimitfilm’sappealandnegatewhatmadetheAmericancinemaunique.

AFilmRenaissance

Intheprefacetohersixthbookofcriticism,Reeling,KaelcomparestheNewHollywood

totheAmericanliteraryrenaissanceofthelate-19thcentury:“Afewdecadeshence,these

yearsmayappeartobetheclosestourmovieshadcometothetangled,bitterfloweringof

Americanlettersintheearly1850s.”36Kael’searlycareerattheNewYorkerhadcoincided

withanimportantperiodofAmericancinemathatproducedimportantdocumentaries,

32Ibid.33Ibid,105,emphasisorg.34Ibid.35Ibid,106;ThereisanevidentironytothiscommentconsideringKael’sreaderswrotetoherseekingassistanceinbringingfilmintotheclassroom.36PaulineKael,forewordtoReeling(NewYork:WarnerBooks,1976),17;ThisremarkrecallshighschoolteacherDonaldRingler’scomparisonofNewHollywoodtoAmericanliteraryrenaissanceauthorslikeHermanMelvilleandMarkTwain.

78

independentfilms,andstudiofilms,butherfocusremainedonHollywood.37Lookingback

duringtheriseofHighConceptcinemainthemid-1970s,whichwasconcurrentwith

Reeling’spublication,Kaelexpressedaromanticappreciationforauniqueperiodof

Hollywoodcinemathatcriticswhohadadvocatedforanalternativecinemamissedor

outrightignored.AtthesametimethatcriticslikeJonasMekasadvocatedforacinematic

“revolution”thatrejectedtheAmericancinema’spast,andParkerTylerusedcriticismto

critiquethesocialandsexualideologiesencodedintheAmericancinema,Kaelcelebrated

anAmericanfilmrenaissance,orrevival,ofapopulistculturaltradition.

Kael’scelebrationofHollywoodcouldseematoddswithhercelebrationofEuropean

auteurs,butsheforegroundedHollywood’sinfluenceontheartcinemathat“highbrow”

criticscelebrated.Forexample,inareviewofLaChinoise(1967),KaelexplainshowJean-

LucGodard,thefilm’sdirector,“assumesinhisaudienceanAmericanizedsensibility…a

quickcomprehensionofdevicesandconventionsderivedfromAmericanfilmstyle.”38In

anotherinstance,KaelexamineshowtheAmericancinemainfluencedItaliandirector

BernardoBertolucci’scontroversialLastTangoinParis(1972).Mostreviewersfocusedon

thefilm’sgraphicsexandviolence,butKaelemphasizesLastTangoinParis’connectionto

Hollywoodgenrefilms,explaininghow“themovieisAmericaninspirit.”39However,she

hadtocontendwiththefilm’sscenesofgraphicsexandviolenceonsomelevel.Incontrast

tocriticswhofoundLastTango’sviolencedistasteful,Kaelpraisesit,explaininghowit

“expressesthecharacters’drives[and]standsindistinctiontothemechanizedsexofmost

37KaelconsideredFrederickWisemantobe“themostsophisticatedintelligencetoenterthedocumentaryfieldinrecentyears.”See:PaulineKael,“HighSchoolandOtherFormsofMadness”inDeeperIntotheMovies(Boston:Little,BrownandCo,1973),24.38PaulineKael,“AMinorityMovie”inGoingSteady(Boston:Little,BrownandCo,1968),77.39PaulineKael,“TheCurrentCinema:Tango,”NewYorker,Oct.28,1972,132.

79

exploitationfilms.”40Thisargumentisconsistentwithherlongstandingacceptanceofsex

andviolence,butKaelarguesthatLastTangoinParisappealedtoaudiencesbecauseof

MarlonBrando’sruggedAmericanmasculinity.AsKaelwrites,Brando’s“profanehumor

andself-loathingself-centeredness…areinthestyleofAmericanhard-boiledfictionaimed

atthemasculine-fantasymarket.”41Itisrighttolabelthefilma“masculine-fantasy”sinceit

ispredicatedonmaledomination,butKaelbelievedthefilmwashonestinawaythatfew

moviesevenattempt.Asforthefilm’sviolentsex,Kaelarguesthatthereisn’t“anyone

whosefeelingscanbetotallyresolvedaboutthesexscenesandthesocialattitudesinthe

film,”butshemissesanopportunitytomakeastatementaboutmasculinefantasiesbased

inviolenceandcontrolofwomen.42

Kael’ssupportoffilmmakingrootedinHollywood’spastledtoherdisapprovalof

StanleyKubrick’s2001:ASpaceOdysseyandAClockworkOrange(1971),whichreflected

Hollywood’sembraceofformalismandphilosophicalcinema.Whileherpeerscelebrated

Kubrick’saestheticbrilliance,Kaelarguesthathisfilmswereself-indulgentandlacked

clearnarratives.Kaelevendismisses2001’srelationshiptothecounterculture:“Using

moviestogoonatriphasaboutasmuchconnectionwiththeartoffilmasusingoneof

thoseDorisDay-RockHudsonjobsforideasonhowtoredecorateyourhome.”43Inher

reviewofAClockworkOrange,KaelalsoaccusesKubrickofsuccumbingtoa“post-

assassinations,post-Mansonmood”44bywrappinganexploitationfilmintheveneerofart

40Ibid,130.41Ibid,132.42Ibid,emphasisorg.43 Kael,“Trash,Art,andtheMovies,”101. 44PaulineKael,“StanleyStrangelove”inDeeperIntotheMovies(Boston:Little,BrownandCo,1973),375.

80

tomaketheaudience“acceptviolenceasasensualpleasure.”45Kael’sreceptionofKubrick,

whom“highbrow”criticsapplaudedforhisformalinnovation,demonstratesherbeliefthat

cinemashouldremainpopularentertainmentthatappealedtoaudienceswithcompelling

charactersandnarrative.Infact,KaeldislikedKubrickforpreciselythereasonothercritics

celebratedhim:hishigh-artaspirations.

UnlikeStanleyKubrick,StevenSpielbergvaluedthecinema’sroleaspopular

entertainment.KaelreviewedhisfilmTheSugarlandExpress(1974)alongsideBadlands

(1973),directedbyTerrenceMalick,intheMarch18,1974issueoftheNewYorker,

SpielbergandMalickhadalreadyestablishedtheirtrademarkstyles,and,asKaelexplains,

Spielbergwas“thatrarityamongdirectors[sic]abornentertainer.”46Spielberg’sfilmsalso

lackedpretense:“Spielberglovesactionandcomedyandspeedsomuchthathereally

doesn’tcareifamoviehasanythingelseinit.”47Incontrast,TerrenceMalick,whohelda

philosophydegreefromHarvard,madeimpressionistic,philosophicalcinema,andKael

criticizesBadlandsasan“intellectualizedmovie…[thatresembled]…apolishedPh.D.

thesis.”48KaelfurtherarguesthatMalickmockedhislower-classcharacters,explaining

how“[Badlands’]condescendingtonetowardthesocietymakesiteasyforpeopleinthe

audiencetofeelsuperior.”49Kael’sliminalclassposition,informedbyherworking-class

backgroundandoccupationasanelitecritic,madeherattunedtorepresentationsofsocial

class,andshefoundMalick’selitismtroublingbecauseitwaspresentedinapopulist

entertainmentmedium.

45 Ibid,377. 46PaulineKael,“TheCurrentCinema:SugarlandandBadlands,”NewYorker,Mar.18,1974,130.47Ibid,132.48Ibid,136.49Ibid.

81

IncontrasttoMalick’s“elitist”cinema,KaelappreciatedhowAmericandirectorsRobert

AltmanandMartinScorsese’sauteuristcinemasynthesizedaspectsofHollywoodgenre

films.AsKaelexplains,Altman’sfilmsdrewfromrecognizablegenres:M*A*S*H(1970)was

an“unstablecomedy”;50TheLongGoodbyewasa“private-eye”movie;51andNashville

(1975)is“thefunniestepicofAmericaevertoreachthescreen.”52Kaelalsoappreciated

howScorseseborrowedfromandupdatedHollywoodgenrecinema.InherreviewofTaxi

Driver(1976),KaeldescribeshowthefilmrepresentsScorsese’s“appetiteforthepulp

sensationalismofthefortiesmovies,”53andsheexploreshowScorseserelatesmale

sexualitytoviolence,explaininghowtheprotagonist’ssexualfrustrationleadstothefilm’s

bloodydenouement.54LikeherreviewofLastTangoInParis,Kaelacceptsthatmalesexual

desireisrelatedtoviolence,butherpermissiveattitudeaboutrepresentationsofviolence

wasbasedinabeliefthatitcouldconfrontanaudience’sfearinasafecontext.Kaelargues,

“Movies,morethananyformofexpression,arecapableofbringingustousanacceptance

ofourterror.”55Inthisregard,themoviesallowedaudiencestosafelyexperienceviolence

whilemakingthemvulnerableandopentocinematicexpression,butKaelappreciatedhow

Scorsesepersonalizedcrimefilmsthathadreliedonone-dimensionalstockcharacters

whilepushingthegenreforwardwithconfrontationalfilmmaking.

50PaulineKael,“BlessedProfanity”inDeeperIntotheMovies(Boston:Little,BrownandCo,1973),92,myemphasis.51Kael,“Movieland–TheBums’Paradise,”253,myemphasis.52PaulineKael,“Coming:‘Nashville,’”Reeling(NewYork:WarnerBooks,1976),598,myemphasis;KaelwroteAltmandirectlytoexpressherappreciation:“Youknowfrommyreviewsofmyregardforyourartistry.”See:CorrespondencefromPaulineKaeltoRobertAltman.10February1973,Box1,PaulineKaelArchive,LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington,Indiana.53PaulineKael,“TheCurrentCinema:UndergroundMan,”NewYorker,Feb.9,1976,82.54Ibid,85.55PaulineKael,“FearofMovies,”WhentheLightsGoDown(NewYork:Holt,RinehartandWinston,1980),432.

82

Kael’sappreciationofHollywoodasaninstitutionmadeherparticularlyattunedtothe

tenuousbutproductiverelationshipbetweenartandcommerce,but,inanelegiacessay,

“OntheFutureofMovies,”publishedin1974,Kaelrecognizesthatauniqueperiodof

cinemawascomingtoanend.Despiteadecadeofinnovativecinema,Kaelexplainsthat“a

numberofthemostdevotedmoviegoersstoppedgoingtomovies.”56Audiencesnow

avoidedfilmswithchallengingthemes,preferring“moviesthatdoalltheworkforthem.”57

AsKaelexplains,eveninterestingfilms,likeLastTangoinParisorTaxiDriver,exhibita

senseof“nihilism,”and,Kaelnotesthat,whilewatchingthesefilms,“onesometimesfeelsat

apornshow–thewayeverythingisturnedtodung,oneselfincluded.”58InKael’s

estimation,theproblem,whichwouldonlyworseninthenextdecade,wasthat“middle

men”hadtakenoverthemovies.In1969,intheearlydaysoftheNewHollywood,Kael

describeshow“ahandfulofreviewerscouldhelppersuadepeopletogiveasmallor

unheraldedfilmachance,”demonstratinghowAmericancriticsofthe1960swereuniquely

abletoinfluencereception.59But,inthemid-1970s,criticsheldlesspowerduetoincreased

advertisingandtheriseoftheblockbuster,whichleadtothe“demiseofthe‘thefilm

generation’[and]asharpbreak.”60

Hollywoodhadbrokenwithitsownpasttocynicallymarketandproducefilmswiththe

intentofgeneratingmaximumprofit.AsKaelargues,producersnolonger“assumeanideal

viewer–theyassumeahollow-eyed,empty-souled,know-nothinghick,”61andtheywould

notpromoteadirectorlikeRobertAltman,“becausetheyjustdon’tknowwhathe’lldoona

56PaulineKael,“OntheFutureofMovies,”NewYorker,Aug.5,1974,43.57Ibid.58Ibid.59Ibid,50.60Ibid.61Ibid,54.

83

picture;theycan’ttrusthimtomakeitresemblethelatestbighit.”62Thelastdecadehad

producedlandmarkHollywoodfilms,buttheindustry’sshifttothesummerblockbuster

signaledadistinctperiodofAmericancinemahadcometoanend.Businessmensolely

concernedwithprofithadtakenoverthecommercialfilmindustry,endingacreative

tensionbetweenartandcommercethathadproducedinnovativecinema.Kaelalways

recognizedthatHollywoodwasabusiness,butshebelievedthatthebusinessaspectof

filmmakingwascounterbalancedbyaloveofthecinema.TheNewHollywood,which

revivedthecommercialfilmindustry,demonstratedthatinnovativecinemacouldearn

profits,butintheshifttotheblockbuster,businessmenfromthefinancialandcorporate

sectorstookoverHollywoodanddisruptedthisbalance.WhileKaelunderstoodthat

Americancinemawasabusiness,shesupporteditaspopulistartandnotasaledgeritem

inacorporateportfolio.

AnAuthorityonFilm

Kael’ssuccessandpopularityinwritingaboutNewHollywoodandachanging

AmericancinemaintheNewYorkerledtoanengagedcorrespondencewithherreaders.

Writerswrotetypewrittenlettersonletterheadthatindicatedtheyweredoctors,lawyers,

filmprofessionals,teachers,collegeprofessors,and,inoneinstance,amemberofcongress.

SomeofKael’sreaderslivedinaffluentNewYorkneighborhoods,butreaderslivedacross

thecountryandevenaroundtheworld,includingHungaryandSwitzerland.Kael

annotatedandcorrectedherletters,butmostwritersprovidedwell-writtenandreasoned

accountsoftheirexperiencesatthemovies.Writersalsodemonstratedasignificantlevelof

educationevidentindetailedreferencestothefinearts,theatre,andliterature.For

62Ibid,47.

84

instance,AnneMaireCavigliaexplains,“JustnowIamimmersedintheEnglish19th

century,withTheNewYorkerasoccasionalwelcomerelief.”63Writerswereforthrightin

theircriticisms,butKael’scorrespondencedemonstratesthatherreaderswereeagerto

engageindebatesandbecomemoreknowledgeableaboutthecinema.Kael’s

correspondencealsoinvalidatesproposedoppositionsbetween“highbrow”academicfilm

receptionand“mainstream”filmcriticism.

Undergraduates,graduatestudents,andoneprecocioushighschoolerwrotetoKael

todiscusscinema.OlderstudentslookedtoKaelasanauthorityandsoughtheradvice

abouthowtobecomeprofessionalfilmcritics.In1967,LarryTatetoldKael,“Iwant

basicallytobeawriter,andmyideaofafilmcriticisawriterwholikestowriteabout

film.”64Atthetimeofwriting,Tatewasintheprocessofapplyingforfellowshipstofundan

EnglishgraduatedegreeatUCLA.OneenterprisingreadersolicitedKael’sfeedbackonhis

M.A.thesis.LawrenceChristopherLaybournesentKaelhisUCLAthesis,entitled

“FilmmakinginSecondaryEducation,”andwritesinhiscoverletter:“Yourconcernforkid

filmstudyandfilmmakinghavecautionedmeinmysurveyandanalysisoffilmmakingin

secondaryeducation,thethesis.Andyourskepticismcontinuestotempermyenthusiasm

forwhatfilmcanbetoeducationand,ofcourse,tokids.”65Theletteraffirmsthatstudents

viewedKaelasaneducationalrolemodel,butKaelwasnotenthusiasticaboutthethesis,

writinginpencilonLaybourne’sletter,“Jevousdismerde.Iwouldsayitisshit.”66However,

63CorrespondencefromAnneMarieCavigliatoPaulineKael.Undated,Box9,PaulineKaelArchive,LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington,Indiana.64CorrespondencefromLarryTatetoPaulineKael.14January1967,Box9,PaulineKaelArchive,LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington,Indiana.65CorrespondencefromLawrenceChristopherLaybournetoPaulineKael.27August1968,Box9,PaulineKaelArchive,LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington,Indiana.66Ibid.

85

Kael’slackofenthusiasmaboutLaybourne’sprojectisconsistentwithhergeneral

disapprovalofacademicfilmwritingthatignoredcinema’sroleaspopularentertainment.

DespiteKael’sprofesseddislikeof“highbrow”popularcriticism,arecurringtheme

oflettersconcernedKael’sroleasateacherofknowledgeablecinemaappreciation.These

writerswerecollegestudents,instructors,andinterestedadults,whowantedtolearnmore

aboutthecinema.BevanDavies,wholivedinNewYorkCity,toldKael,“Idiscoveredamore

informedwayoflookingatfilmthroughyourwritingandaverycompassionateone.The

onlyothercriticIhavereadwhocaredasmuchfilmwasJamesAgee.”67Davies’reference

toJamesAgeesuggeststhatKaelwascontinuingatraditionoffilmcriticisminformedbya

literarysensibilitythatrespectedthecinema’svalueaspopularentertainment.Rosemary

Henberg,aninstructorofComparativeArtsatOhioUniversity,wroteKaelanumberof

times,lookingforadviceabouthowtoteachandanalyzefilm.Rosemaryexplains,“We

talkedaboutmoviesinEnglishClass…HoweverIcouldnotadequatelyarticulatemy

perceptionthatthecenterofthemoviewasconfusedandconfusinginitspretensionsto

profundity.Iwaspoorlyarmedtofightthe‘illusionandreality’crewuntilIdiscovered

yourreview.”68RosemarywaswritingaboutBlow-Up(1966),butshedescribeshowKael’s

writinghelpedclarifyherowninterpretations.Rosemaryfollowswithsomequestions

aboutKael’smethodandexplainsthatshehadtriedtowriteaboutBonnieandClydefora

“cinemacourse”shetookwhilepursuingaPh.D.RosemaryconcludesbyaskingKaelifshe

makes“thecampuscircuit,”hopingtocontinuetheirconversationinperson.69

67CorrespondencefromBevanDaviestoPaulineKael.30March1970,Box9,PaulineKaelArchive,LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington,Indiana.68CorrespondencefromRosemaryHenbergtoPaulineKael.31March1970,Box9,PaulineKaelArchive,LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington,Indiana.69Ibid,2-3.

86

Kaelwaspopularwithprofessionaladults,butshealsoappealedtocollegestudents,

lookingtobetterunderstandthecinema.Thesewriterswerelessconcernedwith

ideologicalorformalanalysis,andtheyembracedKael’spreferencesfortheaspectsoffilm

intermsofnarrativeandcharacterthatmadecinemaawidely-appealingformofpopular

culture.LaurenFloetke,writingin1970,explainsKael’sinfluenceonher:“AtthetimethatI

firstdiscoveredyourcriticisms[sic]Iwaseighteenandhadjustenteredcollege.Atatime

whenIwasdiscoveringthedepthofbeautyinthearts,atatimewhenIneededaguide,I

foundinyourworkadeeploveandappreciationnotonlyfortheartoffilmsbutforallthe

otherarts,mostparticularlyliterature.”70FloetkedemonstrateshowKaelinfluencedher

newfoundfilmappreciationandillustratesthatKael’sliteraryapproachwasaneffective

waytohelpreadersnewtofilmappreciationbetterunderstandthemedium.Floetke

concludes,“Youhavebeenateacherinthehighestmosthonorableterm.”71Interestingly,

FloetkefirstbecameinterestedinKael’sworkbecauseofherreviewofaNewAmerican

filmmadebywell-knownwriter–NormanMailer’sWild90(1968).

Kael’sroleasaneducatorandcinematicauthoritybecomesespeciallyclearinher

manycorrespondenceswithcollegeinstructorsandprofessors.Writerswrotefromelite

positionsatprestigiousprogramsorasinstructors,lookingtoimplementfilmstudiesinto

theircourses.Despitetheirsignificanteducationandculturalcapital,thesewriters

regardedKaelasanauthorityandusedtheirinterestintheNewHollywoodtolearnabout

anddebatethemeritsofcinema.Collegeprofessors,schooledinliteraryandtextual

analysis,demonstratedtheirskillsandtrainingbychallengingKael’sinterpretation,and

70CorrespondencefromLaurenFloetketoPaulineKael.16July1970,Box10,PaulineKaelArchive,LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington,Indiana.71Ibid,2.

87

theircorrespondencewithKaelprovidedthemanopportunitytoengageinfilmcriticism.

GeraldA.Joss,writingonCarnegieInstituteofTechnologyletterhead,questionsKael’s

opaquemethodology:“Youhavearesponsibilitytothousandsofbook-orientedbut

cinematicallynaïvereaderswhowanttoknowhowinhellyouarriveatyourassessments.”

Josscontinues,“Believeitornot,therearethousandsofsucheducatedpeople;butthey

won’tbeconvincedbymostofyourrevues[sic]thatthey’recinematicilliterateswhoought

tolearnhowtoseealloveragain.”72JossiscorrectthatKael’scriticalopinionscouldseem

erratic,buthislargerpointdemonstratesthatKaelplayedanimportantroleinhelpingan

educatedaudiencebetterunderstandthecinema.AsJossnotes,Kael’sreaderscouldbe

culturedandwell-readbut“cinematicallynaïve,”anditwasKael’sjobtohelpthembetter

understandthecinema.Joss’letterfurtherillustrateswhyKael’sfocusonpopularcinema

anduseofliteraryanalysiswasanapproachwell-suitedforaneducatedaudience,whose

understandingoffilmwasprimarilyrelegatedtoHollywood.

SomereaderscontactedKaelforhelpininstitutingfilmstudiesintotheircurriculum

basedontheirappreciationofheraccessibleliteraryapproach.Forthesereaderswho

workedaseducators,theNewHollywoodofferedfilmsofequalculturalvaluetoserious

worksofliterature.ReadersrecognizedthattheAmericancinemademonstratedacultural

valuethatcontradictedassessmentsofitasdisposablemassculture,buttheystillwroteto

Kaellookingforassistance.DonaldP.Ringler,73whotaughtEnglishatSanMateoHigh

SchoolinCalifornia,explains:“LastyearweintroducedanewAmericanliteraturecourse,

72CorrespondencefromGeraldA.JosstoPaulineKael.18April1967,Box10,PaulineKaelArchive,LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington,Indiana73InadditiontoteachinghighschoolEnglish,RinglerwroteaboutSanMateofilmhistoryforthelocalpaper.TheSanMateoTimespublishedanarticlebyRingleronthehistoryofsilentcinemainSanMateo,entitled“FlashbackonEarlyFillums”RinglerwasalsooneofthemanyamateuroraspiringfilmwritersthatlookedtoKaelforguidance.See:“FlashbackonEarlyFillums,”SanMateoTimes,February19,1977,37.

88

withsomefilms.”74ForRingler,theNewHollywoodprovidedhisstudentsanopportunity

forculturalanalysisthatwasmorerelevantthanworksofclassicliterature:“Wedidn’t

plantoeliminatetheoldTwain-Hawthorne-MelvilleSyndrome,butwedidthinkthatitwas

possibletoliveandsharetheexperiencesofbeinganAmericanwithoutgoingthroughthe

printofclassicalauthors.75NewHollywoodfilmscouldalsosupplanttheoldliterary

canon:“’EasyRider,’‘MidnightCowboy,’and‘ButchCassidy’…cananddoprecipitate

mutualfeelingsandclassdiscussionon…themesinmyclassroombetterthandothe

readingsof‘HuckFinn,’‘MobyDick,’and‘TheScarletLetter.’”76Ringlerincludeda

provisionalsyllabusthatincorporatedcinemawithworksofliteratureorganizedbytheme:

“TheAmericanWestern,”“Horror(TheAmericanGothicTale),”“AmericanMinorities,”etc.

ThesyllabusincludedHollywoodclassicsalongsideaculthit,WhatEverHappenedtoBaby

Jane(1962),andanindependentfilm,NothingbutaMan(1964).77Thesyllabus

demonstratesthatRingler,likeKael,primarilyfocusedonHollywood,becausehebelieved

thiscinemawasmostrelevanttohisstudents,andhereciprocatesKael’sfilmappreciation

byconsideringNewHollywoodfilmsalongsideclassicstoprovidehisstudentsasenseof

contextandfilmhistory.

Finally,Kael’sinfluenceisevidentinthemanyletterssentbydirectors,film

professionals,andcritics.StevenSpielbergandRobertAltmanwroteKaelwarmletters,

thankingherforreviewingtheirwork.CriticslikeRobertChristgau,whowasatthestartof

hiscareerasamusiccritic,praisesKael’sdefenseofthe“interestsof,ahem,Youth,without

74CorrespondencefromDonaldP.RinglertoPaulineKael.5October1970,Box10,PaulineKaelArchive,LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington,Indiana.75Ibid.76Ibid.77Ibid,“TentativeFilmList,”2.

89

soundinglikeNateHentofforRalphGleason.”78ChristgauwaswritinginsupportofKael’s

Blow-Up(1966)reviewbutseemstoignorehergeneraldistasteforyouthculture.Director

PaulSchrader,whomKaelmentored,sentheranearlydraftofTaxiDriverandsoughther

adviceandfriendshipthroughouthiscareer.OtherprominentcriticslikeMannyFarber

wrotetowishKaelwell,andshecorrespondedwithreviewersfromacrossthecountry.

DespiteKael’sharshcritiquesinherpublishedcriticism,hercorrespondencedemonstrates

thatfilmprofessionalsrespectedherknowledgeandanalysisofthecinema,andKaelseems

tohavefilledalacunabetweenhighly-formalizedfilmstudiesprogramsinuniversitiesand

moregeneraleducationfilmstudiesinsmallcollegesandhighschools.79Kael’sreaders

certainlyviewedherasanauthorityonthecinema,butsheremainedapproachableand

discussedcinemainawaythateducatedaudiencesnewtofilmappreciationcould

understand.Inparticular,herliteraryapproach,evidentinheremphasisonnarrativeand

characterandallusionstoliteraryworks,madeheragoodmodelforinstructorslookingto

integratefilmstudiesintoEnglishcourses.Shehadlessinfluenceonuniversityfilmstudies

programsbasedintheoryandaesthetics,butherinfluenceonAmericancinemaatthetime

isclearlydemonstratedbyhercorrespondence.Infact,KaelwashiredatUCLAasaguest

lecturerforthe1970-71academicyearandwasrepeatedlyaskedbyheralmamater,The

UniversityofCalifornia-Berkeley,toteachfilmclasses.80Beyondherinfluenceonacademia,

78CorrespondencefromRobertChristgautoPaulineKael.16February1967,Box9,PaulineKaelArchive,LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington,Indiana.79AsDanaPolandemonstrates,filmstudiesintheAmericanacademydatesbackasearlyas1915.Polanrevisesconventionalwisdomthatacademicfilmstudieswascreatedinthe1960s.Nonetheless,the1960s,representsaperiodofrapidinstitutionalization.See:DanaPolan,ScenesofInstruction:TheBeginningsofU.S.StudyofFilm(Berkeley:CaliforniaUP,2007).80TheUniversityofCalifornia-BerkeleyofferedKaeltheBeckmanProfessorshipforthe1972SpringSemester.InaletterfromOct.5,1971,JohnE.Jordan,thechairoftheEnglishdepartment,explainsthatKaelwould“giveonecourseandperhapstwopubliclectures.”Hecontinues,“Wewouldhopecertainlythatyouwouldliketogiveacoursedealingwithfilm,perhapsfilmandliterature.Wecouldprobablyarrangemost

90

shecompelledprofessionaladultsinterestedinfilmtoexplorefilmstudiesforthemselves

throughself-directedstudy,andthefactherreadersperceivedherasaneducator

challengesdistinctionsbetweenacademicfilmanalysisandpopularreception.

Conclusion:TheRiseof“HighConcept”

AlthoughthesuccessoftheblockbustersignaledtheendoftheNewHollywood,

KaelcontinuedtowriteforNewYorker,retiringin1991afteradiagnosisofParkinson’s

disease.However,seeminglyasacodatotheNewHollywood,Kaelreviewedthetwofilms

thatinauguratedthe“high-concept”era:StevenSpielberg’sJaws(1975)andGeorgeLucas’

StarWars:ANewHope(1977).KaelalwaysappreciatedSpielberg’sgiftforentertainment,

butsherecognizeshowJawsrepresentedsomethingnew:“It’snotonlythevisual

techniqueofJawsthat’sdifferent.Theotherbigdisastermoviesareessentiallythesameas

pre-Vietnamfilms,butJawsisn’t.”81PartofwhatmadeJawsdifferent,asKaelexplains,was

itsself-awarehumor:“Thehighpointofthefilm’shumorisinseeingShaw[afisherman

whohuntsthegreatwhite]getit;thisnutAhab,withhishyper-masculinebasso-profundo

speeches,standsinforallthemenwhohavetoshowthey’retougherthananybody.”82

SpielbergevensentKaelatelegramtoexpresshisappreciationofherreview:“One

thousandreviewslater,youaretheonlywriterwhounderstoodJaws.”83This

anythingyouwouldliketodo.”Inafollow-upletter,JordanexplainsthatKaelwould“teachanupperdivisioncourse.”YetKaelrefused,andinsubsequentlettersthisrefusalisattributedtobothanillnessandschedulingconflicts.OnMarch3,1971,Jordanwrites,“WeareofcourseexceedinglysorrythatyouareunabletobewithusasaBeckmanProfessor,andhopethatsomethingcanbeworkedoutanothertime.”AlthoughJordancontinuedtowriteKael,demonstratinghiseagernesstohaveherteachatBerkeley,sheneveracceptedtheposition.See:CorrespondencefromJohnE.JordantoPaulineKael.5October1971,Box8,PaulineKaelArchive,LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington,Indiana.;CorrespondencefromJohnE.JordantoPaulineKael.3March1971,Box8,PaulineKaelArchive,LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington,Indiana.81Ibid.82Ibid,196.83CorrespondencefromStevenSpielbergtoPaulineKael.11November1976,Box7,PaulineKaelArchive,LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington,Indiana.

91

correspondencedemonstratesKael’sinfluenceasacriticwhilerevealingtheaccessshehad

toimportantHollywooddirectors.84

In1977,GeorgeLucas’StarsWars:ANewHopeenteredAmericantheatres.Kael

recognizedthatLucasandSpielbergwereunitedintheircommitmenttothemass

audience,butshearguesthatStarWarswaslikethecandysoldattheconcessioncounter:

“‘StarWars’islikegettingaboxofCrackerJackswhichisallprizes.”85Thefilmprovideda

sugaryrushbutnotsubstance:“Anhourintoit,childrensaythatthey’rereadytoseeitall

overagain;that’sbecauseit’sanassemblageofspareparts–ithasnoemotionalgrip.”86

Kaelunderstoodthatcinemacouldevokechildhoodexperiences,butshearguesthat

evokingnostalgiawasdifferentthaninfantilizingtheaudience:“theexcitementofthose

whocallitthefilmoftheyeargoeswaypastnostalgiatothefeelingthatnowisthetimeto

returntochildhood.”87Filmscouldrekindleaudiences’earlylovewiththemovieswithout

treatingthemlikechildren,butStarWarswasthefirstofmanyfilmsthatallowedadultsto

feellikethechildren.Manyofthetop-grossingfilmsofthe1980s,E.TtheExtra-Terrestrial

(1982),Batman(1989),andtheIndianaJonesmoviesappealedtochildrenandtoadults

lookingtore-experienceasenseofchildhood.UnlikeNewHollywoodfilmsthatchallenged

84Kael’sinfluenceasacriticlandedheraHollywoodjob.ParamountstudioswantedKael’screativeideasandfeedbackonupcomingprojects.OnMay9,1979,ParamountPicturessentKaelalettertoinformheroftheconditionsofheremploymentasa“creativeproductionexecutiveforatermoffivemonthscommencingasofMay1,1979.”Herjob,pertheletter,required:“suggestingpossibleideas,screenplaysandotherliterarymaterialsuitableformotionpicturedevelopmentorproduction;analyzingandevaluatingideas,screenplaysandothersimilarliterarymaterialreferredtoherbyotherParamountexecutivesorthirdparties;“recommendingappropriatewriters,directors,actors,andothertalent…”Kaelwascompensated$50,000.WarrenBeattyhelpedfacilitateKael’semployment,butsheonlylastedafewmonthsandreturnedtocriticismSee:CorrespondencefromKennethZiffren,ParamountPictures,toPaulineKael.9May1979,Box6,PaulineKaelArchive,LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington,Indiana.85PaulineKael,“Contrasts,”WhentheLightsGoDown(NewYork:Holt,RinehartandWinston,1980),291.86Ibid.87Ibid.

92

audiencestoconfrontcomplexissueswhileprovidingentertainment,popularcinemaof

the“me”decadeaskedless.

Ultimately,Kael’sreceptionofJawsandStarWarshadlittleoveralleffectontheir

boxofficesuccess.88WhileKael’sreviewofBonnieandClydehelpedestablishitasan

importantNewHollywoodfilm,thesuccessoftheblockbustermadeaudiencesless

interestedinherreviews.KaelhadalwaysappreciatedHollywoodascommercialcinema,

butsheappreciatedcinemathatgrappledwithseriousthemesandappealedtoeducated

adultswhilestillprovidingentertainment.Thisappreciationwasanessentialaspectof

Kael’scriticism,becauseitchallengedperceivedbinariesofartandentertainmentby

celebratingpopularculturethatappealedtoaneducatedmiddleclass.However,

Hollywood’sembraceofpureentertainmentandabandonmentofformalambition

hamperedthepopularityofserious-mindedcritics,whochallengedacriticalparadigmthat

consideredcommercialcinema“low”culture.LongformcriticsofHollywoodlikeKael,

SusanSontag,andAndrewSarriswereeventuallyreplacedbynewspapercriticslike

RodgerEbert,whoalsoappearedontelevision.Kael’scareercontinueduntiltheearly

1990s,buttheriseoftheblockbusterin1975againcleaved“art“and“entertainment”and

relegatedseriouscriticstonicheroles.Nonetheless,KaelrecognizedhowtheNew

HollywoodchangedAmericanperceptionsofthecinema.Inhercriticism,Kael

demonstratedhowtheNewHollywoodsynthesizedAmericanpopulistartandpopular

88Duetoexcessivelicensing,StarWars’charactersandimagesarenowubiquitous,andthefranchisehashelpedselleverythingfrombackpackstohamburgers.Thefilmhasproducedcountlesssequelsandspinoffs,includingChristmasspecialsandchildren’scartoons.Thefranchisealsoremainsincrediblypopular.Thelatestinstallment,StarWars:TheLastJedi(2017),witharunningtimeof2hoursand32minutes,grossedover600milliondollarsdomestically(BoxOfficeMojo).AudiencesarewillingtoacceptbloatedruntimesaslongasStarWarscontinuestodeliveronthebrand’strademarkeffectsandexcitement.See:“StarWars:TheLastJedi,”boxofficemojo.com,accessedSeptember27,2019,https://bit.ly/2m5fIib.

93

cinematocreateaninnovativeandentertainingauteuristcinema.AsKaelrecognized,the

audienceforLastTangoorRobertAltmandidnotstopgoingtotheatreentirely,butthey

retreatedtofamiliarcomforts.Writingin1978,KaelasksifAmericanaudienceshad

become“afraid”ofthemovies.89AftertheviolenceofTaxiDriver,theperversionofLast

TangoinParis,Kaelwrites,“Discriminatingmoviegoerswanttheplacidityofniceart–of

moviestamedsothattheyarenomorearousingthanwhatusedtobecalledpolite

theatre.”90

AlthoughKaelwasoftennegative,sheknewHollywoodcinemaproducedfrom

1965-75wasimportant,andsheusedhercriticismoftheNewHollywoodtochallenge

“highbrow”criticismthatdismissedHollywoodasdisposablemassculture.Incontrast,

KaelcelebratedtheAmericancinemaaspopularcultureandpopulistartwhilechallenging

constructedbinariesbetweenartandentertainment.AsKaelunderstood,theNew

Hollywoodwascinemathataudienceswouldcelebrateandrediscover.ClassicalHollywood

hadinfluencedEuropeanNewWavecinemas,which,inturn,hadinfluencedanew

generationofAmericancinema.Inrecognizingthisinfluence,Kaelwasdeterminednotto

lettheeducatedreadersoftheNewYorker,whooftenlookedabroadfor“art,”ignorethe

influenceofHollywood.ContrarytoJonasMekas,Kaelarguedthatcinematicappreciation

wasnotaboutrejectingthecommercialcinema.UnlikeParkerTyler,Kaelwasless

interestedincritiquingthecinema’ssupportofdominantAmericanvaluesthanin

defendingtheimportanceofpopularculture.Intheend,Kael’sworking-classbackground

andpopulisttasteinfluencedhersupportofAmericancommercialcinema,andshe

89PaulineKael,“FearofMovies,”WhentheLightsGoDown(NewYork:Holt,RinehartandWinston,1980),427.90Ibid,428,emphasisorg.

94

remindedherreadersoftheimportanceoffilmaspopulistartandpopularculture.Finally,

Kaelwassomethingofanaberrationinaculturedefinedbypartisanidentifications:

politicallyandsocially,shewasnotpreciselyliberalnorentirelyconservative.Intermsof

herowntaste,shelovedmusicalsbutchampionedauteurs.Shewasthussomethingofan

intermediary.However,JonasMekasparticularlyopposedherbourgeoiscomplacencyand

demandedanalternativetoHollywood.Tofindthiscinema,Mekaswouldlookbeyondthe

sunnystudiobacklotsofsouthernCaliforniatoAmericancitystreets,lofts,andalternative

exhibitionspaces.

95

Chapter3

JonasMekas’“Visionary”Cinema:TheNewAmericanCinemaandCulturalRenewal

“…ifJonasMekasdidnotexist,theEstablishmentwouldhavetoinventhim.”

–AndrewSarris,“TheIndependentCinema,”1967

InJuly1963,aNewYorkerwritervisitedadowntownlofttoprofileagroupof

filmmakersdedicatedtothedistributionofindependentandexperimentalAmerican

cinemafortheuptownandsuburbanreaderswhoconsumedthemagazine.Inasnapshot

ofdowntownthatdepartedfromthemagazine’susualuptownfocus,theauthordescribes

thefilmmakers’loftthatcontained“abatteredcouch;twomovieprojectors;somefilm-

editingequipment;andseverallivefilm-makers,who,welearned,wanderedinoutandall

daytochat,usetheequipmentandoccasionallysleeponthefloor.”1Iftheoffices

resembledaflophouse,itwasduetothefilmmakers’inabilitytoprofitfromtheirfilmsand

theirprofessedambivalenceaboutfindingadditionalwork.JonasMekas,“aleanascetic

looking-man,”explains:“Noneofuscansupportourselvesbymakingfilms.Somehave

regularjobs,somehaveoddjobs,butmanyofthemosttalenteddon’twanttogiveupthe

time,anddon’thavejobsatall.”2Theprofile, whichappealedtotheNewYorkerreader’s

interestindowntownbohemia,depictstheFilmmaker’sCo-operative’sspartanofficesand

itsmembers’quasi-religiousdevotiontofilmmakinglikeamonasticorderdevotedto

cinemabutangryatAmericansociety.Astheauthorexplains,“KenJacobs,afilm-maker,

whowanderedinduringourdiscussion...describedhimselfas‘justthirtyandveryangry.’”3

1“CinemaUnderground,”NewYorker,July13,1963,17.2Ibid,16-17.3Ibid.

96

WhenaskedaboutaFordFoundationgranttheCo-ophadwon:“Mekasnoddedand

smiled,”but“KenJacobslookedangry.”4

TheNewYorkerprofilehighlightsananimatingtensionofthe1960’sNewYork

experimentalfilmcommunity.Ononethehand,JonasMekaswantedtopromotetheNew

AmericanCinemaasanalternativetoHollywoodandwaswillingtoacceptinstitutional

supportwhenneeded.Ontheotherhand,undergroundfilmmakerslikeKenJacobswanted

toretainanon-commercial“purity”thatwouldallowthemtopursueanunconstrained

artisticvision.5Whilenotstrictlybinary,therewasatensionbetweenMekas’mainstream

ambitions,andJacobs’desireforartisticautonomy.However,beyondtheseinternecine

disputes,MekasandJacobswerebothangryabouttheAmericansocialstatus-quoand

believedpersonalexpressionthroughcinemacouldreformsociety.Thesefilmmakersalso

soughttochallengeappreciationsofartpropagatedbypublicationsliketheNewYorker

thatcelebratedhighcultureandencouragedtheirreadersthatknowledgeablecultural

consumptionwasanessentialaspectofamiddle-classlifestyle.Inviewingthecinemaasan

agentofculturalchange,MekasdescribestheNewAmericanCinemaintermsofchange:

“Thesenewhappeningsinourcinemarevealthatmanisreaching,growingintonewareas

ofhimself,areaswhicharedeadenedbyculture,orscared,orsleeping.”6

4Ibid;MekasrespondedtothecolumninaJuly25,1963column,criticizingtheauthor’scomparisonoftheNewAmericanCinematoBritishworking-classliteraturefromthe1950s:“ThefilmsofKenJacobs,JackSmith,RonRice,Brakhage,etc.,andthewritingsofthenewpoetshavenoangersimilartothatoftheBritish‘angryyoungmen.’”Rather,incharacteristicterms,MekasdescribestheNewAmericanCinemaintermsofspiritualrebirth:“Thereisalongingforadeeper,moreessential(andmoreexistential)changeofman.”See:JonasMekas,“July25,1963,WHYWEAREN’TANGRYYOUNGMEN,”inMovieJournal:TheRiseofaNewAmericanCinema,1959-71(NewYork:CollierBooks,1972),885StanBrakhagebecameparticularlyopposedtothecommercializationofexperimentalcinemaandpubliclydenouncedtheFilm-Makers’DistributionCenter.See:LaurenRabinovitz,“WearingtheCriticsHat:History,Discourses,andtheAmericanAvant-GardeCinema”inToFreetheCinema:JonasMekasandtheNewYorkUnderground,ed.DavidJames(Princeton:PrincetonUP,1992),279.6JonasMekas,“August8,1963,CHANGINGTECHNIQUEOFCINEMA,”inMovieJournal:TheRiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,1959-71(NewYork:CollierBooks,1972),92.

97

Filmmaker,critic,anddistributorJonasMekaspromotedtheNewAmericanCinema

duetohisbeliefthata“poetic”Americancinemarootedinself-expressioncouldreforma

middle-classculturebasedincapitalistconsumptionandsocialconformity.WhiletheNew

AmericanCinemawasproducedandconsumedacrossthecountry,Mekasoperatedatthe

centeroftheNewYorkunderground,whichwasanimportantcenterofexperimentaland

independentcinemaproduction,but,inhisrolesascriticanddistributor,Mekaspromoted

cinemaproducedacrossthecountry.UnlikeParkerTylerandPaulineKael,Mekasdidnot

provideevaluativejudgementofnewfilms,andherarelywroteaboutcinemahedisliked

unlesshewasdoingsoforpolemicalpurposes.Heexplains,“Iamnotareviewer.Iwrite,

[sic]Icommentonlythoseaspectswhichinterestme.Ineverreviewthefilms.”7Mekasalso

regularlycriticizedmainstreamfilmcritics,arguingthatconventionalcriticismsuppressed

thegrowthofamore“poetic”cinema.Mekasimploreshisreaders,“...trytolivewithout

criticizing!Thetroublewithourcinemaisthatwehavefilmcriticsandfilmreviewers.”8

MekaswasaLithuanianimmigrant,whoemigratedtoNewYorkCityin1949.

DuringtheSecondWorldWar,MekaslivedinBiržai,Lithuania,wherehewroteliterary

articlesandpoetrybeforeparticipatinginanti-Naziresistanceandescapingin1944.9

FollowingtheWar,JonasMekasandhisbrother,AdolfasMekas,livedinadisplaced

person’scamp,andJonasMekasstudiedphilosophyattheUniversityofMainzbefore

movingtotheUnitedStates.UponarrivinginNewYorkandsettlinginBrooklyn,Jonas

Mekasdedicatedhimselftothecinemaandbegantopromoteindependentcinemathrough

7Mekas,“February6,1969,ONGEORGEKUCHAR,”inMovieJournal,334.8Mekas,“June28,1962,ONFILMCRITICISMANDMYSELF,”inMovieJournal,62;Mekasexpressedantipathytowardsreviewerscouldbeoutrightcombative.Forinstance,thetitleofhisNov.7,1968columnwasalsohisargument:“WHYWESHOULDTHROWBRICKSATFILMCRITICS.”9MichaelCasperhasrecentlyproblematizedMekas’accountofhistimeduringtheWar.

98

severalrelatedroles.10First,Mekaswasaloverofthecinemaandadedicatedfilm

consumer,whoregularlyattendedscreeningsatCinema16.Whilepotentiallyapocryphal,

Mekasclaimstohaveattended“absolutelyeveryscreening...oftheso-calledexperimental

filmsinCinema16’sentireexistence.”11Yet,MekaswantedtopromotefilmsthatCinema

16ignored,and,in1962,heformedtheFilmmaker’sCo-operative,whichwasdedicatedto

thedistributionofAmericanexperimentalandindependentfilm,withagroupofinfluential

filmmakers.Asaresult,Mekas’promotionoftheNewAmericanCinemathroughhis

publishedfilmcriticismsupportedhisdistributionefforts.Despitehiscritiquesof

Hollywood’sprofitmotive,Mekaswasashrewdpromotor,whounderstoodthelogistical

andfinancialaspectsoffilmproductionanddistribution.Independentandexperimental

cinematypicallyreceivedlesspromotionandpresscoveragethancommercialcinema,but

adequatepromotionwasessentialtocreatingdemandforrentals.Mekasreturnedrental

feestothefilmmakersandusedprofitstokeeptheCo-oprunning,butthelogisticsof

distributionrequiredMekastotreatfilmasacommodity.

TheVillageVoice,whichpublished“MovieJournals”from1959-71,providedMekas

aneffectiveplatformtopromotetheNewAmericanCinemaduetoitsliberalpolitics,

respectedartscoverage,andinfluentialcoverageofthecinema.TheVoiceattractedreaders

wholivedbeyondGreenwichVillageandappealedtoabroaderreadershipthanlow-

circulationpublicationslikeFilmCulture,whichwaswrittensolelyfordedicatedcineastes.

AsDevonPowersexplains,“TheVoicebothrecognizedandfosteredtheVillage’s

10LostinsomediscussionsofMekas’careerishisfilmmaking,but,asDavidE.Jamesexplains,“ithasneverbeeneasytoholdhisfilmsincommonfocuswithhisotheractivities”See:DavidE.James,“Introduction,”inToFreetheCinema:JonasMekasandtheNewYorkUnderground,ed.DavidJames(Princeton:PrincetonUP,1992),16.11Mekasqtd.inScottMacDonald,introductiontoCinema16:DocumentsTowardaHistoryoftheFilmSociety,ed.ScottMacDonald(Philadelphia:TempleUP,2002),24.

99

emboldeningbohemiancommunityand,intheprocess,playedakeyroleinenlargingthe

Village’sconceptualborders.”12TheVoicewaslessradicalthanmimeographedpaperslike

theEastVillageOtherbutstillappealedtoacountercultureaudiencethatappreciated

transgressivecinemaandwritingcriticalofbourgeoisvalues.Themagazinealsopresented

astarkcontrasttotheNewYorker.WhiletheNewYorkerspoketoaneducatedreadership

thatusedculturalconsumptiontodemonstratetheirsocialstatus,theVillageVoice

representedabohemiansensibilitythatchallengedmiddle-classvalues.

Mekas’filmwritingappearedinarangeofpublications,buthis“MovieJournal”

columnsrepresentaperiodofconcentratedengagementwiththeNewAmericanCinemain

apublicationknownforitsartscoverage.13AsMekasrecognized,theVoice’sreaders

overlappedwiththeaudienceofCinema16,whowereyoung,well-educated,and

enthusiasticcinemaconsumers.14WritinginaAug.23,1964column,Mekasexplainshow

theVoice’sreaderswereunique:“Thetruthis,[sic]thereisanaturalselectionthattakes

placeintheaudience.Not‘everybody’readsTheVillageVoicewheretheavant-garde

listingsareannounced;onlycertainpeople,withcertainaestheticandsocial

preoccupations,withspecialsensitivitiesandinterests.”15Here,itappearsthatMekas

limitstheNewAmericanCinemaaudiencetoaselect“in-group,”buthecleverly

interpellateshisreadersbyassociatingthemwithdiscriminatingtaste.

12DevonPowers,WritingtheRecord:TheVillageVoiceandtheBirthofRockCriticism(Amherst:UniversityofMassachusettsPress,2013),24.13JonasMekasfoundedFilmCulturein1954withhisbrother,AdolfasMekas.14VogelregularlysurveyedCinema16’smembership.See:introductiontoCinema16:DocumentsTowardaHistoryoftheFilmSociety,ed.ScottMacDonald(Philadelphia:TempleUP,2002),13.15Mekas,“April23,1964,ONLAW,MORALITY,ANDCENSORSHIP,”inMovieJournal,133.

100

TheVoicewasalsonotableforitsfilmwritingthatcoveredeverythingfromwell-

knownHollywoodfilmstoobscureexperimentalshorts.AsDennisLimdescribes,theVoice

was[w]rittenbyandforcinephiles,”andhenotesthat“TheVoice’sfilmpages

recontextualizedHollywoodandexploredtheavant-garde.”16The“must-reads,”asJ.

Hobermanexplains,wereMekas’“MovieJournal,”whichfirstappearedonNov.12,1958,

andAndrewSarris’“FilmsinFocus.”17Mekascoveredindependentandexperimental

cinema,andAndrewSarriscoveredthecommercialcinema.18Thisdivisionoflabor

allowedtheVoicetocoveravarietyoffilmswhileenablingwriterstocultivateareasof

expertise.AccordingtoJ.Hoberman,aninfluentialcriticfromtheVoice,whobegan

reviewingfilmsforthemagazinein1977,“WhileMekaswastotallycommittedtothenew,

AndrewSarriswasthefirstregularmoviereviewerwhoconsistentlyand

programmaticallyputcurrentmoviesintheirfilm-historicalcontext.”19Overall,the

magazineprofoundlyaffectedAmericanfilmculturethroughitspublicationofinfluential

critics,anditsreceptionofAmericancinemathatchallengedAmericanmiddle-classvalues.

Incontrast,theNewYorkerprimarilyfocusedonmainstreamHollywoodandarthouse

cinemathatdidnotoffendtheculturalsensibilitiesofamiddle-classreadership.

16DennisLim, introductiontoTheVillageVoiceFilmGuide:50YearsofMoviesfromClassicstoCultHits,ed.DennisLim(Hoboken:JohnWileyandSons,2007),1.17J.Hoberman,“AHistoryofFilmCriticismattheVillageVoice,”inTheVillageVoiceFilmGuide,4.18Thereareafewexceptions.MekasoccasionallywroteaboutHollywoodfilms,expressingappreciationforJohnFord,HowardHawks,andOrsonWelles.Inafewinstances,healsocoveredarthousecinema,demonstratedbyhisreviewsofJeanRenoir,YasujiroOzu,RobertBresson,andmore.Here,too,Mekaswouldevokeagendereddiscourse.WritingaboutZabriskiePoint(1970),Mekasremarks,“Butsomethingbothersme.Yousee,Antonioni’swomenarealwaysmoreintelligentthanhismen.ButthemanofZabriskiePointistoonaiveandtoounintelligent.”See:JonasMekas,“February10,1970,INDEFENSEOFZABRISKIEPOINT,(1),”inMovieJournal:TheRiseofaNewAmericanCinema,1959-71(NewYork:CollierBooks,1972),371.19Ibid;Later,inthe1970s,theVoiceemployedtheinfluentialfilmcritic,MollyHaskell,whoprovidedafeministperspectivethatchallengedthemale-controlleddiscourseoffilmcriticism

101

Yet,itisimportanttorecognizehowMekas’filmwritingintheVoicewasnot

intendedtoprovidecriticalfeedbacklikeconventionalfilmcriticism,andhisapproach

differedfrommainstreamcriticslikePaulineKaelandsubculturalcriticslikeParkerTyler.

KaelandTylerbothprovidedevaluativeassessmentsintheircriticismthatconsidered

cinemawithinalargerhistory,butMekasusedcriticismtosupporthisdistributionand

exhibitioneffortsandadvocateforindependentfilmmakers.Mekas’criticismconsidered

theNewAmericanCinemaa“revolution”topromotethiscinemaasnewandradical,but

Kaelevaluatedthe“New”HollywoodwithinlargertraditiontodemonstratetheAmerican

cinema’sevolution.Criticswhounderstoodexperimentalfilmhistoryandaesthetics

likewiserejectedMekas’promotionalcriticism.ParkerTylercriticizedMekas’“partisan”

advocacyoftheNewAmericanCinema,andhearguedthatfilmcriticismneededtobe

rootedinpolitical,aesthetic,andhistoricalanalysis.TylerwasespeciallycriticaloftheNew

AmericanCinema,whichheconsideredamateurishandunimaginative,andhecritiqued

theexperimentalunderground’sappropriationofqueeraesthetics.But,athismost

polemical,Mekasrejectedfilmcriticismentirely,viewingthecritic’sroleastheartist’s

advocateandpromoter.

Mekas’promotionoftheNewAmericanCinemaattemptedtoestablishan

alternativetoHollywood.Indiscursiveterms,Mekas’descriptionoftheNewAmerican

Cinemaasa“revolution”rejectedHollywoodandpositionedtheNewAmericanCinemaas

amoreartistic,lessconstrainedalternative.Intermsofmaterialchange,Mekas’

“revolution”occurredthroughhisdistributionefforts,whichincludedhisattemptstomake

rentalsofNewAmericanfilmswidelyavailabletofilmconsumers.Whileitisdifficultto

assessthedegreetowhichMekasgenuinelybelievedtheNewAmericanCinemacould

102

supplantHollywood–orifhis“revolution”wassimplyarhetoricalattempttopromotethe

NewAmericanCinema–Mekassurelywantedexperimentalandindependentcinemato

reachalargeraudience,iffornootherreason,tosupporthisdistributionefforts.Scholars

haverecognizedMekas’attemptstopromotetheNewAmericanCinemabeyondtheart

marketinordertochallengeHollywood’shegemony.DavidE.JamesexplainshowMekas

attemptedtoreachalargeraudiencetoreformAmericanfilmculture:“Notonlywasa

massaudienceessentialto[Mekas’]politicalobjectives...butindustrialproductionwas

intrinsictoanycinemaofwhichhecouldthenconceive.”20AsJamesargues,Mekasbelieved

Hollywoodwas“structurallyincapableofrespondingtotherealitiesofAmericanlife,”and

hewantedto“reinventthemedium”bychangingtheAmericancinema’sproductionand

reception.21However,Mekas’desiretosupplantHollywoodwithexperimentalcinemaalso

engenderedcriticismfromavant-gardeandsubculturalcritics.ParkerTyler,forinstance,

believedMekasmisunderstoodthenatureofexperimentalcinemathatwouldappealonly

toavanguardaudience.

Mostimportantly,MekaspromotedtheNewAmericanCinemaasanalternativeto

Hollywoodbecausehebelievedanindependentcinemarootedinself-explorationand

expressioncouldhelpcombatapostwarAmericansocialandpoliticalstatus-quo.Inthis

regard,MekasusedfilmcriticismtoarguethatcinemacouldreformanAmericancharacter

rootedincapitalistconsumptionandsocialconformity.However,bycelebratingaheroic

maleartist,producinganartisanalcinemathatstoodinoppositiontoamechanized

consumerculture,Mekasemployedacriticaldiscoursethatcelebratedmaleartistic

20DavidJames,ToFreetheCinema:JonasMekasandtheNewYorkUnderground,ed.DavidJames(Princeton:PrincetonUP,1992),8,myemphasis.21Ibid.

103

achievementasawaytocombataperceived“crisisofmasculinity.”LikeAbstract

Expressionism,Bebop,andBeatpoetry,whichposedparallelchallengestodominant

Americanmiddle-classvalues,theNewAmericanCinemademonstratedaspontaneitythat

wasatoddswithregimentedcorporateemploymentandsuburbansocialconformity.

Whileavant-gardejazzandpoetrywereassociatedwithAfricanAmericans,gays,and

Communists,whoexistedoutsideofanimagined,whitemiddle-class,MekastooktheBeat

revoltagainstthemiddle-classtothecinema.Consequently,Mekaschampioneda“poetic”

cinemathatreflectedBeatvaluesofindividualism,freeexpression,andspiritualfulfillment.

“Beat,”afterall,wasderivedfrom“beatific,”meaning“makingblessed,”andMekas’

argumentsaboutthecinema’sspiritualnatureechoedwritersAllenGinsbergandJack

Kerouac,whofoundasimilarspiritualityinpoetryandprose.22But,liketheBeats,Mekas

lionizedmaleachievement,and,asaresult,hiscriticismmarginalizedwomen’s

contributionstoanalternativecinemathatshouldhaveopenlywelcomedthem.

InherstudyonwomenfilmmakersandtheNewYorkavant-garde,Lauren

Rabinovitzremindsusthat“womenartistsremainedprisonersofanideologythateven

constructedtheirpointsofresistancewithintraditionalsocialroles.”23FilmmakersShirley

Clarke,MarieMenken,andBarbaraRubinmadevaluablecontributionstotheNew

AmericanCinema,andMayaDeren,whoseworkbelongstoasecond-waveofAmerican

experimentalfilmmaking,wasanimportantinfluence.Deren’sexhibitionofherworkatthe

ProvincetownPlayhouse,aswellasherattemptstocontroldistribution,alsoinfluenced

Mekas’distributionandexhibitionefforts.AsDavidE.Jamesdescribes,“Sincethewarthere

22ShorterOxfordEnglishDictionary,6thed.(2007),s.v.“Beatific.”23LaurenRabinovitz,PointsofResistance:Women,Power,andPoliticsintheNewYorkAvant-gardeCinema,1943-71(Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress,1991),5.

104

hadbeenseveralattemptstoorganizetheindependentfilmcommunityinNewYork,most

ofthemfilledbyMayaDeren.”24WhileMekasdidsupportsomewomenfilmmakers,his

“MovieJournal”columnscontributedtoadiscoursethatprivilegedmaleartists.25Mekas’

columnschampionedtheworkofStanBrakhage,AndyWarhol,JohnCassavetes,Ken

Jacobs,HollisFramptonandothermalefilmmakers.AlthoughMekasvaluedtheNew

AmericanCinemaforitsexpressionsofpersonalvision,thisvisionwasmoreoftenthannot

amalegaze.AsMekasexplains,“ThemodernAmericanfilm…is…createdbynewmenwith

newsensibilities.”26WhenMekasdidacknowledgewomen’scontributions,heoften

resortedtogenderedstereotypes.Forinstance,inacolumnfromJuly1963,Mekas

announces:“Therearenewthingscomingtocinema,too…Womenarecomingtocinema.”27

However,Womenhad“arrived”wellbeforethispronouncement,andMekasdescribes

theircontributionsintypicallyfeminineterms:StormDeHirsch’sfilms,forinstance,

evokedan“unseensensuousness”;BarbaraRubinwas“pouringherheartout”;andMarie

Menken’s“flowerheartbloom[ed].”28

Ultimately,Mekas’criticismaffirmednormativegenderrolesbyarguingthatmale

artistswereuniquelyabletoreformAmericanculture.Mekaswasnotaloneindiagnosing

personalfreedomasasolutionforaculturein“crisis,”buthearguedthatHollywoodwith

24DavidJames,“Introduction,”inToFreetheCinema:JonasMekasandtheNewYorkUnderground,ed.DavidJames(Princeton:PrincetonUP,1992),9.25Itisimportanttorememberthatveryfewwomenhadopportunitiesasdirectorsaftertheinstitutionalizationofthesoundfilmandtheestablishmentofthestudiosysteminthelate-1920s.However,JaneGainesquestionsaccountsofwomen’sparticipationinthefilmindustrythatclearlydemarcatesasilent“heydayofwomen”fromlaterperiods.Whilechangesinpoliticaleconomyprovideonereasonwhywomenwereremovedasdirectorsandproducers,Gainesremindsusitisnot“asthoughwomenwereworkingonedayandletgothenext.”Instead,Gainessuggestsscholars“thinkintermsofmultipleanddisparatedevelopments”inordertoconsider“whathappened”towomeninthefilmindustry.See:JaneGaines,Pink-Slipped:WhatHappenedtoWomenintheSilentFilmIndustries(Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress,2018),24.26Mekas,“March2,1961,ONIMPROVISATIONANDSPONTANEITY,”inMovieJournal,27.27Mekas,“July25,1963,ONWOMENINCINEMA,”inMovieJournal,89.28Ibid,90.

105

itsindustrialproductionandprofitincentivewasuniquelyrepresentativeofpostwar

America’sproblems.Inresponse,Mekaschampionedartisanal,highly-personalcinemathat

couldprovidemenautonomythroughself-expression,but,inpromotingthiscinema,

Mekasaffirmedideologicalaspectsofamiddle-classAmericansocietyhepurportedto

challenge.LiketheBeatswhoinfluencedhim,Mekasrelegatedwomentosecondaryroles,

supportingthenormativegenderrolesthatdefinedsomuchofpostwarAmericanlife.At

thesametime,however,MekasusedfilmcriticismtochallengenormativeAmericanvalues,

andheuniquelyconceptualizedthecinemaasanagentofculturalchange.Insteadof

evaluativelyreviewingfilmsorprovidingaestheticanalysis,Mekasusedfilmcriticismto

promoteexperimentalandindependentcinemabyrejectingAmericanmiddle-classvalues

thatsupportedconsumerculture.Inappealingtoandinterpellatingamalereadership,

Mekasalsoarguedthatpersonalexpressionthroughcinemacouldprovidemenasenseof

autonomyandfreethemfromthedemandsofcorporateemploymentandsuburban

domesticity.Inthissense,hepositionedthecinemaalongsidepopularculturelikejazz,

rockn’roll,andBeatliteraturethatposedparallelchallengestoanimaginedwhitemiddle

class.However,Mekas’appealsforculturalreformationwereprimarilydiscursiveand

intendedtoprovidepromotionfortheexperimentalandindependentcinemaheproduced,

distributed,andexhibited.

CriticismAsPromotion

Inconsecutive“MovieJournal”columnsfromSeptember1965,Mekasdirectedhis

angerabouttheNewYorkfilmfestivalatPaulineKael,explaininghowthefestival’s

selectionsandKael’scriticismreflectedasimilar“middle-road”approachtocinema

appreciation.TheimpetusforMekas’comparisonwasthefestival’somissionoftheNew

106

AmericanCinema:“ThecompletemisrepresentationoftheAmericancinemaattheNew

YorkFilmFestival–theexclusionofoneitsmostcreativepart,theavant-garde,the

undergroundcinemaleadsustobelievethatothercountriesmaybeasbadlyrepresented

asourown.”29Thefestival,whichopenedwithJean-LucGodard’sAlphaville(1965)and

closedwithAkiraKurosawa’sRedBeard(1965),hadignoredMekas’favoritedirectors:

HarrySmith,StanBrakhage,andAndyWarhol.Kael’sfirstbook,ILostitAttheMovies,

publishedthesameyearin1965,hadalsoignoredtheNewAmericanCinema.Inreference

toKael’spunningtitle,Mekasacidlyremarks,“NowIknowwhatPaulineKaellostatthe

movies:thetasteforcinema.”30InMekas’view,KaelwastooenamoredwithHollywoodto

acceptfilmmakerswho“wanthertowakeup,tochange,”althoughtheexperimental

cinemahechampionedstruggledtoreachaudiences.31

InanattempttogenerateenthusiasmfortheNewAmericanCinema,Mekasuseda

promotionalfilmcriticismthatattemptedtocounteractHollywood’spopularityby

championinganindependentandexperimentalcinemathatattractedlessattention.Years

afterthe1965NewYorkFilmFestival,Mekaswasforcedtoacknowledgethat“screenings

ofavant-gardefilmaroundNewYorkCity,attheCinematheque[sic]orsomeotherplaceif

notspeciallypushed,seldomattractmorethantwentyorthirtypeople.”32Mekascould

acknowledgethatmostpeoplethoughtofHollywoodwhentheyproposed“’goingtothe

movies,’”buthewasinauniqueposition:“Ihappentoknowthedepthandscopeofthe

29Mekas,“September16,1965,THENEWYORKFILMFESTIVALASANENEMYOFTHENEWCINEMA,”inMovieJournal,203.30Mekas,“September23,1965,WHATPAULINEKAELLOSTATTHEMOVIES,ANDWHYTHENEWYORKFILMFESTIVALDOESN’TINDICATETHEREALSTATEOFCINEMA,”inMovieJournal,205;Icannotverifywhetherthisexchangeoccurred,butMekas’tonesuggestshefictionalizeditforpolemicalpurposes.31Ibid.32Mekas,“April24,1969,ONTHECHANGINGNATUREOFAVANT-GARDEFILMSCREENINGS,”inMovieJournal,343.

107

revolutioninformandcontentwhichisgoingoninthefilmundergroundtoday,andIcan’t

besilentaboutit.”33Mekasthenexplainshiscriticalphilosophy:“Idon’tthinkaresponsible

moviecriticcangobypeople’sdefinitionofcinema.That’swhyIgobacktothe

underground.Iknowthatthemajorityofyoucannotseethiscinema;butthatisexactlythe

point:Itismydutytobringthiscinematoyourattention.Iwillbarkaboutituntilour

theatresstartshowingthiscinema.”34

Mostmainstreamcriticstookadifferentapproach,treatingfilmsinevaluative

terms.CriticslikeBosleyCrowtherassessedwhetherafilmwas“good”or“bad,”letting

readersknowifafilmwasworththeinvestmentofitsticketpriceandruntime.Thiswasa

pragmaticapproachtoreviewingalargenumberofcommercialfilms.Butfilmreviewingis

asubjectiveenterprise,andsomecriticslookedtoliteraryanalysistoprovideaveneerof

objectivity.NewCriticismemphasizedclosereadingandtextualanalysisandinfluenced

howsomereviewersapproachedfilmcriticism.However,criticslikeMannyFarber,who

wereconcernedwithfilmaesthetics,recognizedthecinema’suniqueformalaspectsand

rejectedanapproachtakenfromliteraryanalysis.Mekas’filmcriticismindiscriminately

blendedaspectsofaliteraryandformalcriticismbutmostoftentooktheformofvague

“spiritual”pronouncements.Mekasexplains,“ifthecritichasanyfunctionatall,itistolook

forsomethinggoodandbeautifularoundhim,somethingthatcouldgetmantogrowfrom

inside.”35InresponsetotheNewAmericanCinema’sdetractors,Mekasremarks,“Itis

33Mekas,“May2,1963,THEIRRESPONSIBILITYOFMYCOLLEAGUEFILMCRITICS”inMovieJournal,85.34Ibid.35Mekas,“May10,1962,ONFILMCRITICISM,”inMovieJournal,59.

108

unfamiliaritywiththecreativemanifestationofman’sspiritthathas,recently,providedus

withfoolishstatementsabouttheso-calledNewAmericanCinema.”36

NewAmericanCinemarootedinformalexplorationwasoftennon-narrativeand

couldnotbeconsideredthroughliteraryanalysis.Althoughliterarycomparisonsemergein

Mekas’criticism,heencourageshisreaderstofocusontheimage.37“Ourthinkingisstillso

literary,”hecomplainedin1963.“Wehavenoimmediatesenseoftheimageitself,no

immediateexperienceoftheimage,what’shappeninginit.”38Mekasviewedthenon-

narrativecinemaas“aturnfromtheNewYorkrealistschool(thecinemaof‘surface’

meaningsandsocialengagement)towardacinemaofdisengagementandnewfreedom.”39

Mekas,whohadearliercriticizedabstractfilmsbecausethey“donotappeartobepartof

thesurroundingworld,”40nowcelebrates“adesireforexperienceofpurewords,sounds,

colors,forms.”41Mekas’earlycriticismhadsupportednarrativefilmsinfluencedbydirect

cinemadocumentary,but,inthemid-1960s,heembracedtheformalistcinemathatwould

dominatehisinterestsuntilthe1970s.Asheexplains,“Soweshouldstopcryingthatthere

isnoplotinthenewcinema.Thereisplotinthenewcinemaandthereisstoryinthenew

cinema:Onlythatplotandthatstoryisonanotherlevelofbeing,sonodoubtithad

differentcharacteristicsandlawsanddifferentlogic(illogic)?”42

36Mekas,“September27,1962,ABOUTTHECHANGINGFRONTIERSOFCINEMA,”inMovieJournal,68.37 Afterall,MekasregularlyreferredtotheNewAmericanCinemaas“filmpoetry.” 38Mekas,“February28,1963,ONIMMEDIATESEEING,”inMovieJournal,78.39Mekas,“May2,1963,ONTHEBAUDELAIREANCINEMA,”inMovieJournal,85.40JonasMekas,“TheExperimentalFilminAmerica,”inFilmCultureReader,ed.P.AdamsSitney(NewYork:Praeger,1970),22.41Mekas,“December9,1965,THENEEDFORNARRATIVEANDNONNARRATIVEEXPRESSIONSINTHEARTS,”inMovieJournal,219.42Mekas,“August1,1968,ONERNIEGEHRANDTHE‘PLOTLESSCINEMA,”inMovieJournal,316

109

Mekaswroteaboutcinemathatwasineffableordifficulttodescribebutcontinued

toemphasizehowthiscinemademonstratedpersonalexpressionthatcouldleadto

culturalreformation.Structuralistcinemathatemergedinthemid-1960sresisted

straightforwardprosedescriptionsduetoitsemphasisoncinematicformandtemporality.

Yet,Mekas,whochampionedstructuralistfilmmakersHollisFramptonandMichaelSnow,

analyzedthisabstractcinemaintermsofpersonalexpressioninsteadoffocusingonits

novelformalaspects.AsMekasexplains,“It’sthroughtheformthatweperceivethe

content,style.Themannerinwhichit’sdone(therhythm,thepace)reveals,tellsus

somethingaboutthetemperament,emotions...oftheartist.”43Earlierinthe1960s,in

analyzingtheeditingandcameramovementofStanBrakhage’sfilmsthatsignaledhis

transitionfromthepsychodramatoa“visionary”styleofcinema,44Mekasexplains,

“Movementcannowgofromcompleteimmobilitytoablurredswishvisiontoamillion

unpredictablespeedsandecstasies...Theclassicfilmvocabularyallows(orrecognizes)only

theslowly,respectablyBrooks-Brothers-suitpacedcameramovements.”45Here,Mekas

emphasizesthatHollywood’sformalaspectssuchascontinuityeditingandcarefully

framedmise-en-scenereflectedanAmericansocialstatus-quoofconformityasexemplified

bythemiddle-classAmericanmale’suniform:theBrooksBrotherssuit.Thisreference

interpellatedamalereaderandrevealshowMekas’argumentsforculturalrenewalspoke

toanimaginedwhitemiddleclass.Formiddle-classmen,livinginthesuburbsandworking

43Mekas,“May29,1969,MOREONFORM,STRUCTURE,ANDPROPORTION,’inMovieJournal,346.44WhileMekas’reviewsofstructuralistfilmandBrakhagecreatesasenseofcontinuitybetweenBrakhageandfilmmakerslikeSnowandFrampton,Sitneydisputesthisassociation.InSitney’sreading,Brakhage’sfilmsreflecta“cinemaofthemindratherthantheeye”despitehisformalexperimentation.Conversely,SitneyviewedWarhol’stemporalexplorationsasanimportantprecursortostructuralistfilm,althoughWarholis“spirituallyattheoppositepolefromthestructuralfilmmakers.”See:P.AdamsSitney,VisionaryFilm:TheAmericanAvant-Garde,1943-1978(NewYork:OxfordUP,1979),373.45Mekas,“August9,1963,CHANGINGTECHNIQUESOFCINEMA,”inMovieJournal,91.

110

corporateofficejobs,anabstractcinemabasedpurelyinself-expressioncouldprovidea

senseof“freedom.”Mekasexplains,“Thesenewhappeningsinourcinemarevealthatman

isreaching,growingintonewareasofhimself.”46TheNewAmericanCinema,inMekas’

estimation,wasamanifestationofaliberatedpostwarman,whorepresentedadistinct

senseofrebellionthatchallengedthemiddle-classvaluespromotedbytheNewYorker:

“Oftenunnoticed,oftenmisinterpreted,man’sgrowthcontinues...[and]whenhisgrowth

manifestsitselfinovertaction,itshockssomeofuswithitsunfamiliarangelicbeauty.

AnAuthorityonFilm

Mekas’promotionoftheNewAmericanCinemaattemptedtomakeindependent

andexperimentalcinemaaviablealternativetoHollywoodbychallengingadistribution

andexhibitionsystemthatignoredit.ThestatementoftheNewAmericanCinemaGroup,

whichMekashelpedformedin1960,madeexhibitionthesubjectofitsfifthpoint,which

vowedto“takeastandagainstthepresentdistribution-exhibitionpolicies.”47Inbombastic

language,MekasandtheCo-opmembersdeclare,“itistimetoblowthewholethingup.”48

AlthoughindependenttheatersexhibitedtheNewAmericanCinemaacrossNewYorkCity,

andAmericanselsewheresawitatindependenttheaters,institutionsofhighereducation,

filmfestivals,andtravellingexhibitions,MekaswantedtheNewAmericanCinematobe

widelyavailabletothepointofchallengingHollywood.49Oneprescientsolutionwasto

bringtheNewAmericanCinemadirectlyintotheAmericanhome.Writingbeforethe

adventofVHShomevideo,Mekaswantedtomake8mmrentalsavailableatbooksstores

46Ibid,92.47“TheFirstStatementoftheNewAmericanCinemaGroup,”inFilmCultureReader,ed.P.AdamsSitney(NewYork:Praeger,1970),81.48Ibid,82.49ImportantsitesofexperimentalfilmexhibitionincludedCinema16,theBleekerStreetCinema,TheCharles,and,later,FilmForum(1970).

111

andconsideredpartneringwithESPrecords,aprogressivejazzlabel,todistributetapesin

recordstores,placingtheNewAmericanCinemainstoreswhereAmericanspurchased

othermedia.50Mekaswarns,“Ifyoucloseyourtheaters,we’llinvadetheBeautiful

AmericanHome,we’llundermineand‘corrupt’youfrominside!”51Thehomeseemedthe

paragonofdomesticity,but,infactthesuburbanidealwasunderconstantthreat.By1965,

theyearofMekas’proposedinvasion,popularculturehadalreadyprovidedteenagerswith

filmsandsongsaboutrebellion.“Teenpics”androckn’rollencouragedgenerationalstrife

andstokedadultfearsaboutjuveniledelinquency.AsAmericanstudiesscholarThomas

Dohertyexplains,“Thejuveniledelinquentofthe1950swasaterrifyingcrimeproblem

becauseheresistedareassuringsocioeconomicanalysis,especiallyif(aswasincreasingly

thecase)hecamefromafairlywell-offbackground.”52Theiconicyouthrebelofthe1950s,

JimStark,playedbyJamesDeaninRebelWithoutaCause(1955),becameamodelof

suburbanrebellion,and,forMekas,Dean’sperformancesignaledanewperiodofAmerican

culturehadbegun:“TherewasnotrueAmericanwayoflifeuntilJamesDean–therewas

onlyabastardizedEurope.”53

InMekas’estimation,DeanhelpedinitiateaperiodofAmericanculturethat

expressedthemesofmaleautonomyandrebellion.AsMekasexplainsinadescriptionof

the“youngactor”:“hedoesn’ttrustanywillbuthisown,whichneverthelessheknowsisso

frail,soharmless–nowillatall,onlydistantdeepwaves,andmotionsandavoiceand

50PaulArthur,“RoutesofEmancipation:AlternativeCinemaintheIdeologyandPoliticsoftheSixties,”inToFreetheCinema:JonasMekasandtheNewYorkUnderground,ed.DavidJames(Princeton:PrincetonUP,1992),31.51Mekas,“May13,1965,ONFLY-BY-NIGHTFELLOWS,ORHOWTHEUNDERGROUNDFILMISINVADINGTHEBEAUTIFULAMERICANHOME,”inMovieJournal,187.52ThomasDoherty,TeenagersandTeenpics:TheJuvenilizationofAmericanMoviesinthe1950s(Philadelphia:TempleUP,2002),100.53Mekas,“March2,1961,ONIMPROVISATIONANDSPONTANEITY,”inMovieJournal,29.

112

groanofaMarlonBrando,JamesDean,BenCarruthers–waiting,listening(thesameway

Kerouacislistening…orColtrane;orLeslie.”54ForMekas,theseartists–Brando,Dean,

Kerouac,andColtrane–createdworkthatreflectedanemergentzeitgeist.WhileMekas’

celebrationofaniconicHollywoodactormaybeliehisrepeatedclaimsaboutthe

superiorityoftheexperimentalcinema,MekasbelievedthatJamesDean,popularforfilms

producedinthe1950s,demonstratedaprescientsenseofculturalrebellionthatwouldbe

fullyarticulatedintheNewAmericanCinema.55Althoughtheabovequotationalso

supportsParkerTyler’sclaimthatMekaswasnotparticularlywell-versedinexperimental

cinemaandwastooconcernedwithHollywoodandpopularcultureasmodelsofcultural

production,itdemonstratesJuanSuárez’sclaimsabouttherelationshipbetweenpopular

cultureandexperimentalfilm.WriterslikeP.AdamsSitneyhavetreatedexperimentalfilm

aslargelyautonomous,butSuárezexplainshowculturalcirculationcreatedarelationship

betweenthemainstreamandavant-garde.Inparticular,theexperimentalunderground,

was“stronglyinfluencedby…contemporaryculturalandaestheticcurrents.”56Aspirational

popularculturalmodelsrepresentedMekas’hopesthattheNewAmericanCinemacouldbe

bothpopularandartistic,andhismixtureofHollywoodcinemawith“higher”culturelike

jazzandliteraturereflectedhisembraceofa“new”sensibility.ButcruciallyforMekas,

whatunitedBrando,Dean,Kerouac,andColtranewastheavailabilityoftheirwork.Films

starringMarlonBrandoandJamesDeanwereHollywoodfilmsthatscreenedatcommercial

54Ibid,28.55However,Mekas’argumentaboutMarlonBrandoismorecomplicated.MekasislikelycelebratingBrandoforhisrolesinfilmsfromthe1950slikeStreetcarNamedDesire(1951)orOntheWaterfront(1954)thatdemonstratedhis“method”acting.Ofcourse,BrandowasalsoimportanttotheNewHollywood,becausehestarredinFrancisFordCoppola’sTheGodfather(1972)andApocalypseNow(1979).Brando’scareerwaslong,influential,andvaried,andheistheonlyactorcelebratedbyKael,Tyler,andMekas.56JuanA.Suárez,BikeBoys,DragQueens,andSuperstars:Avant-garde,MassCulture,andGayIdentitiesinthe1960sUndergroundCinema(Bloomington,IndianaUP,1996),xvi.

113

theatres.ThewritingofJackKerouaccouldbepurchasedatbookstoresorchecked-out

fromalibrary.JohnColtrane’srecordscouldbepurchasedatrecordstoresandlistenedto

onahomestereo.TelevisionchangedAmericans’relationshiptothecinemabymaking

Hollywoodfilmsaccessible,butanalternativecinemahadyettomakesimilarinroads.Asa

result,MekaswantedtobringtheNewAmericanCinematoaplacewhereitcouldhavethe

mostimpact:theAmericanlivingroom.

Mekas’desiretopopularizeexperimentalcinemasubtendedhiscritiqueof

exhibitionstrategiesthatappealedtoupper-classaudiences.Forinstance,hederisively

describestheopeningofNewYorkCity’s55thStreetPlayhousein1964,whichscreened

“experimentalandavant-garde’movies,”as“somethingbiggerfortheuptownpeople.”57

Thiscommentmayappearsymptomaticofabohemiansnobbery,andcounterproductive

givenhiscomplaintsaboutthelackofexperimentalfilmexhibition,butMekas’critiqueof

the55thStreetPlayhousedemonstrateshisconcernthatexperimentalcinemawould

becomeararifiedartappreciatedonlybyeliteaudiences.MekasknewtheNewAmerican

Cinemawouldneedtoreachworking-andmiddle-classaudiencestochallengeHollywood,

andhisargumentsabouttheexperimentalcinema’scritiqueofcapitalismwouldnotappeal

toNewYorkerreadersinterestedinthemagazine’scelebrationofconsumerism.Mekasalso

dislikedAmerican“art”filmsmadewithmoderatebudgetsthatappealedtoeducated

audiences:“Inthemiddleisstuckthe$100,000to$400,000movies,theso-calledAmerican

‘art’film.”58Hefurtherarguesthatthequalityofthesefilmswaspoor:“Ihaveseenagood

57Mekas,“February20,1964,ONTHEMYSTERYOFTHELOW-BUDGET‘ART’FILM,”inMovieJournal,120.58Ibid.

114

numberofthem,andthebestonesaredogs.AmericancinemaremainsinHollywoodand

theNewYorkunderground.ThereisnoAmerican‘art’film.”59

ItisunsurprisingthatMekasdisapprovedofHollywood’sappropriationof

experimentalfilmtechniquesthatweretheresultoffinancialnecessityandcreative

workarounds.AsMekaswrites,“Itallstartedtenyearsago,whenafewofuswhowanted

tomakefilmsverybadlybutwhocouldn’tgetourhandseitherontheHollywoodstudios

ortheequipment,oneday,suddenly,cameupwithabrilliantidea.”60Producingfilmswith

limitedfinancingledtothecreationofanartisanalcinemacharacterizedby“kookyideas

andgimmicks–likehand-heldcameras,out-of-focusshots,shakycameratechniques,

improvisedacting,singlesframes,jumpcutting.”61Whatappearedtosomeasamateurish

appearedtootherstodemonstrateanappealingpersonalquality,andHollywoodcaught

on:“Today,inHollywood,theyarerunninginthestudioswithhand-heldcameras,theyare

shakingthem,whiledolliesandtripodsaregettingrusty.”62Yet,forMekas,Hollywood’s

appropriationofexperimentalfilmtechniquessimplyproducedersatzundergroundfilms

eventhoughcriticslikePaulineKaelcelebratedtheNewHollywood’sformalambitions.In

contrast,Mekas,whobelieved“[o]negreatpieceofartbyitselfcouldchangethewhole

society,”knewaudiencesneededtoexperiencegenuineexperimentalcinemaforhis

59Ibid.60Mekas,“December21,1967,ONHOWTHEUNDERGROUNDFOOLEDHOLLYWOOD,”inMovieJournal,301.61Ibid,302;Inaseminaraddressonthe“diaryfilm,”MekasexplainshowadefectiveBolexcamerathatcouldnotmaintainaconsistentframerateinformedthecompositionofJourneytoLithuania(1972):“AndwhenIfinallyrealizedtherewasnowayoffixingitorlockingit,Idecidedtoacceptitandincorporatethedefectasoneofthestylisticdevices.”ThiswasjustoneexampleofhowtheformalcompositionofNewAmericanfilmswasinfluencedbythefilmmakers’useofcheap–or,inthisinstance,defective–equipment.See:JonasMekas,“TheDiaryFilm,”inTheAvant-GardeFilm:AReaderofTheoryandCriticism,ed.P.AdamsSitney(NewYork:NewYorkUP,1978),195.62Ibid.

115

revolutiontosucceed.63Mekas’complaintsaboutexperimentalfilmgoing“mainstream”

maycontradicthisattempttopopularizethiscinema,buthiscritiquesofmiddle-class

valueswouldnotsucceed“within”themainstream,andtheNewAmericanCinemaneeded

tokeepitsmarginalstatusforMekas’argumentsaboutculturalrenewaltosucceedwith

middle-classmen,whowerelookingforanalternativetotheculturethatsurroundedthem.

CombattingaCultureinCrisis

Mekas’criticismwasuniqueinconsideringthecinemaatoolforcultural

reformation,andhechallengedargumentsthatpopularculturelikecinemasupported

dominantideologies.Yet,beforehis“MovieJournal”columns,Mekasrevealedhisown

anxietiesaboutthecinema’smoralcharacter.Inanearlyessay,“TheExperimentalFilmin

American,”Mekasarguesthatexperimentalfilmsrepresenteda“homosexualconspiracy.”

Mekas,whofamouslystormedtheprojectionboothatthe1964Knokke-leZoutefilm

festivaltocontinueascreeningofalandmarkqueerfilm,FlamingCreatures(1963),was

initiallyopposedtotheexperimentalcinema’squeerpolitics.Inanoft-citedpassage,Mekas

argues,“[the]conspiracyofhomosexuality…isbecomingoneofthemostpersistentand

mostshockingcharacteristicsofAmericanfilmpoetrytoday.”64Mekascontinues,“Inthese

films,theprotagonistsareconsistentlyexposedtophysicalandmentalassault;theyarea

preytothemostingeniousformsofbrutality,sadismandmasochism.”65Mekaswouldlater

defendqueercinema,includingJeanGenet’sUnChantd’amour(1950),66buthadwondered

earlyinhiscareerif“theseneuroticandhomosexualpoemscanbecalledart.”67Mekas

63JonasMekas,“November7,1963,ONMONEY,”inMovieJournal,107.64Ibid,23.65Ibid.66Mekas’defenseofGenet’sfilmwasmostlyanattempttocombatfilmcensorship.67Ibid,24;Thelatterremarkarticulates“homosexuality”and“neuroticism,”suggestingadiscoursethatconsideredhomosexualityaformofmentalillness.HomosexualitywaslistedinthefirsteditionoftheDSM,

116

eventuallyrenouncedthisessayashis“Saint-Augustine-before-the-conversionpiece,”but

his“MovieJournal”columnscontinuedtoexpressanambivalenceaboutqueerness,

vacillatingbetweenfetishisticembracetoadiscomfortreflectiveofapre-Stonewall

culture.68Inacolumnfrom1960,Mekascomplains,“Isittruethatnobodycanconceiveof

anyotherfriendshipbetweentwomenanylonger?Thatwouldbepitiable.”69

Yet,characteristically,Mekaschangedhisopinion.Inacolumnpublishedmere

monthsafterhiscomplaintaboutthesuggestionofhomosexualityinmalefriendship,

Mekasexplains,“Theonlyremainingsensibilitiesworthportrayinginartseemtobethose

pertainingtowomenandhomosexuals…Whowantsbooksorfilmsonexecutives?”70While

thisreflectsanevolutionofMekas’views,itdemonstrateshowhiscriticismaffirmed

normativegenderroles.Bylinkinghomosexualityandfemininity,Mekasconflatessexand

genderandseparatesthemfromthemasculinedomainofbusiness.Mekas’conflationof

sexandgenderisalsoevidentinhisFilmCultureessay.Afterarguingthatexperimental

cinemaisa“homosexualconspiracy,”MekasreservesspecificcriticismforMayaDeren:

“ThesupposeddepthofMayaDerenisartificial,withouttheingeniousspontaneitywhich

wefind,forinstance,inBrakhage’sorAnger’swork.”71Thisopiniondidnotreflecta

consensusview,andParkerTyler,forinstance,arguesthatDeren’sfilmsprovided

“archetypalmodelsofformwhosedeepinfluencewouldbeveryhealthy.”72Tyler’s

theAmericanPsychiatricAssociation’s(APA)DiagnosticandStatisticalManual.Itwasremovedinitssecondeditionin197368Mekas,“TheExperimentalFilminAmerica,”2669Mekas,“February10,1960,ONHOMOSEXUALITYANDFRIENDSHIP,”inMovieJournal,12.70Mekas,“November7,1960,ONFEMININESENSIBILITIES,”inMovieJournal,21.71Mekas,“TheExperimentalFilminAmerica,”26;MekasincludesAngerwithoutreferringtotheexplicitlyqueerthemesofhiswork.Hiscuriousinclusionoftheperiod’spreeminentgayfilmmakersuggeststhatheacceptedhomosexualityinhispublishedwritingwithoutfullyunderstandingitspoliticalnature.72ParkerTyler,UndergroundFilm:ACriticalHistory(NewYork:DaCapoPress,1995),175.

117

appreciationofDerenwasechoedbyP.AdamsSitney,AnnetteMichelson,andDavidE.

James,who,accordingtoLaurenRabinovitz,viewedher“asthesingleimportant

transatlanticlinktothemodernisttraditionestablishedinParisinthe1920s.”73However,

likehisreversalonhomosexuality,Mekaswouldchangehisopinion.InareviewofDeren’s

TheVeryNightofTheEyepublishedonFeb.5,1959,Mekasdescribeshow“MayaDeren

differsfrommostoftheotherexperimentaliststhroughherclarityofpurpose,clarityof

images,universalityofsymbols.”74

ABeatInfluence

Mekaswrotepositivelyaboutfilmsmadebywomen,includingDeren,aswellas

MarieMenkenandShirleyClarke,buthis“MovieJournal”columnswereinformedbyand

contributedtoanartsdiscoursethatprivilegedmaleartistsinheritedfromtheBeats.While

thereisdebateaboutthemeaningsof“Beat,”whichbeganasaliterarymovementinthe

1950s,AnnChartersdefinesitinrelationtoaspecifichistoricalmoment.Charters

describeshowtheBeats’sharedexperiencewas“basedonatumultuouschangingoftheir

times:thehistoriceventsthatbeganwithAmerica’sdroppingtheatomicbombonJapanto

bringWorldWarIItoanend,andthepoliticalramificationsoftheColdWar…inthelate

1940sand50s.”75TheBeatsoriginallyconsistedofatight-knitgroupofwritersthat

includedAllenGinsberg,JackKerouac,andJohnClellonHolmes.76Whileoriginallybasedon

73LaurenRabinovitz,“WearingtheCriticsHat:History,Discourses,andtheAmericanAvant-GardeCinema”inToFreetheCinema:JonasMekasandtheNewYorkUnderground,ed.DavidJames(Princeton:PrincetonUP,1992),273.74Mekas,“February25,1959,MAYADERENANDTHEFILMPOEM,”inMovieJournal,2.75AnnCharters,“Introduction:VariationsonaGeneration,”inPortableBeatReader,ed.AnnCharters(NewYork:Penguin,1992),xvii.76JohnClellonHolmesmostwell-knownnovel,Go(1952),celebratedasenseoffreneticmovementandactivity.Similarly,NewAmericanfilmslikeMarieMenken’sGoGoGo(1962-4)depictedNewYorkCityonthemove.

118

theEastCoast,althoughtheBeatswereperipateticbynature,themovementcoincided

withtheSanFranciscoLiteraryRenaissanceandhadasignificantWestCoastpresence.In

SanFrancisco,theCityLightsbookstore,whichalsopublishedHowl,wasanimportant

centerofWestCoastBeatactivity.By1960,GrovePressanthologizedtheBeats,alongwith

SanFranciscoLiteraryRenaissanceandNewYorkSchoolpoets,inTheNewAmerican

Poetry,1945-60,editedbyDonaldAllen.TheNewAmericanCinema,whichemergedin

1959,theyearbeforetheanthology’spublication,sharedaestheticqualitieswithBeat

literature.LikeBeatwriting,theNewAmericanCinemaexpressedasenseofspontaneity

andaspiritofimprovisationthatwasinfluencedbyBebopandAbstractExpressionism,

whichprivilegedunconstrainedexpressionoverformalistrigor.77

NewAmericanfilmmakersandBeatwritersbothcritiquedpostwarAmerican

middle-classvalues.TheBeats,whowereoverwhelminglywhiteandmale,wereinterested

inblackculture,jazz,Easternreligions,andworking-classculture,whichseemedtopresent

analternativetowhite,middle-classsuburbia.Beatwritersalsostressedtheimportanceof

self-exploration,andJackKerouacemphasizedtheBeats’relationshipto“beatitude,”ora

largerspiritualpurpose.InconversationwithClellonHolmes,Kerouacdefines“Beat”asa

“kindoffurtiveness…Likewewereagenerationoffurtives[sic].Youknowwithaninner

knowledgethere’snouseflauntingonthatlevel,thelevelofthe‘public,’akindofbeatness

…becauseweallreallyknowwhereweare”78Kerouac’semphasisontheBeat’s“furtive”

naturecontrastsself-knowledgewiththe“public,”echoingsociologistDavidRiesman’s

77ThisiscertainlynottrueofallofNewAmericanCinema.Structuralistcinemathatemergedinthelate1960swasalmostsolelyconcernedwithcinematicform,space,andtemporality.78JackKerouacqtd.inAnnCharters,“Introduction:VariationsonaGeneration,”xix,emphasisorg.

119

explanationofthedifferencesbetweenthe“inner-directed”and“other-directed”person.79

AccordingtoRiesman,the“other-directed”individualsoughtacceptanceattheexpenseof

their“inner-directed”aspirationsandworkedfortheapprovalofothers,andAmerica’s

cultureofconformityreflectedAmericans’shiftfrom“inner-”to“outer-directed.”But,in

contrast,BeatwriterslikeKerouacsoughttoreclaimasenseofautonomythrough“inner-

directed”artistic,personal,andspiritualexploration.

Throughoutthe1950s,theBeatsbecameaculturalphenomenon.Dressedinaberet,

blackturtleneck,horn-rimmedglassesandwearingagoatee,thebeatnikstereotype

symbolizedurbanbohemiansandthosewhoaspiredtobe.Mediarepresentationsofthe

Beatsfocusedontheirfascinationwithjazzandfetishizedthe“beat”pad.Inmarketingand

mediadiscourses,thebeatnikwasrepresentedbybothmenandwomen,butwritershave

explainedhowBeatculturewasorientedaroundmalebonding.Atthesametime,however,

BarbaraEhrenreichnoteshowtheBeatmovementreflectedadeparturefromamale

“breadwinner”ethicthatprioritizedsupportingafamily.Ehrenreichexplains,“TheBeat

pioneersweredeeply,ifintermittently,attachedtoeachother.Womenandtheirdemands

forresponsibilitywere,atworst,irritatingandmoreoftenjustuninterestingcomparedto

theecstaticpossibilitiesofmaleadventure.”80Intermsofliteraryproduction,women

playedsupportingroles.Chartersexplains,“Reflectingthesexismofthetimes,women

mostlystayedonthesidelinesasgirlfriendsandwives.”81Chartersdemonstrateshow

culturalrepresentationsoftheBeatsoverlappedwiththeirliteraryproduction:inboth

79DavidRiesman,TheLonelyCrowd:AStudyoftheChangingAmericanCharacter(NewHaven:YaleUP,1950).80BarbaraEhrenreich,HeartsofMen:AmericanDreamsandtheFlightfromCommitment(GardenCity:AnchorPress/Doubleday,1983),54.81Charters,“Introduction:VariationsonaGeneration,”xxxiii.

120

instancesawomanwasmostlikelytobeafriendorgirlfriend.Thiswasalsotrueof

postwarartsculturesthatmaintainedtraditionalgenderroles,ensuringwomenremained

surrogatesofmaleartists.AsLaurenRabinovitzexplains,“Thebohemianrealmofthe

GreenwichVillagesceneinthe1940sthrough1960scelebratedthemaleartistasRomantic

herowhileconfiguringwomen’srolesonlyinrelationtothemaleartist’sgreatness–as

eitherwivesorlovers.”82

In1959,RobertFrankandAlfredLesliemadeashortfilmentitled,PullMyDaisy,

thatfeaturedAllenGinsberg,JackKerouac,andGregoryCorsoinautobiographicalroles.

LiketheBeatliteraturethatprecededit,PullMyDaisyfeaturedjazzmusic,enthusiastic

conversation,andmalebonding.Womenarerepresentedasahinderancetothemen’s

adventure,expressedinscenesthatfeatureamarriedcouple’sargument.Reviewingthe

film,Mekasremarks,“Idon’tseehowIcanreviewanyfilmafterPullMyDaisywithout

usingitasasignpost.”83ThetitleofMekas’column,“PULLMYDAISYANDTHETRUTHOF

CINEMA,”signalsthatFrank’sfilmhadinauguratedanewperiodofAmericancinema,and

hisproseaffirmsthefilm’simportance:“AsmuchofasignpostincinemaasTheConnection

isinmoderntheatre…[both]TheConnectionandPullMyDaisyclearlypointtowardsnew

directions,84newwaysoutofthefrozenofficialdomandmidcenturysenilityofourarts,

towardnewthemes,anewsensibility.”85Incontrasttoa“frozen”culture,Frank’sfilmwas

“alive,”“spontaneous,”and“true.”Mekaswrites,“RobertFrankhassucceededin

transplantinglife–andinhisveryfirstfilm…Directorially,PullMyDaisyisreturningto

82Rabinovitz,PointsofResistance,5.83Mekas,“November18,1959,PULLMYDAISYANDTHETRUTHOFCINEMA”inMovieJournal,5.84TheConnectionwasaplaywrittenbyJackGelberthatlaterbecameaNewAmericanfilm.ThefilmwasadaptedbydirectedbyShirleyClarke,oneoftheNewAmericanCinema’smostimportantfemaledirectors.However,theplaycenteredonaBeatobsession:drug-addictedjazzmusicians.85Ibid.

121

wherethetruecinemafirstbegan,towhereLumièreleftoff.”86Mekasfurtherdescribesthe

film’sdirectorsinhagiographicterms:“Inasense,AlfredLeslie,RobertFrank,andJack

Kerouac,thefilm’sauthor-narrator,areonly[sic]enactingtheirtimesinthemanner

prophetsdo:Thetimeexpressesitstruths,itsstyles,itsmessages,anditsdesperations

throughthemostsensitiveofitsmembers.”87InMekas’estimation,Frank’sfilmpresented

analternativetoacultureofconformitybyemphasizingaspontaneityemblematicofanew

consciousness,themesexpressedbythefilm’sBeatprotagonistsintheirwriting.Whilethe

filmmayhaveappearedtotheuninitiatedasrepresentingagroupofmenjokingaround,

drinkingbeer,andtalkingincessantly,forMekas,itrepresents“inallitsinconsequentiality,

themostaliveandthemosttruthfuloffilms.”88

VisionaryMaleArtists

LiketheBeatswriterswhoinspiredhim,Mekasarguedthatpersonalexpression

couldchallengeacultureofconsumptionandconformity,andhechampioned“visionary”

malefilmmakers,who,heargued,wereuniquelyabletochallengeamiddle-classstatus-

quo.Inhiscelebrationof“visionary”filmmakers,Mekasembracedan“anti-establishment”

rhetoric.Earlyinhiscareer,Mekaslabelledmainstreamculture,the“BigLieofCulture,”

butwouldadoptthecounterculture’spreferredtermof“establishment.”Mekasdefinedthe

establishmentasinstitutional,official,ormiddle-classculturethatrepresentedolder,

conservativeAmericansandmainstreammiddle-classvaluesrootedinsocialconformity

andcapitalistconsumption,89andhearguesthattheestablishmentwassuppressingman’s

86Ibid,6,myemphasis.87Ibid.88Ibid.89AlthoughMekaswasnearlyfortybydecade’sbeginning,hewouldstillremarkunironicallythatafilmlikeRobertDowneySr.’sChafedElbows(1966)went“throughthedoorsandwindowsoftheEstablishmentunnoticed…[because]Itbelongstotheyoung.”See:JonasMekas,“December1,1966,ONROBERTDOWNEY

122

spirit:“Withman’ssoulbeingsqueezedoutinallfourcornersoftheworldtoday,when

governmentsareencroachinguponhispersonalbeingwiththehugemachineryof

bureaucracy,war,andmasscommunications,hefeelsthatonlywaytopreservemanisto

encouragehisrebellion.”90Mekas’favoritefilmmakersechoedhisrhetoric.StanBrakhage,

aninfluentialexperimentalfilmmaker,whomMekascelebratedastheparadigmaticartist,

describeshow“theentiresocietyofmanisbentondestroyingthatwhichisalivewithinits

individuals(mostcontemporarilyexemplifiedbytheartist).”91InMekas’estimation,a

postwarculturethatstrippedAmericanmenoftheirautonomywasbestcombattedbya

maleartist,andheviewstheNewAmericanCinemaasananodyneforthe“NewAmerican

man,lostandshaky,searching,fragile,gropinginanuncertainmorelandscape.”92As

Mekasargues,theNewAmericanCinemacouldhelpreformAmericansociety:“thenew

independentcinemamovement–liketheotherartsinAmericatoday–isprimarilyan

existentialmovement,or,ifyouwant,anethicalmovement,ahumanact;itisonly

secondarilyanaestheticone.”93

AccordingtoMekas,theNewAmericanCinema’sabilitytoleadtoanewmale

consciousnesswasalsoreflectedthroughitsformalelements.InadiscussionoftheNew

AmericanCinema’s“changinglanguage,”Mekasexplains,“Therearestillpeoplewhothink

itdoesn’texist–neitherthenewcinema,northenewman…theydon’tseeamuchdeeper

revolutionthatistakingplacerighthere,theydon’thearthesoundsofanewcinematic

languagebeingdevelopedbytheexperimentalistsanddocumentaristsinNewYork,in

ANDCHAFEDELBOWS,”inMovieJournal:TheRiseofaNewAmericanCinema,1959-71(NewYork:CollierBooks,1972),263.90Ibid.91StanBrakhageqtd.inMekas,“NotesontheNewAmericanCinema,”103.92Mekas,“March21,1961,ONIMPROVISATIONANDSPONTANAEITY,”inMovieJournal,27.93Mekas,“NotesontheNewAmericanCinema,”104.

123

Boulder,inSanFrancisco.”94Mekas’conflationofthe“newcinema”withthe“newman”

demonstrateshowhiswritingemployedagendereddiscourseevenwhendescribing

formal,non-representationalelements,andMekasviewedexperimentalfilmthatresisted

clearinterpretationasatypeofRorschachtestthatallowedhimtodescribecinemainthe

vaguetermsofculturalrenewalorarevolutionofconsciousness.Butdescribingthis

renewalwithinagendereddiscourserevealedthelimitationsofhisproposedrevolution.

MekasoftendescribestheNewAmericanCinemaasifitwereaformofconsciousness:

“Onlythecinemathatisalwaysawake,alwayschanging,canreveal,describe,makeus

consciousof,hintatwhatwereallyarewhatwearenot.”95ByplacingtheNewAmerican

Cinemawithinaculturaldiscoursethatprivilegedmen,Mekas’revolutionofconsciousness

re-articulatednormativegenderrolesandcircumscribedthecontributionsofwomen.

Mekas’remarkaboutan“experimentalist”livinginBoulderreferredtoStan

Brakhage,whohadleftNewYorkCitytomovetoColoradowithhisfamily.Morethanother

filmmakersoftheperiod,BrakhageuniquelyrepresentedMekas’idealofthe“newman.”

EvenBrakhage’sdesiretoliveinthemountainscorrespondedtoRomanticrepresentations

ofthe“artist”workinginisolation.Brakhagewaswidelycelebratedasanexperimental

filmmaker,butMekas’criticismdescribedhimasavisionaryartist,whoremainedfiercely

independentandcommittedto“pure”artisticexpression.InacolumnfromOct.26,1961,

Mekasexplains,“Brakhage’sworkisafarmoreadvancedcinema,truecinema,cinemawith

asmalland/orcapital‘C,’author’scinema,personalcinema.”96Hisfilmsalsorepresented

“true”filmart:“Ifwetalkaboutthetruepersonalcreation,thetrueexperimentation,one

94Mekas,“January25,1962,THECHANGINGLANGUAGEOFCINEMA,”inMovieJournal,49.95Ibid,50.96Mekas,“October16,1961,ONSTANBRAKHAGE,”inMovieJournal,35.

124

whichisalsoadeepexperienceofart,wehavetotalk…abouttheworkofStanley

Brakhage.”97Brakhage’sfilmswereabstractandopentoawiderangeofinterpretation,but

Mekasfound“truth”and“deepexperience”inthem,qualitieshevaluedabovespecific

formalaspects.Asthe1960sprogressed,Mekas’representationofBrakhageasaheroic,

visionaryartistbecamemoreexplicit.Describing“TheArtofVision,”whichreedited

footagefromDogStarMan(1961-4),Mekasexplains,“ThefilmcrownsnotonlyBrakhage’s

workbutisthefirstmasterpieceofthenewvision.Itisabeautiful,visionary,and

monumentalwork.Itisaworkofartasanythingbytheoldgreatmasters;itisadiscourse

onnewvisionandnewaesthetics;itis,truly,amanifestoofthenewvision.”98Brakhage

wasmorethanafilmmaker:hewasthe“visionary”artistMekas’criticismdemanded.99

BrakhagejokinglydescribedDogStarManasaseriesoffilmsabouta“manwho

climbspartwayofupamountain,”buttherapidediting,manipulationofthefilmstock

throughscratches,cuts,anddrawings,aswellastheintercutsandsuperimpositionsof

naturalimagery,celestialmovements,close-upsofthebody,andbiologicalprocesses

ensurethefilmsresistanysingularinterpretation.100MoretellingisBrakhage’sclaimthat

thefilm’s“mytho-poetic”elementsconcernedthe“historyofman”–acommentthat

reflectsthetruescopeofhisambition.Althoughthefilmsdepictaman’sjourneyinliteral

97Ibid.98Mekas,“March11,1965,MOREONTHEIRRESPONSIBLITYOFNEWYORKFILMREVIEWERS,”inMovieJournal,180.99SomescholarshiphasaffirmedthenotionofBrakhageas“visionary.”Forinstance,FilmQuarterlypublishedalate-careerinterviewwithBrakhageconductedbyScottMacDonaldwiththetitle“TheFilmmakerasVisionary”Inaprefacetotheinterviewtext,McDonaldexplainsthatBrakhage“articulatedwhatbecameatheoryofsight…[he]theorizedthatacculturationinvolvesthegradualconstrictionofthefreedomofsightwewitnessinyoungchildren…wecometounderstandwhatissociallyacceptabletolookat,andhowweshouldlookatwhatwesee.”Ofcourse,Brakhagecontributedtotheideathathewasa“visionary”:MacDonald’sproseechoesBrakhage’sclaimsfromMetaphorsonVision(1963).See:ScottMacDonald,“TheFilmmakerasVisionary,”FilmQuarterly,Vol.56,No.3(Spring2003):2,emphasisorg.100DogStarMan,1961-64,“Commentary,”ByBrakhage:AnAnthology,Vol.1,Dir.StanBrakhage(2003:TheCriterionCollection),DVD.

125

andmetaphoricalterms,the“Prelude”and“PartTwo”presenttraditionalimageryof

womenorientedaroundsexandchildbirth.ThiswasmaterialBrakhagehadexploredinin

otherfilms,particularlyinWindowWaterBayMoving(1959),whichgraphicallydepicted

hiswife,Jane,givingbirth.101However,themostclearlyidentifiablefigureinDogStarMan

isabeardedmanaccompaniedbyadog,climbingthesnowyColoradomountainswithan

axeinhand.Inthisimage,Brakhage’sfilmpresentsarough-hewnimageofamasculine

“searcher”situatedwithinanambiguoustextualmatrix.Interestingly,Mekas’criticismand

theDogStarManfilmsbothforegroundmalevisioninthecontextofanexistentialsearch,

buttheDogStarManfilmswerealsorootedinthetropesofaRomanticmaleartist,who

hadremovedhimselffromsocietytosearchformeaninginnature.Thisisfurther

demonstratedbyBrakhage’sdescriptionofhowheattemptedtorepresenthisown

“removalfromsociety,fromcivilizationeven.”102

InadditiontochampioningBrakhageastheparadigmaticartist,Mekassupported

AndyWarhol’sworkandevenparticipatedinthefilmingofEmpire(1964).However,

MekaswasparticularlyexcitedaboutChelseaGirls(1966),describingthefilmas“notonlya

moreadvancedcinemathatanythingIhadseenatthe[NewYork?]festival,but…an

importantworkbyanystandards.”103Writingwithasenseofvoyeuristicwonder,Mekas

recountshow“[m]anystrangelivesopenbeforeoureyes,someofthemenacted,somereal

–butalwaysveryreal,evenwhentheyarefake–sincethisistheChelseaHotelofour

101SomefeministshavecritiquedBrakhage’sappropriationofwomen’sexperiences,butBrakhageclaimstohave“triedtogetthewoman’sview–whatwasspecifictobeingawoman”(qtd.inFilmQuarterly,9).See:AnneFriedberg,“Misconception=TheDivisionofLaborintheChildbirthFilm,”MillenniumFilmJournal4-5(1979).102Ibid.103Mekas,“September.29,1966,ONTHECHELSEAGIRLS,”inMovieJournal,254.

126

fantasy,ofourmind.”104Warholhadcapturedasubculturaltableau:“Lovers,dopeaddicts,

pretenders,homosexuals,lesbians,andheterosexuals,sad,fragilegirls,andhardtough

girls.”105Mekaswassoimpressed,hedeclares,“Iknownootherfilm,withtheexceptionof

TheBirthofaNation,inwhichsuchawisegalleryofpeoplehave[sic]beenpresentedasin

thisfilm.”106Mekas’descriptionofWarhol’scastof“addicts,”“lesbians,”and“homosexuals”

isimbuedwithincredulity,andhisassessmentofChelseaGirlssuggestshowWarhol’sfilms

correspondedtoaudienceexpectationsofoutréformsofdifference.AsParkerTyler

argued,Warholexploitedamainstreamaudience’svoyeuristicinterestinsexualdifference,

buthealsomadethe“drugaddict”andthehomosexual“downtown”characters.107

DespitehisimmersioninthebohemianmilieuoftheNewYorkartsscene,Mekas

acceptsWarhol’scharactersashonestrepresentations.Warhol’sfilmsblendedfictionand

reality,andhis“stars”performedversionsoftheirconstructedselves,butMekasdescribes

ChelseaGirlsasarevelation:“ThisisthefirsttimethatIseeincinemaaninteresting

solutionofnarrativetechniquesthatenablecinematopresentlifeinthecomplexityand

richnessachievedbymodernliterature.”108Beyondthis,ChelseaGirlsdemonstratedthe

maleartist’sabilitytounderstandacultureincrisis:“Everyworkofarthelpsusto

understandourselvesbydescribingtousthoseaspectsofourliveswhichweeitherknow

littleoforfear.”109AsMekasargues,artistslikeWarholdemonstratedvisionaryinsight:

“Mostofthecriticsandviewersdonotrealizethattheartist,nomatterwhatheisshowing,

104Ibid,256.105Ibid.106Ibid.107Thisisespeciallytruefordrug-addled“geniuses”likejazzsaxophonistCharlieParker.Ofcourse,BeatwriterWilliamBurroughs,authorofJunky(1953),wasalsoawell-knownuserofheroinandothernarcotics.108Ibid.109Ibid.

127

ismirroringorforecastingalsoourownlives.”110However,Mekas’interpretationof

ChelseaGirls,whichisalonganddifficultfilmpresentedintriptych,wasatendentious

attempttosupporthisclaimsaboutmalefilmmakers’abilitytochallengetheVietnam-era

socialandpoliticalstatus-quo.Mekasexplains,“TheterroranddesperationofTheChelsea

Girlsisaholyterror(anexpressionwhich…Warholhimselfusesinreferencetohiswork):

It’sourgodlesscivilizationapproachingzeropoint.It’snothomosexuality,it’snot

lesbianism.”111Mekas’interpretationofChelseaGirlsisconsistentwithhisargumentthat

“visionary”maleartistscouldinterpret,critique,andcombataculturalincrisis,buthis

rhetorichadbecomeincreasinglytopicalandreflectiveofNewLeftdiscourse.Forinstance,

inhisreviewofChelseaGirls,Mekascompares“dead”culturetoVietnamduringthe

Johnsonadministration,“TheterrorandhardnessweseeinTheChelseaGirlsisthesame

terrorandhardnessthatisburningVietnam;andit’stheessenceandbloodofourculture,

ofourwaysofliving:ThisistheGreatSociety.”112

AsHollywoodadoptedthetechniquesoftheNewAmericanCinema,whichhad

producedinfluentialnarrativefeaturesandexperimentalshortsfrom1959-1965,leading

tothecreationofNewHollywoodinthelate1960s,Mekasstartedchampioningfilmslike

ChelseaGirls,whichconsistedofthreescreensplayingsimultaneousimages,asan

experientialmedium.113Inthesecondhalfofthedecade,asstructuralistandexpanded

cinemadefinedtheNewAmericanCinema’ssecondperiod(1965-71),Mekaswroteabout

110Ibid,257.111Ibid.112Ibid;Asthe1960sprogressed,Mekas’counterculturerhetoricbecomemoreexplicit.In1967,herelatedhisargumentsaboutculturalrenewaltothe“AquarianAge”:“…afewamongusfeelthatnothingwillstoptheadventoftheAquarianAge,thespiritualage.See:Mekas,“November9,1967,SHOULDTHEARTISTSCRUMBLEWHENTIMESCHANGE?”inMovieJournal,297.113TheNewAmericanCinema’ssecondphase,beginningin1965,largelyconsistedofpurelyformaliststructuralistcinemathatresistedcommercialappropriation.

128

intermediaandfilmexhibitionthatrequiredmultipleprojectorslikeChelseaGirls,or

containedinteractiveandperformanceelements,strobelights,music,andprovided

experiencesthatcouldnotbeeasilycommodifiedorreproduced.Mekasexplainshowthis

newcinemawastactileandinteractive,demonstratinga“moredirectrelationshipbetween

theartist,histools,andhismaterials.”114Likethe“visionary”cinemathathadprecededit,

thisexpandedcinemaprovidesaway“toseeourselvesinadifferentperspective…like

lookingatourselvesfromtheoutsideandtheinsideatthesametime…learningagain

everythingfromthebeginning.”115Mekas’emphasisoncinematic“purity”reachedits

apotheosisinhisdiscussionofintermediabutcouldextendtoconventionalfilmsthat

possessedan“aura”:“…what’shappeningisthatsomeoftheworkofHarrySmith,or

JeffereyJoffen,orRobertWhitman,orBarbaraRubin,orAndyWarholcannotbeshipped

andshowninafilmcan–theirprojectshavebecomeextensionsoftheircreativework,the

filminthecanisn’treallythingbyitself.”116Mekas’evocationoffilm’spuritysuggests

WalterBenjamin’sdiscussionofanartwork’s“aura,”“thisuniqueexistence…thatbearsthe

markofthehistorytowhichtheworkhasbeensubject.”117However,Benjaminconsiders

filmaparticularlysalientexampleofthedestructivenatureofmechanicalreproduction:

“Thesocialsignificanceoffilm…initsmostpositiveform,isinconceivablewithoutits

destructive,catharticside:theliquidationofthevalueoftraditioninculturalheritage.”118

Inclaimingfilmasanobjectofartisticpurity,Mekaswasreclaimingfilm’s“aura,”

114Mekas,“June23,1966,ONTHETACTILEINTERACTIONSINCINEMA,ORCREATIONWITHYOURTOTALBODY,”inMovieJournal,248.115Mekas,“June16,1966,MOREONSTROBELIGHTANDINTERMEDIA,”inMovieJournal,247.116Mekas,“June23,1966,ONTHETACTILEINTERACTIONSINCINEMA,inMovieJournal,249117WalterBenjamin,“TheWorkofArtintheAgeofMechanicalReproduction,”inTheNortonAnthologyofTheoryandCriticism,SecondEdition,eds.VincentB.Leitch,WilliamE.Cain,etal(NewYork:W.W.NortonandCo.,2010)1053.118Ibid,1054.

129

privilegingthesensoryorinteractiveexperiencesofintermedia.Inanacknowledgementof

hispropheticorquasi-religiousroleinpromotingtheNewAmericanCinema,Mekas

remarks,“Thisisthepreacherspeaking–butsinceeverybody’sspeakingrevolution,why

notme?”119Butlikeanyeffectiveevangelist,Mekasknewbeliefmustultimatelyleadto

fulfillment:“Theavant-gardefilm-maker,thehomemovie-makeisherewithsomething

more…heispresentingtoyou,heissurroundingyouwithinsights,sensibilities,andforms

whichwilltransformyouintoabetterhumanbeing.”120

Conclusion:“TheEndofCivilization”

Mekasdescribesasummereveninghespentwithfilm-makerJackSmithin1971,121

watchinganad-hoctheatreperformance:“Isuddenlywasveryconsciousthatitwasin2

A.M.inNewYork,andverylate,andmostofthecitywassleeping…andthatonlyherein

thisdowntownloft,somewhereattheveryendofalltheemptyanddeadandgray

downtownstress…wasthishugejunksetandtheend-of-civilizationactivities.122Mekas

concludes:“Ibegangettingafeeling,itresembledmoreandmorethefinalburialritesof

thecapitalistcivilization,completecivilization.”123Despitehisdireevocationofthe“endof

civilization,”Mekas’criticismoftheNewAmericanCinemafrom1959-71changedthe

discourseoffilmcriticismbyusingcriticalfilmwritingtochallengedominantmiddle-class

ideologiesrootedincapitalistconsumptionandsocialconformity.Inconceptualizingthe

119Mekas,“September26,1968,ONTVMONITORSANDPUBLICOFFICES,”323.120Mekas,“July17,1969,ONARTANDPOLITICS,OR‘THEAUTEURTHEORY,’1969,”inMovieJournal,352.121Mekas’discussionoftheeveninghespentwithSmithin1971servesasausefulcodaforafewreasons.Forone,Smithabandonedfilmmakingaltogetherin1969andturnedtocreating“junk”theater.Foranother,SmithandMekashadapublicfalling-outafterMekasdeniedhimaccesstoaprintofFlamingCreaturesSmithintendedtocutupforafilmproduction.Asaresult,SmithregularlycriticizedMekas,referringtohimwithpejorativenicknameslike“UncleFishhook.”122Mekas,“July23,1970,JACKSMITH,ORTHEENDOFCIVILIZATION,”inMovieJournal,393.123Ibid,393-4.

130

cinemaasatoolforculturalchange,MekasfurtherchallengedMarxistargumentsthat

popularculturesupporteddominantideologies,andhedemonstratedhowfilmcriticism

couldbeusedtochallengeAmericansocialvalues.Inaddition,Mekaschallengedcultural

demarcationsbyaligning“high”culture,likefineartandpoetry,with“low”culture,like

Hollywoodcinemaandrockn’roll,andbyattemptingtopopularizeexperimentalcinema

foramainstreamaudience.AsMekasrecognized,culturalexchangebetweenmainstream

andmarginalculturalproduction,andartand“trash”cinema,wentbeyondaestheticsto

encompassasharedchallengetodominantmiddle-classvaluesofthe1960s.124Butby

employingamasculineartsdiscourseinresponsetoaperceived“crisis”ofmasculinity,

Mekas’criticismaffirmednormativegenderroles,andhesupportedaspectsofadominant

middle-classhepurportedtochallenge.

Mekas’careerdidnotendin1971with“MovieJournal,”butheshiftedhisattention

toFilmForumandAnthologyFilmArchives,theNewYorkCityinstitutiondedicatedtothe

preservation,promotion,andexhibitionofAmericanindependentandexperimental

cinema,whereheattemptedtodefinetheNewAmericanCinema’slegacy.Itwasalsoclear

theNewAmericanCinemawasnotgoingtosupplantHollywooddespiteMekas’attempts

tointegrateexperimentalcinemaintomainstreampopularculture.Infact,Mekas’hopes

foranAmerican“NewWave,”whichJuánSuarezdescribesas“amovementwithacertain

massappealthatwouldbeatoneindependent,artisticallybold,andethicallyengaged,”

wasoverasearlyasthemid-1960sasdirectorslikeJohnCassavetesandPeter

BogdanovichwenttoHollywoodandotherdirectorsofearlypromisefailedintheirfollow-

124JackSmith’sfilmsrepresented“trash”cinemaintermsoftheirvulgarityandlackoftaste,butSmithalsousedtrashandcollecteddetritusinhissets.

131

upsorstoppedcreatingfilmsentirely.125Mekas’recognitionofthedifficultiesincompeting

withHollywoodalsoexplainshisturntointermediaatmid-decade.126Yet,thesuccessof

auteur-drivenNewHollywoodinthelate-1960schallengedthesupposedartistic

superiorityofAmericanindependentcinema.DuringtheHollywood“renaissance,”the

studiosprovideddistributiontoindependentfilms,whichwouldbeincreasinglysupported

bygrants,festivals,andfinancingunderwrittenbycorporationsandinvestmentfirmsin

thefollowingdecades,andexperimentalcinemawasinstitutionalizedintheacademy.In

thebackgroundofthesechanges,Mekascontinuedtomakefilmsandprovideinterviews

andarticlesabouttheNewAmericanCinema,buthelostsomeofhisrelevancyandworked

onconfirminghislegacy.

Uponhisdeathin2019at96,aNewYorkTimesobituaryheadlinedeclaredMekas

the“’Godfather’ofAmericanAvant-GardeFilm,”127andothertributeslabeledhima

“titan”128and“legend”ofexperimentalfilm.129However,hislegacyismorecontestedthan

theseheadlinessuggest.130Hehaslongbeencriticizedforattemptingtoexertcontrolover

125Suárez,BikeBoys,DragQueens,andSuperstars,79.126JuanSuárezalsoexplainshowthe“allianceofformalinnovation,playful/satiricalattitudestowardmassculture,andsex,social,andpoliticalprotestthatconvergedintheundergroundhaddissolved,[although]eachofthesecomponentssurvivedseparatelyinthearenasofdiscourse.”See:JuanA.Suárez,BikeBoys,DragQueens,andSuperstars:Avant-garde,MassCulture,andGayIdentitiesinthe1960sUndergroundCinema(Bloomington,IndianaUP,1996),260.127See:BruceWeber,“JonasMekas,‘GodfatherofAmericanAvant-GardeFilm,isDeadat96.NewYorkTimes,January23,2019.128See:AlexNeedham,“JonasMekas,titanofundergroundfilmmaking,diesat96,”TheGuardian,Jan23,2019.https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/jan/23/jonas-mekas-titan-of-underground-filmmaking-dies-aged-96129See:EricKohn,“Whythis96-year-oldLegendwasOurMostImportantCinephile”IndieWire,Jan23,2019.https://www.indiewire.com/2019/01/jonas-mekas-rip-cinephile-obituary-1202037652/130InaJune7,2018NewYorkReviewofBooksarticle,MichaelCasperexaminesMekas’timeinBiržai,LithuaniaduringWWII.AlthoughMekasrepresentedhimselfasa“naïve,neutralpoet”duringtheWar,CasperexplainsthatMekascontributedliteraryessaysandbookreviewstoaLithuanianActivistFront(LAF)paperandlatereditedPanevėžioApygardosBalsas,publishedbyanoffshootoftheLAF,beforejoiningtheanti-Naziresistancein1943(OnJonasMekas:AnExchange).ThenationalistLAFwasdevotedtoreclaimingLithuaniafromtheSovietUnion,but,asCasperexplains,theLAF“greetedtheGermansasLithuania’sliberatorsandspreadtheideathatthecountry’sJewswereCommunisttraitors”uponGermany’sinvasionin

132

alternativefilmproductiondefinedbyformalheterogeneityandheterodoxviewpoints,but

Mekas’longcareerasfilmmaker,distributor,lecturer,writerhasearnedhimdeserved

recognition.Mekasalsobecomethepublicfaceofexperimentalfilmduetohissuccessin

promotingdifficult,non-commercialcinemainaccessibleprose.UnlikeP.AdamsSitney,

whowrotethefirstacademicmonographonexperimentalundergroundcinema,or

influentialpublicationsinthe1960s-70sonacademicfilmcriticismliketheBritish-based

Screen,Mekaswroteaboutexperimentalfilmwithoutin-depthformalanalysisorheuristics

drawnfromcriticaltheory.MekasneverachievedthepublicrenownofPaulineKael,but

hisinfluenceisevidentincontemporaryAmericanexperimentalandindependentcinema,

andheremainsanimportantinfluenceoncriticslikeJ.Hoberman.131PerhapsMekas’

successinachievingpublicrecognitionisbestunderstoodincomparisontoa

contemporarylikeParkerTyler,whohaslargelyfadedfrompublicmemory.Mekas’

promotionaleffortswereself-directed,andhehelpedreifyhispositionasthe“godfather”

1941.WhileCaspermakesitclearthatMekasdidnotcontributeanti-Semiticarticlesorpropaganda,henotesthatMekasmisrepresentedthepublicationshewroteforduringtheWaras“’patriotic’butnotpro-Nazi.”Inaddition,CasperquestionsMekas’assertionsthathewasunawareoftheLithuanianHolocaustandthemassacreofJewsinBiržaiinAugust1941.Casper’sarticlethusquestionsMekas’publicnarrativeabouthisroleintheGermanresistanceandsubsequentescapefromLithuania,whichMekasoftenrepresented“asiftheywereasingleacontinuousevent.”PublishedtheyearbeforeMekas’death,Casper’sarticleengenderedcontroversyandreconsiderationsofMekasandhiscareer.Forinstance,J.Hoberman,writingonhisblog,acknowledgedthatMekaswas“acontradictoryman”butexplainshowhe“wouldliketothinkthatJonaswashaunted,ifnottraumatized,bythefactthat…thousandsofhisneighborswereslaughteredinthewoods.”(“WhyIcannotreview…”].BarrySchwabsky,artcriticfortheNation,respondedbydefendingMekasandquestioningCasper’smotives.Schwabskywrites,“What[Casper]doesnothavetherighttodois,eventhroughmereimplication,tousehisquestioningtoimputeguilttoanyindividualwithoutpositiveevidencetosupportthecharge.Norisitjustifiedtousethesubject’sunwillingnesstodiscusssuchmatterstoimplyguilt”(OnJonasMekas:AnExchange).See:MichaelCaspar,“IWasThere,”TheNewYorkReviewofBooks,June7,2018,https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/06/07/jonas-mekas-i-was-there/;BarrySchwabsy,replybyMichaelCaspar,“OnJonasMekas:AnExchange,”TheNewYorkReviewofBooks,July19,2018,https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/07/19/on-jonas-mekas-an-exchange/;J.Hoberman,“WhyIcannotreviewJonasMekas’sConversationswithFilmmakers,June30,2018,http://j-hoberman.com/2018/06/why-i-cannot-review-jonas-mekass-conversations-with-film-makers/.131See:J.Hoberman’s“MyDebttoJonasMekas,”TheNewYorker,January24,2019.

133

ofexperimentalfilm,althoughcelebrationsofhiscareerfocusonhisfilmmakingandfailto

adequatelyconsidertheimportanceofhiscriticism.WhileMekas’challengetoanAmerican

middle-classstatus-quowasapromotionalattempttodistinguishtheNewAmerican

CinemafromHollywood,Mekaschangedthediscourseofcriticismbyusingittoquestion

ideologiesthatsupportedthehegemonyofawhitemiddleclass.Inthisregard,Mekas

successfullyintegratedexperimentalcinemaintoawiderAmericanpopularculturethat

posedsimilarchallengestosocialandpoliticalstatus-quo,andheprovidedamodelfor

popularculturethatappealstodisenfranchisedsuburbanyouth.Mekashasearned

deservedcriticismforhisattemptstocontrolthediscoursearoundtheNewAmerican,but

hebelievedhisrevolutionneededtobeproclaimedloudlytoAmericans“scared”or

“sleeping,”awakingthemtonewpossibilities.

134

Chapter4

AgainstPropaganda:ParkerTyler’sSubculturalCriticismandtheUnderground

“I’vebeenwithitall,personally,since1943whenImadefriendswiththelateMayaDeren,pioneeroftheUnderground,soI’vebeenwitnesstoeachstepintheevolutionofUndergroundfilm.Theknowledgehereisn’taresearchjob.It’sallfirsthand:whenithappenedandhowithappened.Iknowmanyofthefilmmakerspersonallyandsothere’salothereaboutwhatgoesonbeyondcamerarange.

–ParkerTyler,UndergroundFilm,1972

Tyler’slonginvolvementwithexperimentalcinemaprovidedhimagreatersenseof

historicalcontextthanhispeers,andhemaintainedacriticalindependenceinfluencedby

theethicsofamodernistavant-garde.InhiscriticismofAmericanexperimental

“underground”cinema,Tylerchallengedthepromotionalcriticismofwritersandcritics

withaninvestmentintheproduction,distribution,andexhibitionoftheNewAmerican

Cinema,andheconsideredpromotionalcriticismand“counterculture”politics

propaganda.Butcrucially,Tyler’squeercriticismcritiquedexperimentalcinema’suseof

sexualdifferencetoappealtoamainstreamaudience,andhisanalysisofthecinema’s

sexualpoliticsdemonstratedthepoliticalvalueoffilmcriticism.

CriticandwriterParkerTylerarguedinhiscorrespondenceandfilmwritingthat

filmcriticismshouldberootedinaestheticstandardsandhistoricalcontext,buthisfocus

oncamp,sexuality,andexperimentalcinemamadehisfilmcriticismsubculturaland

providedanalternativereception.Incontrast,JonasMekasembracedthequeerand

transgressivepoliticsoftheNewAmericanCinematopromotethiscinema.AsTyler

explainstofilmmakerGregoryMarkopoulos,hewas“the‘independent’one,Jonasthe

135

involvedone.”1Mekas’“involvement”wasbasedinhissupportofhisdistributionefforts

throughcriticism,butTylermaintainedhisindependenceevenwhenevaluatingworkby

filmmakerswhowerepersonalfriends.2Ina1967lettertotheVillageVoice,Tylerwrites,

“Noyoungfilmmaker…isinvulnerabletocriticismorbeyondjudiciousanalysis.”3Tyler’s

independenceallowedhimtopursuetopicslikerepresentationsofsexualitythat

mainstreamcriticsignoredorwereunabletoconsider,andhisexpressionsofqueerdesire

wouldnothavebeenpublishableinamainstreammagazineliketheNewYorker.

UnlikeJonasMekasandPaulineKael,Tyler’sfilmwritingdidnotappearinwell-

knownpublicationswithlargereadershipsthatcoveredtopicsofgeneralinterestbeyond

thearts.4Rather,Tylerwroteprimarilyforlow-circulationpublicationslikeTheEvergreen

Review,FilmCulture,andView,theSurrealistmagazineTylerpublishedwithCharlesHenri

Fordfrom1940-47,writtenforreadersinterestedinthecinemaandfineart.5Despitetheir

smallreaderships,thesepublicationsappealedtoeducatedreaders,whocouldappreciate

Tyler’sallusivecriticismthatconsideredcinemaintherelationtopainting,dance,poetry,

andtheater.6GrovePress,publisherofTheEvergreenReviewandUndergroundFilm,also

1CorrespondencefromParkerTylertoGregoryMarkopoulos,28September1967,Container4.9,ParkerTylerCollection,HarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.2TylercorrespondedwithWillardMaas,GregoryMarkopoulos,andStanBrakhage–allofwhomsoughthisadviceandexpertise.3CorrespondencefromParkerTylertoVillageVoiceeditor,5February1967,Container5.5,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.4TheVoiceismainstreamhereinthemostrelativesense.AsIexplainelsewhere,thepaperwasmoreradicalthanpublicationsliketheNewYorker,but,comparedtonicheartspublicationswithlowcirculations,itwasmorepopularandinfluential.5TheEvergreenReviewwasaliterarymagazinepublishedfrom1957-73,andFilmCulturewasasmallcirculationmagazine,publishedfrom1954-96,focusedoncinema.6Tylerwascommittedtofilmcriticism,buthecontinuedtomaintainotherinterests.Hewroteaboutdance,theatre,andpoetry,andpublishedalengthybiographyofRussianpainter,PavelTchelitchew,in1967,consideredbysometobehis“magnumopus.”AsTyleradmitsinalettertotheNewYorkGalleryofModernArt,“Filmisstilloneofmyintereststhoughnowithasrivalsinmycriticalaffections.See:“BiographicalSketch,”ParkerTyler:AnInventoryofHisCollectionattheHarryRansomCenter,accessed24September2019,https://norman.hrc.utexas.edu/fasearch/findingAid.cfm?eadid=00674;CorrespondencefromParker

136

supportedTyler’swork.PurchasedbyBarneyRossetin1951,Grovewasawell-known

publisherofmodernistandBeatliteratureandfoughtcensorshipbattlesoverits

publicationsandfilmdistribution.In1966,thepressinheritedCinema16’sdistribution,

demonstratingacommitmenttoexperimentalanddocumentarycinema.7Grove’sfocuson

modernistliterature,8sexualfreedom,freespeech,andexperimentalcinemamadeitan

appropriatepublisherforTyler’scriticism,althoughhisindependencecreatedconflictwith

Rosset.WritingtoRossettocomplainaboutGrove’sdelayinpublishingUndergroundFilm,

Tylerexplains“Iimaginedthatyouandstaffknewallalongitwastobeacriticalbookand

notanecstaticwaveofpromotion.ThisisdonebyGroveandEvergreeninsomanyother

ways.”9

Unlikehiscontemporaries,Tyler’criticismisuniquebecauseitwaspublishedin

booksorspecializedjournalsandresemblestheworkoftoday’sfilmscholars.Ofcourse,

popularcriticslikePaulineKaelwrotebooksorcollectedtheirreviews,butKaelwasas

well-knownforherNewYorkerarticles.Conversely,Tylerdidnotmaintainaconsistent

bylineinanypublication,butthefacthefoundanaudiencefordense,oftenabstrusebooks

ofcriticismdemonstratesthedegreetowhichasegmentofthemovieaudiencetookfilm

seriously.10Tylerworkedatthefringesofacademiathroughouthiscareer,publishing

TylertoMr.Hartford,NewYorkGalleryofModernArt,14April1964,Container5.1,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.7SheldonRenan,AnIntroductiontotheAmericanUndergroundFilm(NewYork:E.P.DuttonandCo,1967),214.8TylerbeganhiscareerasaSurrealistpoetandexperimentalnovelist.Heco-authoredTheYoungandEvil(1933)withHenriFord.9CorrespondencefromParkerTylertoBarneyRosset,18March1969,Container4.6,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,AustinTexas,emphasisorg.10Tylerrecognizedthisfact.InalettertoSeymourLawrence,apublisherwhowasthenattheAtlanticMonthly,Tylerexplains,“Idon’tknowifyouhavefollowedthefortunesofmyfilmwritingbutassoonasIstartedin1944itcaughtonwithasophisticatedaudiencewiththeresultthatlessthanthreeyearslaterAllenTateputoutmysecondvolumewithHolt.”See:CorrespondencefromParkerTylertoSeymourLawrence,31

137

articlesintheAmericanQuarterly,11andregularlypursuedlectureandteachingjobs.12

Academicsrepublishedhisessays,andTylercorrespondedwithintellectualsMarshall

McLuhan,RudolfArnheim,DwightMcDonald,andEdmundWilson.13AlthoughTyler’s

careeroverlapswiththeinstitutionalizationoffilmstudiesinthe1960s,helackedthe

supportofestablishedacademicsandreliedongrantsandfellowshipstofinancehiswork.

Healsoattemptedtocapitalizeonthedecade’s“filmbookboom.”14Thesuccessofcritics

likeKael,whomTyleradmired,15inspiredhishopefora“‘ParkerTylerexplosion.’”16

Tyler’scriticalindependencewasbasedinan“ethics”predicatedonsubverting

dominantideologiesandmaintainingaestheticjudgementthatwasinspiredbythe

modernistavant-gardeofthe1920sand30s.Asayoungpoetandpublisherofthe

SurrealistmagazineView,TylerhadbeenimmersedintheEuropeanavant-gardeofthe

1920sand30s,andhemaintainedalife-longinterestinthefilmsofRenéClair,Jean

October1958,Container3.2,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.11See:ParkerTyler,“HollywoodastheUniversalChurch,”TheAmericanQuarterly,Vol.2,No.2(Summer1950):165-76;ParkerTyler,“AnAmericanTheatreMotif:ThePsychodrama,”TheAmericanQuarterly,Vol15,No.1,Part15(Summer1963):140-51.12TylerpursuedpositionsattheNewYorkSchoolofVisualArtsandBardCollege.13JuliusBellone,AssistantProfessorofEnglishatLincolnUniversity,wrotetoTyleraskingforpermissiontorepublish“RashomonasModernArt”ina“bookofseriousfilmcriticism”Bellone’seditedcollectionRenaissanceofFilmwaspublishedin1970butisnowoutofprint.See:CorrespondencefromParkerTylertoJuliusBellone,19November1968,Container6.5,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.14Tylerreferencedafilm-book“boom”inseveralletters.WritingtoOlympiaPressin1968,Tylerremarks,“ThescrewypublicitygivenmebyMyraBreckenridge…hasreboundedastonishinglyinmyfavorinviewofthecurrentfilmbookboom.”InanotherlettertoForrestSelvig,Tylermadeaparentheticalasideto“agreatfilmbookboom”thathadresultedin“twocurrentcommitments.”See:CorrespondencefromParkerTylertoOlympiaPress,24November1968,Container3.1,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas;CorrespondencefromParkerTylertoForrestSelvig,9February1969,Container5.2,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.15Ina1955lettertoKael,writtenbeforehertenureattheNewYorker,Tylerwrites,“IthinkyouranalyticalstuffexcellentevenwhenIdemureatoneofyouraestheticvaluations.”See:CorrespondencefromParkerTylertoPaulineKael,21February1955,Container4.6,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.16CorrespondencefromParkerTylertoAtheneumPublishers,24November1968,Container3.1,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.

138

Cocteau,SalvadorDalí,andLuisBuñuel.Tyler’sbeliefthatHollywood’s“hallucinationscan

beseriouslyutilized”furthermotivatedhisearlySurrealistcriticism.17DavidBordwell

explains,“Tylerspunthreads–homosexuality,gendermasquerade,dreaming,

hallucination,mythology–thatwouldguidehisjourneythroughHollywoodmovies.”18As

hiscareerprogressed,Tylerfocusedmoreonexperimentalcinema,culminatinginhislate-

careerwritingabouttheAmericanundergroundcinema,whichwasanimportantsubsetof

thelargerNewAmericanCinema.19Inhiscriticismof1960’sAmericanexperimental

cinema,TylercontinuedtofocusonAmericansocialvalues,especiallyintermsofsexual

politics,buthecritiquedtheunderground’slackofimaginationandartisticvision.In

contrasttoamodernistavant-garde,Tylerarguedthatundergroundcinemareliedon

cheapeffects,demonstratedanindifferencetotechnique,andreliedontopical

counterculture“fashion”tomaskanabsenceofartisticcommitment.Unlikeasubversive

modernistavant-gardeofthe1920sand30s,Americanundergroundcinemaofthe1960s

appealedtoamainstreamaudienceinterestedinpsychedeliceffects.Tylerconcludedthat

theunderground’spanderingcounterculturepoliticsandmainstreamaspirationsproduced

acinemathatwouldbestappealtoyouthaudiences.

17ParkerTyler,TheHollywoodHallucination(NewYork:CreativeAgePress,1944),246.18DavidBordwell,How1940sCriticsChangedAmericanFilmCulture(Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,2016),112.19TyleranalyzedHollywoodthroughouthiscareerevenashefocusedmoreattentiononexperimentalcinema.InanessayforFilmCultureonOrsonWelles,TylerarguedthatthecultaroundfamousauteurslikeWelleswasorientedaroundanappreciationoftheiroften-unrealizedambition.Heexplains,“SimplywhatheisandhasbeenmakesWellesquintessentialtypeofBigExperimentalCulthero–alwaysachievingfailureyetbringingitoffbrilliantly,deckingitwitheloquenceandacertainmagnificence;fusing,ineachfilm,thevicesandthevirtuesappropriatetothem.WellesistheeternalInfantProdigyand,assuch,winstheindulgencesofadultcriticsandthefervidsympathyoftheyoungergeneration,whichseesinhimamirrorofownbuddingaspirationsandadventurousnear-successes"See:ParkerTyler,“OrsonWellesandtheBigExperimentalFilmCult,”inFilmCultureReader,ed.P.AdamsSitney(NewYork:Praeger,1970),383.

139

AlthoughTylerwasanimportantcriticoftheNewAmericanCinema,hepreferred

“underground,”becauseheassociated“NewAmericanCinema”withMekasand“partisan”

critics.20Forthesakeofclarity,Tyleruses“underground”torefertoAmerican

experimentalcinemaproducedinthe1960sthatconstitutedasubsetofthelargerNew

AmericanCinema.Tylerdescribesexperimentalcinemaproducedinthe1920sand30sas

“avant-garde”orinrelationtotheirassociatedartmovementslikeDadaorSurrealism,

whichisreflectiveofhishistoricalapproach.However,Tylerreferstodirectorsasmuchas

individualfilms,whichsuggeststheinfluenceof“auteurism.”Inmanyregards,theauteur

theoryismoreapplicabletoexperimentalcinemathanHollywood.Experimentalcinemais

producedonsmallerbudgetswithfewerpeopleandismoreoftentheresultofapersonal

artisticvisionthanaHollywoodfilmproducedbyacrewofpeople.LaurenRabinovitz

providesahelpfuldiscussionoftherelationshipbetweentheauteurtheoryandavant-

gardefilmmakers,explaininghowauteurismprovidedawayto“historicize”independent

filmpracticeand“canonizedacinematicavant-gardethatsummarilylinkedMayaDerento

suchsuccessorsasStanBrakhage,JonasMekas,KennethAnger,AndyWarhol,Michael

Snow,andHollasFrampton.”21Auteurismthusprovidedcontinuityanddefinitiontofilm

productiondefinedbyheterogeneity.

Yet,importantly,Tyler’sbeliefinacriticalethicsmadehimresistJonasMekas’

promotionalfilmwriting,andhearguedthatanevaluativeaestheticandpoliticalreception

oftheNewAmericanCinemawouldcreateamorediscriminatingaudience.Thisopinion

20Incontrast,TylerwasnotinterestedintheNewHollywood,whichisabsentfromhisfilmwriting.Tylerconsiderssomefilmsreviewedbymainstreamcriticsbutprovideslittleformalconsiderationofthem.TylerappreciatedclassicalHollywoodbutdidseemnotregistertheNewHollywoodasbeingparticularly“new.”21LaurenRabinovitz,PointsofResistance:Women,PowerandPoliticsintheNewYorkAvant-gardeCinema,1943-71(Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress,1991),16.

140

mirroredAmosVogel’sbeliefthatMekas’promotionalapproachledtoaglutofhastily

producedfilmsofpoorqualitywhilesuggestingPaulineKael’scriticismofthearthouse

audience.22Tyler,likeKael,wantedhisreaderstomovebeyondtheunderground’stopical

conceitsandanalyzeexperimentalcinemawithinalargertradition.LikeKael,Tyler

stressedtheimportanceofanearlierperiodoffilmhistorythathadestablishedastandard

ofquality.However,Tyler’shistoricalapproachfurtherdistinguishedhiscriticismfromhis

contemporarieswhoanalyzedexperimentalcinema.IncontrasttoTyler,Mekascelebrated

theNewAmericanCinemaasa“revolution,”and,forMekas,eventhe“New”in“New

AmericanCinema”signifiedaperiodofcinemathatbrokewithhistoricalprecedent.But

Tyler’sknowledgeoffilmhistoryprovidedhimamorecriticalpositiontoreviewAmerican

experimentalcinema,andhearguedthatwriterswhoapproachedfilmcriticismwithout

aestheticawarenessbecame“partisan”critics.

“Partisan”criticslikeMekascelebratedtheNewAmericaCinema’sexpressionsof

sexualdifferenceasawaytopromotethiscinema,butTylercriticizedtheunderground’s

sexualpolitics,explaininghowfilmmakersdemonstratednormativeattitudesabout

sexualitywhileexpressinganambivalenceabouthomosexuality.23Adiscomfortabout

homosexualitywasalsoreflectedinthecriticalreceptionofAmericanexperimental

cinema.Mekascondemnedhomosexualityinexperimentalfilm,laterpraisingitasawayto

combatcensorshipandchallengemainstreamvalues,butTylerwasespeciallycriticalof

cinemathatappropriatedqueeraestheticstoexploitamainstreamaudiencethatwantedto

22See:AmosVogel,“13Confusions”ininFromtheThirdEye:TheEvergreenReviewFilmReader,eds.EdHalterandBarneyRosset(NewYork:SevenStoriesPress,2018).23Tylerexplains,“ithasbeenlefttotheundergroundtoportraystag-moviesexand(moreorless)getawaywithit.”See:ParkerTyler,“DoTheyorDon’tThey?WhyitMattersSoMuch,”No.78,May1970inFromtheThirdEye:TheEvergreenReviewFilmReader,eds.EdHalterandBarneyRosset(NewYork:SevenStoriesPress,2018),178.

141

signifyculturalrebellionbyconsumingtransgressivecinema.Tylerarguedthat

experimentalfilmmakersAndyWarholandJackSmithusedcamptosatirizeandmock

queeraesthetics,whichdiminisheditsideologicalcritiqueofheteronormativity.

Finally,Tylershouldberecognizedasapioneeringqueercritic,whochallenged

heteronormativityinaperiodoframpanthomophobia,andheprovidedanecessarycritical

receptionofanemergentqueercinema.Inunderstanding“queer”asthe“sexualitiesthat

encompassbothstraightandgaybutalsothevastgrayareasbetweenthemaswellasthe

sexualitiesthatmightliebeyondthem,”Tyler’sconsiderationofsexualityincinema

encompassesthevariedidentities“queer”suggests.24Inhis1972bookScreeningtheSexes,

Tylerexplainshisintenttofreesexualidentityfromdelimitedcategories:“Ihavewantedto

freethesexualbodyandallitsbehaviorfromthestraightjacketofconventionalideasthat

limitthemforseriouscontemplationandcripplethemontheopengroundof

imagination.”25Ina1968lettertoBarneyRosset,Tyleralsochallengesnormativesexual

divisions:“Heterosexuality,homosexuality,andbisexualityareallold-hatcategoriesandon

theirwayout.Theyjustdon’t(asI’velongbelieved)correspondtothefactsoflife.”26

Americansinthe1960scontinuedtoresistideasaboutliminalsexualidentities,and

Americansocialdiscourseconsideredhomosexualityaberrantordeviant.However,Tyler

challengedtheculturaldominanceofheterosexualitythroughhiscriticismofthecinema’s

sexualpolitics,andhiscriticisminitiatedagreaterfocusonidentityandAmericansocial

valuesrelatedtosexuality.Incontrasttohispeers,Tylerrecognizedthesubversivevalue

24HarryM.BenshoffandSeanGriffin,QueerImages:AHistoryofGayandLesbianFilminAmerican(Lanham:RowmanandLittlefieldPublishers,Inc.,2005),11.25ParkerTyler,ScreeningtheSexes:HomosexualityintheMovies(NewYork:Holt,RinehartandWinston,1972),ix.26CorrespondencefromParkerTylertoBarneyRosset,21March1968,Container4.5,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.

142

ofqueeraestheticslikecamp,andhedemonstratedthepoliticalvalueoffilmcriticism

throughhiscritiquesofexperimentalcinema’srepresentationsofsexualdifference.

SubculturesandCamp

Tyler’sfierceindependenceandqueersensibilityledhimtocreateasubcultural

filmcriticism.Helpfully,culturalstudiesscholarshaveexaminedtherelationshipbetween

receptionandtheconstitutionofsubcultures.Subculturalfilmreceptionencompassesboth

subversiveinterpretationsofmainstreamcinemaandconsiderationsofmarginalcinemas

likethe1960sexperimentalunderground.Subculturalcriticismalsousesbricolageto

createnewmeaningsfromavailablefilms.BritishculturalstudiesscholarDickHebdige

describeshowsubculturalinterpretationdiscardsa“fixednumberofconcealed

meanings…infavouroftheideaofpolysemywhereeachtextisseentogeneratea

potentiallyinfiniterangeofmeanings.”27Tyler’searlycriticismusedpolysemyand

bricolagethroughSurrealistrewriting,andhisabsurdistinterpretationsofHollywood

foreshadowedtheparodicimpulseoffilmmakersAndyWarhol,JackSmith,andMikeand

GeorgeKuchar.“Taste”likewiseplaysanessentialroleinsubcultures,givingcritics,who

actasculturalarbiters,powerinthesecommunities.AsSarahThorntonexplains,

subculturesareconstitutedaroundalternativecanons,28andfilmcriticsprovidean

importantgatekeepingfunctionbydeterminingthefilmsthatconstitutethebasisforafilm

subcultureor“cult.”29

27DickHebdige,Subculture:TheMeaningofStyle(NewYork:Routledge,1988),117.28SarahThornton,ClubCultures:Music,Media,andSubculturalCapital(Middletown,WesleyanUP,1996),164.29JuanSuárezprovidesahelpfuldiscussionoftherelationshipbetweenfilm“cults”andexperimentalcinema.CultismismostassociatedwithauteuristappreciationofHollywooddirectors,butavant-gardistsalsoformed“cults”aroundtheirfavoriteactorsanddirectors.AsSuárezexplains,“Cultismisarecurrentphenomenonintheavant-gardeintellectual’slong-standingfascinationwithproductsofmassculture.”Avant-gardecultismoftenrevolvedaroundtheappropriationoficonicHollywoodactorsandactresses,but“intellectual”cultism

143

Tyler’suseofcampalsoprovidescontinuitybetweenhisearly-careercriticismof

Hollywoodandlatercriticismontheexperimentalundergroundandisanessential

elementofhisqueercriticism.SusanSontagfamouslydefinescampas“somethingofa

privatecode,abadgeofidentityeven,”30butMoeMeyerexplainshowcampisauniquely

queerexpressionthatstraightaudiencescanonlyaccessvia“derivativesconstructed

throughtheactofappropriation.”31InColdWarAmerica,pervasivehomophobiacreateda

cultureofprotectiveinsularityforgayAmericans,andqueeridentitywasoftenexpressed

incodedmessages.AsJohnD’EmilioandEstelleFreedmanexplain,amorepermissive

attitudeaboutheterosexualexpressioninpostwarAmericawasconcomitantwith“an

efforttolabelhomosexualbehaviorasdeviant.”32Policeharassmentofgaysocialspaces

andColdWaranxietiesthatgayAmericans’“moralfailings”madethemsusceptibleto

Communismforcedqueersociallife“underground”beforeStonewallandgayliberation.

ButthecinemacouldprovidequeerAmericansasenseofcommunitythroughreading

strategies,and“campcreatedasubjectpositionfromwhichurbangaymencouldrevisea

text’soriginalmeanings,andthusitstronglyfiguredinthecreationofasenseofshared

community.”33Campwaslikewiseimportanttoundergroundfilmaestheticsandunited

queerfilmmakersandaudiencesinasharedsensibility.JuanSuárezexplainshow“by

wasalsoamanifestationoftasteandaestheticdiscrimination.CriticslikeParkerTylercouldchampiontheirpreferredfilmmakersasawayaestablishacanonthatcouldserveasthebasisfor“cult”appreciation.AsSuárezexplains,cultismalsoprovidesanotherlinkbetweentheappreciationofmainstreamandavant-gardecinemabasedinculturalcirculation.See:BikeBoys,DragQueens,andSuperstars:Avant-garde,MassCulture,andGayIdentitiesinthe1960sUndergroundCinema(Bloomington,IndianaUP,1996),120.30SusanSontag,“Noteson‘Camp,’”inAgainstInterpretation(NewYork:Farrar,StrausandGiroux,1966),27531MoeMeyer,“Introduction:ReclaimingthediscourseofCamp,”inThePoliticsandPoeticsofCamp,ed.MoeMeyer(NewYork:Routledge,1994),1.32JohnD’EmilioandEstelleFreedman,IntimateMatters:AHistoryofSexualityinAmerican,2ndEdition(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1997),288.33BenshoffandGriffin,QueerImages,67.

144

drawingonstylisticresourcesfromthecampsensibility,theundergroundsoughtto

recreatesomeofthecommonalitywovenaroundthegaytransgressiveactivationof

popularobjects.”34Theseobjectscouldincludepopularsongs,comicbooks,pulpnovels,

andHollywoodfilms.Tyler’scampreadingsofpopularculture,whichused“low”culture

forsubculturalpurposes,contributedtoanimaginedqueercommunityanddemonstrated

anappreciationofcampthathesharedwithqueerfilmmakers.

ACriticalEthics

InalettertopublisherSeymourLawrence,Tylerexplainsthetrajectoryofhiscareer

asafilmcritic:“…after1947mywritingbegantocrystallizeintoseparatecategories;

roughly,commentoncurrenttrends,appraisalofExperimentalFilm[sic],andrefutations

ofHollywood’spoliticalandsocialgood-doingintheformofstraightfiction.”35Tyler’s

letterdescribeshisshifttothe“appraisal”ofexperimentalcinemathatwoulddefinehis

late-careercriticism,and,in1962,TylerreviewedShadowsandPullMyDaisy,which

markedthebeginningoftheNewAmericanCinema.36Tylerwasoftencriticaloffilmswith

aqueeraspectslikePullMyDaisyasawaytoresistanessentialistsupportofqueeraspects

andprovideacriticalreception.Consequently,TylerdoesnotconsiderPullMyDaisy’s

queersensibility,andhewasopposedtothefilmbeforeheattendedascreening,explaining

toCinema16directorAmosVogelthat“fromitsscript,whichIhavehad,itaddsnothingto

34JuanA.Suárez,BikeBoys,DragQueens,andSuperstars:Avant-garde,MassCulture,andGayIdentitiesinthe1960sUndergroundCinema(Bloomington,IndianaUP,1996),134.35CorrespondencefromParkerTylertoSeymourLawrence,31October1958,Container3.2,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.36Shadowswasoriginallyproducedin1958,butJohnCassavetes,thefilm’sdirector,reworkedthefilmtoproduceaversionthatscreenedin1959.CriticscomparedShadowsandPullMyDaisy,whichpremieredin1959,andarguedthesefilmssharedaestheticcharacteristics.MekaswasfamouslycriticalofCassavetes’re-cut,buthisperiodizationoftheNewAmericanCinemabeginsin1959.Forthisreason,IconsiderPullMyDaisyandthere-cutofShadowsfrom1959thebeginningoftheNewAmericanCinema.

145

Stan’s[Brakhage]Desistfilmbutsomedubiousliteratureandmean-minded

sentimentality.37Tylerconcludes,“ThisrecentAmericanstuffislowbrowpillagingof

Hollywood’sownculturalcoffers,”buthisdislikeofPullMyDaisywasmatchedbya

surprisingenthusiasmforShadows.38

Tyler’sreviewinTheEvergreenReview,“ForShadows,AgainstPullMyDaisy,”

contrastshissupportofShadowswithhisdisapprovalofundergroundcinemathroughhis

reviewofPullMyDaisy.TylerarguesthatPullMyDaisy’s“Beat”aesthetic,whichwas

evidentinitsjazzscore,improviseddialogue,andBeat“pad”mise-en-scène,panderedtoa

youthaudienceandfailedtodemonstrateartisticvision.”39But,incontrast,Tylerpraises

Shadowsforitsuniquedepictionofrelationships,andherebukescriticslikeMekas,who

considereditinrelationtoPullMyDaisybasedonthe“loosestlevelofcurrentfilm

conventions.”40However,Tyler’ssupportofShadowsalsodemonstrateshowhisanalysisof

identitywasfullofcontradiction.TylerwroteaboutShadows’passingnarrativeinhis

publishedandunpublishedwriting,focusingonraceinrelationtotaboosexualdesire.41In

37CorrespondencefromParkerTylertoAmosVogel,14December1961,Container5.5,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.38Ibid.;WhileTylerpraisesShadows,hewascriticalofCassavetes’laterefforts.Forinstance,TylerwasparticularlycriticalofHusbands(1970).IntheJuly1971issueoftheEvergreenReview,Tylerexplains,““What[Husbands]callsintoquestionislodgedinageneralabidingstateofquestionbythewholefilm:heterosexualityitself…Husbandsisflagrantwithhomosexualinnuendo”See:ParkerTyler,“ThoseHomophileHusbands,”No.91,July1971inFromtheThirdEye:TheEvergreenReviewFilmReader,eds.EdHalterandBarneyRosset(NewYork:SevenStoriesPress,2018),275.39TylerfurtherarguesthatPullMyDaisy,whichborrowedfromDadaandSurrealism,revealsa“lackofhistoricalconsciousnessinitsownfieldSee:ParkerTyler,“ForShadows,AgainstPullMyDaisy,”inFilmCultureReader,ed.P.AdamsSitney(NewYork:Praeger,1970),109.40Ibid.,112.41Forinstance,inSex,Psyche,Etcetera,heexplainshow“apersonofNegrobloodwhite-lookingenoughtopassasWhite.”Tyleralsoconsidersthepotentiallyincestuousrelationshipbetweenthefilm’sprotagonists,explaininghow“thewhite-lookingyoungerbrotherandsister…formanauthenticduoinunconsciousincest.InanunpublisheddraftofUndergroundFilm,TyleragainmentionshowShadowsfeatured“ahottopicalthemeabout‘passing’amongwhite-skinnedNegros.”See:ParkerTyler,Sex,Psyche,Etcetera,(NewYork:HorizonPress,1971),78-9.;BackgroundoftheUnderground(“scrappedversion)firstworksheets,22,Container36.7,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.

146

anunpublishedaddendumtohisarticle,“HollywoodastheUniversalChurch,”42Tyleruses

thefilm’spassingnarrativetocriticizetheBlackPowermovement:“Thetensionsofthe

drivetowardauniversalidealofraceandcolorremainandtodayareputindramaticrelief

bythesloganofBlackPowerraisedbyNegrofascists.”43Tyler’sanalysisofmarginalized

identitiesmayseemakeyaspectofhissubculturalcriticism,buthisresistanceto

supportinganyovertpoliticalpositiondemonstratesaconflictbetweenhisdesireto

subvertdominantideologieswhilemaintainingacriticalobjectivity.

Tyler’sfocusonAmericanexperimentalcinemaculminatedinhismonograph

UndergroundFilm,publishedin1969,anditsaestheticevaluationoftheexperimental

undergroundcinema’srepresentsamarkeddeparturefromMekas’celebratoryand

promotionalcriticism.ThroughoutUndergroundFilm,Tylercritiquesthehome-video

qualityofundergroundcinemathatMekascelebratedasamarkofartisanal,personal

filmmaking.Mekas,ofcourse,wasalsoafilmmaker,whomadebiographicalfilmsthat

criticscomparedtohomevideo;hecultivatedthisaestheticinhisworkandcelebrateditin

theworkofothers,becausehebelieved“personal”filmmakingprovidedanecessary

antithesistomanufacturedHollywoodfilms.44Intermsofproduction,Mekasrecognized

that16mmportablecameras,whichledtothe“homevideo”effectTylercriticizes,allowed

filmmakerstoworkonlimitedbudgets.However,Tylerdoesnotconsiderproduction,

whichreflectsadesiretotreatexperimentalcinemaasanautonomousartisticpractice.

42PublishedinTheThreeFacesoftheFilm:TheArt,TheDream,andTheCult(NewYork:A.S.Barnes,1960);“HollywoodastheUniversalChurch,”TheAmericanQuarterly,Vol.2,No.2(Summer1950),165-76.43Notefor“HollywoodasaUniversalChurch,”Container3.1,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.44TylerdisputedthenotionthattheundergroundwasanalternativetoHollywood,explaininghowitwas“aforthrightbidforoverground[sic]status”See:BackgroundoftheUnderground(“scrappedversion)firstworksheets,13,Container36.7,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.

147

WhilethisimpulseisironicgivenTyler’sfocusonrepresentationandidentity,hebelieved

theaestheticsofundergroundcinemareflectedanabsenceofartisticvision.Inmany

instances,itappearedtoTylerthatundergroundfilmmakerssimplysetupacamerato

recordtheirfriendsorintimatemoments.

LikehisreviewofPullMyDaisy,TylerarguesinUndergroundFilmthatunderground

cinemaembracedaspectsoftheyouthcounterculturetoappealtoamainstreamaudience.

TylerexplainsinanearlydraftofUndergroundFilm:“Justaglanceatwomen’sfashions

tellsusagreatdealabouttheeruptingpopularityofUndergroundfilms:theshrinkageof

thehemlineissomethingonlythosedefinitelyunderthirtycanwellsustain.”45

Undergroundcinemaalsoappealedtothecounterculturethroughpsychedeliceffectsthat

appealedtostonedaudiences.Filmmakersusedanamorphiclensestocreatethe“illusionof

aninnerstateextendingfromthedruggedspectatortoaspectacleorenvironment,”but

theseeffectsmaskedtheabsenceofpoetic-imaginativevision.46AsTylerargues,

undergroundcinemacreatedan“ineptpropagandaofecstasyandhappiness–something

thatisveryclosetopublicizingcertainpersonalitycultsthathaveemergedfrombeatnik

andhippiemilieus.”47Unlikethesubversivemodernistavant-gardeofthe1920sand30s,

the1960’scounterculturerepresentedanersatzformofrebellionandwasmainstream.As

Tylerargues,“…thequasi-aestheticcultureI’vebeendiscussing(hippies,etc)havemorein

45 BackgroundoftheUnderground(“scrappedversion”)firstworksheets,33,Container36.7,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas. 46ParkerTyler,UndergroundFilm:ACriticalHistory(NewYork:DaCapoPress,1995),130;However,TylerignoresthehypnagogiccinemaofBruceConrad,HarrySmith,orPaulSharitsthatcouldgenuinelyinduceatrance-likestate.47Ibid,99,emphasisorg.

148

commonwiththepretentiousandaggressivevulgarityoftheEstablishmentsthantheydo

withelitegoodtasteandthehigh-arttradition.”48

Tylerfurtherlabelledasubsetofundergroundcinema“pad”films,whichisaterm

thatsuggestsBeatslangforanapartment.“Pad”filmsweresetindomesticspaceslike

apartments,lofts,orhotelsandfeaturedthefilmmaker’sfriendsandsocialcircle.Ofcourse,

undergroundfilmmakersdidappearineachother’sfilms,demonstratingasenseof

community:KenJacob’sLittleStabsatHappiness(1959-63)featuredJackSmith;RonRice’s

Chumlum(1964)starredSmith,BarbaraRubin,andBeverlyGrant;andAndyWarholcast

theartists,performers,andhangers-onfromtheFactoryinhisfilms.Tylerarguesthatthis

cinemadocumentedasocialcircleforthevoyeuristicpleasureofanaudience,butheagain

ignoresproductionconstraints.FilmmakerslikeJacobs,whoworkedwithalmostno

budget,couldnotaffordtofilmonsetsorsoundstages.49Castingone’sfriendswascheaper

thanhiringprofessionalactorsandprovidedundergroundcinemaanappealingpersonal

quality.However,Tylerviewedthepadfilmasademonstrationoftheinsularnatureof

NewYorkCity’sexperimentalfilmcommunity.50InanearlydraftofUndergroundFilm,

TylerevencomplainsthatMekas“limitsthedomainofUndergroundFilmtoitsAmerican

headquartersinNewYorkCity.”51Despitethiscritique,Tylerfocusedoverwhelminglyon

NewYork-basedfilmmakersinthepublishededitionofUndergroundFilmandwas

48BackgroundoftheUnderground(“scrappedversion)firstworksheets,41,Container36.7,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.49JacobswasonlyabletofinanceasoundofprintofLastStabsduetoadonationfromJeromeHillfacilitatedbyMekas.Previously,Jacobsplayed78recordstosoundtrackthefilm.50However,thereissomeambiguityregardingTyler’suseof“pad.”Infact,aGermantranslatorwrotetoTylertoclarify:“Itwouldbehelpfultome,ifyoucouldindicatedtomethe‘semanticrange’ofyourusageof‘pad’”See:CorrespondencefromMaxLoosertoParkerTylerto,9July1970,2,Container37.5,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas,emphasisorg..51BackgroundoftheUnderground(“scrappedversion)firstworksheets,6-7,Container36.7,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.

149

susceptibletosimilarcriticism.RobertPike,wholedtheCreativeFilmSocietyinLos

Angeles,wrotetoTylertocomplainofhis“lackoffamiliaritywiththerelativelycurrent

filmsbeingproducedontheWestCoast.”52

Ultimately,Tylerpreferredearly-twentiethcenturymodernistfilmstothe1960’s

experimentalunderground.Forinstance,TylerconsidersGermanfilmTheCabinetofDr.

Caligari(1920)directedbyRobertWiene,representativeofthe“truehistoryof

Undergroundfilmaswellastheavant-gardefilm,”53andTylerexplainshowCaligarishould

serveasamodelfortheunderground:“[Caligari’s]opticaldistortioninthestagelikeset…is

importantbecauseofitslinktothepsychedelicenvironmentswhichUndergroundfilms

playwithasasimpleresultofdrugtaking.”54Thedifference,then,betweenthemodernist

avant-gardeandexperimentalundergroundwasbasedinvisionandintent.AsTyler

argues,undergroundcinemacreated“unreal”environmentsthatdisavowedthe“dynamic

relationshipbetweenloveononesideanddeathandmadnessontheother.”55

Undergroundcinema’s“DrugAttitude”and“libidinalfantasies”alsosublimatedthefearof

deathandmadnessthatmodernistcinemahadconfronted,andthemodernistavant-garde

createdasenseofmagicwithoutrelyingoncheapeffects:“UnChienandalouandL’Aged’or

aresurrealmixturesofveryliteralelements…[and]…holdnomagicordreamlike

atmosphereachievedthrough‘filmic’trickery.”56LikeRobertWiene’sfilm,LuisBuñueland

SalvadorDalí’sfilmdemonstratedasimilarsenseofdanger.UnChienandalou(1929)

famouslybeginswiththeimageofaneyeballbeingcut,whichsymbolizedthefilm’s

52CorrespondencefromRobertPiketoParkerTyler,27December1969,Container37.5,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.53Tyler,UndergroundFilm,71.54Ibid,97.55Ibid.56Ibid,134.

150

“opticalassault.”57Thisimage,asTylerexplains,demonstrateshowthe“destructive

violenceoftheearlyidealsofavant-gardefilmcannotbeoveremphasized.”58

AlthoughUndergroundFilmishighlycriticalof1960’sAmericanexperimental

cinema,Tylerdidappreciatesecond-waveexperimentalfilmmakersGregoryMarkopoulos

andKennethAnger,whobegantheircareersinthe1940sbutproducedfilmsthroughout

the1960s.Bothmenwerepioneeringqueerfilmmakers,whoexploredhomosexualdesire

intheirfilms.TylerconsidersMarkopoulos“oneoftheleadingindependentfilmmakers”59

and“themostunderratedmemberofnewavant-garde,”60andTylerarguesthatKenneth

Anger’films,61whichallegorizedhomosexualdesire,shouldbeinthe“centralUnderground

cannon.”62InTyler’sestimation,MarkopoulosandAngerpresentedhonestrepresentations

ofqueeridentitythatcontrastedwithAndyWarhol’sglibappropriations,andthey

appealedtoaqueerandsubculturalaudiencethatexistedoutsideofthemainstream.

Tyler’sevaluativeideologicalandaestheticassessmentsoftheexperimentalunderground

furtherdemonstrateshowhefeltaresponsibilitytocreateacanonthatavoidedthe

partisaninterestsofcriticslikeMekas.63Tylerexplains,“…ifallfilm,andespeciallyavant-

gardefilm,istobeconceivedasthehistoryofanevermaturingart,thenwemove

57Ibid.58Ibid.59Ibid,215.ImportantfilmsdirectedbyGregoryMarkopoulosincludeTwiceaMan(1963)andtheIlliacPassion(1964-67).60CorrespondencefromParkerTylertoGregoryMarkopoulos,6May1969,Container4.9,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.61TylermaintainedafriendlycorrespondencewithAnger.Infact,AngerwroteTyleronAugust30,1969,“IhadnotbeenawarethatyouweredoingabookonUndergroundFilmandamdelightedtohearthenews.”See:CorrespondencefromParkerTylertoKennethAnger,30August1969,Container6.3,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas;ImportantfilmsdirectedbyKennethAngerincludeFireworks(1947)andScorpioRising(1963).62Tyler,UndergroundFilm,214.63Thisisevidentinthefilmography.See:ParkerTyler,UndergroundFilm:ACriticalHistory(NewYork:DaCapoPress,1995),241-9.

151

automaticallytoaquitedifferentperspective…inwhichtheanatomyoftheavant-garde

movementcanactuallybedescribedandsystematized.”64Despitehiscriticismofthe

experimentalunderground,Tylerbelievedintheaestheticandpoliticalpotentialofcinema,

buthewantedtofreetheundergroundfromitsfaddishrelationshiptothecounterculture

andmainstreamambitionsthatledfilmmakerstosupportdominantideologies.65

“IsFilmCriticismOnlyPropaganda?”

Inalectureatthe1966NewYorkFilmFestival,laterpublishedinFilmCulture,

Tylerexplainshowfilmcriticshadabandonedevaluativestandardsandcritical

responsibility.Tylerstates,“Itstrikesmeveryforciblythatgoodfilmcriticism,responsible

filmcriticism,isimpossible,whensohighadegreeoftoleranceisexercisedtoward

manifestationsofwhatroughlymaystillbetermedtheavant-garde.”66InTyler’sview,

criticslikeMekas,whodidnotprovideideologicalandaestheticevaluationintheir

criticism,weremerelypropagandists.Tylerexplains,“Filmcriticismcanbeonly

propaganda…solongasmeretechnicalanticsinvolvingsensationaredeemedanadequate

substituteforemotionalandintellectualvaluesengenderedthroughfilmicmeans.”67Later,

inalettertoartcriticGregoryBattcock,TyleraskswhyJonasMekashadpublishedhis

lecturethatwassocriticaloftheNewAmericanCinema:“IwonderwhyJonaswishedto

printit–maybeonlyasanexcusetoattackme…Franklyspeaking,mypositionasa

championoftheavant-gardehasbeenmuchcompromisedinlatter[sic]yearsbywhatI

64Ibid,209.65Hewasevenmoredirectinhisfirstdraft,writing,“IlovetheUnderground.”See:BackgroundoftheUnderground(“scrappedversion)firstworksheets,50,Container36.7,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas,emphasisorg.66ParkerTyler,“IsFilmCriticismOnlyPropaganda,”inTheNewAmericanCinema:ACriticalAnthology,ed.GregoryBattcock(NewYork:E.P.DuttonCo,1967),69,emphasisorg.67Ibid,71.

152

considerthefaultsofthenewtendencies.”68Tylerwasawarethathislecturewould

engendercontroversy,andheexplainstoBattcockthatitwouldstickout“likeasore

thumb”inhisanthology.69

Inmanyregards,TylerconsideredMekas’criticismtheparagonoftheNew

AmericanCinema’spromotionalbentandlackofstandards,buttheircriticalspatscould

generatecontroversyandattractreaders.Ina1966lettertoAmosVogel,Tylerexplains

howMekastookadvantageofthe“artfilm”audience’snaiveté:“JonasandtheFilmCo-op

areattemptingtochallenge[the]statusquobyorganizedpromotionandbycateringtothe

tasteinartfilmaudiencesthattendstopreferthe‘deranged’and‘spontaneous’tothe

orderlyandcalculated,topreferthelessartfultothemoreartful.”70AsTylerargues,“Jonas

isanexcellentopportunist…[who]…organizedfilmmakersexactlylikeapoliticalparty

withafilmicplatform:FreedomofExpressionforFetichFootagists.”71Tyleralsocritiques

Mekas’professedspiritualrelationshiptothecinema.Ina1967lettertotheVillageVoice,

Tylerexplains,“Afewyearslater,indeed,Mekaswas‘converted.’Likecertainreligious

converts,henowlivesrigorously‘bythebook.’Butthebookalasismuchcloserinspirtto

biblicalfundamentalismthantomoderncriticism.”72Consequently,Mekasviews

“discriminationandevenanalysistowardUndergroundfilmsasheresyintheavant-garde

churchwhichhehaspersonallysetup.”73

68CorrespondencefromGregoryBattcocktoParkerTyler,27December1966,Container3.2,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.69Ibid;TheanthologyTylerreferencesisTheNewAmericanCinema:ACriticalAnthology,ed.GregoryBattcock(NewYork:E.P.DuttonCo,1967).70CorrespondencefromParkerTylertoAmosVogel,20April1966,Container5.5,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.71Ibid.72CorrespondencefromParkerTylertoTheEditor,TheVillageVoice,5February1967,Container5.5,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.73Ibid.

153

TylerultimatelyconsidersMekasa“propagandist”ratherthanacritic:“A

commentatorsuchasMekasisnotacriticatall…Histruefunctionisthatofcheer-leader.In

short,heisapolitician,arevolutionarypropagandist.”74AccordingtoTyler,Mekas’

promotionalcriticismcreatedanuniformedaudiencethatacceptedunimaginativecinema:

“Thein-groupers,thefilmbuffs,thesuper-hipsterswhofromtheUnderground’scheering

sectionsaresometimesjustasfarfromunderstandingtherealitiesofthecurrentavant-

gardeasthosewhothinkthatUndergroundfilmsarethepretentiousproductionsofvery

wild,nasty-mindedamateurs.”75Ofcourse,thislineofattackwasnotentirelynovel.

PaulineKaelmadesimilaraccusationsagainstthearthousecrowd,whomsheaccusedof

acceptinga“lackofclarityascomplexity.”76ButTylerconfirmsthatacriticmustprovide

evaluativejudgmentratherthanuncriticalpromotion:“Atrueevaluator(thatis,acritic)

mustknowtojuggletheprosandconsofagivenwork’selementsandcomeoutwitha

responsible,enduringjudgementofthem.”77AsTylerexplains,thecriticwasessentialto

theNewAmericanCinema’sreceptionbecause“…itisexactlywhenarevolutionarytrend

makesitsappearancethatthecritic’sfunctionbecomesthemostprecious,themost

urgentlyneeded.”78

MekasrespondedtoTyler’sdescriptionofhimasa“propagandist”inaDecember

18,1969“MovieJournal”fortheVillageVoiceentitled“UNDERGROUNDFILMACCORDING

TOPARKERTYLER.”Mekasbegins,“Attheendofthedecade,weshouldsettleforgoodthe

74Tyler,UndergroundFilm,xix.75Ibid,6.76PaulineKael,ILostitattheMovies(Boston:Little,BrownandCo.,1965),15.77Tyler,UndergroundFilm,xx,emphasisorg.78Ibid,xxi.

154

questionofundergroundfilm.”79Hethencullstwo-pagesworthofadjectivesfrom

UndergroundFilm,compilestheminasingleparagraph,andironicallyconcludes,“The

authorof[UndergroundFilm]isawriterandhasanunlimitedvocabulary.Iadmirewriters.

Morepowertothem.”80MekascleverlyinsinuatesthatheisanotawriterlikeTyler–a

superciliouscriticwhopassesjudgement–butTylerarguesthatMekaswas

misrepresentinghim.81Inresponsetothecolumn,TylersentMekasanironicChristmas

cardviatheVillageVoiceeditor,explaining,“Now,Jonas,thatyou’vestuffedthestockingof

UndergroundFilmwithaboutahundrednon-gifts,orbad-soundingphrasesfrommy

book…Ihopeyou’llprepareanothercolumnfullofthegiftsofmybook–thatis,anequal

numberofthegood-soundingphrasesbywhichIcharacterizeUndergroundandavant-

gardefilms.”82Despitetheirmutualanimosity,TylerwasforcedtoacknowledgeMekas’

influenceonAmericanexperimentalcinema.InalettertoGrove,TylerasksthatRosset

includeaquotefromMekasinapressreleaseannouncingtheircommitmenttothebook:

“[Add]aquotefromJonasMekas:‘Ifthereissomeonewhoknowsmorethananyoneelsein

thiscountryaboutavant-gardefilm,thatmakeisParkerTyler’?…willgetexactquotefrom

79JonasMekas,“December18,1969,UNDERGROUNDFILMACCORDINGTOPARKERTYLER,”inMovieJournal:TheRiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,1959-71(NewYork:CollierBooks,1972),362.80Ibid,364.81InalettertofilmmakerKenJacobs,TylerexpresseshisangeraboutMekas’column:"JonasMekashasfoundadelectablewayofslanderingmybookinhisVoicecolumnofDec.18,but–asheexplainedtomewhenIaskedhimifhewerepreparinganothercolumncomposedofgood-soundingphrasesfrommybook–itwas,afterall,a'politicalarticle,'meaningthat,naturally,anythinggoes."See:CorrespondencefromParkerTylertoKenJacobs,20December1969,Container37.5,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.82CorrespondencefromParkerTylertoTheEditor,TheVillageVoice,18December1969,Container37.5,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas;TylerwasnotafanoftheVoice,whichhereferstoasa“weeklytabloid”intheforwardtothe1972PenguineditionofUndergroundFilm.See:NewForward,RevisedtextforPenguinEdition,2,Container37.4,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas

155

VillageVoice.”83Tyler’sinsistenceonusingMekas’quotetopromotehisbook

demonstrateshowheusedthecontroversybetweenthemaswaytopromotehisown

criticism.

Tyler’scritiqueofpartisancriticswassupportedbyhisargumentthatunderground

cinema’scounterculturepoliticswereaformof“propaganda.”AlthoughTyler’scriticism

wassubculturalandideological,hewasopposedtosecond-wavefeminism,BlackPower,

andtheNewLeft.ThesecritiquesmayhavebeenTyler’sattempttomaintainhiscritical

independence,buttheyalsoreflectagenerationaldistrust.Inaletterfrom1970,Tyler,

whocritiquednormativegenderrolesthroughouthiscareer,describeshisresponseto

“Women’sLib”:“Itseemspainfullyobvious,overandover,thatallthesepeoplewantisto

createdisruptionandchaosasatestertowardrevolutionvianihilism.”84Tylerappreciated

theanarchicnatureofSurrealismandDada,butherejectedamodernistpolitical

commitmentandwasopposedtofilmmakerswhoexplicitlysupportedpoliticalcauses.

Tylerlikewiserejectsthenotionthatexperimentalfilmwasnecessarilyanti-Capitalist,

criticizingMekasandtheFilm-makers’Co-opinalettertoVogel:“Howevermuchanart

maybeorganizedeconomically,politicallyandsocially,ifitlacksabasicintellectual

cohesion,abasicharmonyofmotivesandobjectives,its’sgoingtobejustanotherformof

competitionwithinthecapitaliststructure:thesmallguildproductasopposedtothemass-

manufacturedproduct.”85InTyler’sview,filmmakersembracedpoliticsasawaytomask

theabsenceofartisticcommitment:“Let’sfaceit:theonlyunitywhichtheradical

83CorrespondencefromParkerTylertoBarneyRosset,4September1967,Container4.6,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.84CorrespondencefromParkerTylertoFred,30June1970,Container37.5,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.85CorrespondencefromParkerTylertoAmosVogel,30April1966,4,Container5.5,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas,emphasisorg.

156

independentfilmmakershave–asidefromthemostlysterilepermissivenesstobe

fetichisticandmessy–istheoldfamiliaroneofsocialprotestatanycost.86In1968,Tyler

wrotetoRenataAdler,whowasinheronlyyearasfilmcriticattheNewYorkTimes,to

explainhowundergroundcinemarepresented“adebasementofdemocraticvaluesinsofar

asitsbroadest,mostradicalforcesdesiretodumpallstandardsofartandevencraftin

favorofpersonalexpressionononesideandrevolutionaryexpressionontheother.”87In

takinghisargumenttoitsconclusion,Tylerexplainshowtheundergroundcinema’s

politicsresemblethe“‘cultural’ideologyofsocialismaspracticedthesedaysbytheSoviet

Union.”88

Appealingtoa“Straight”Audience

Tyler’sfocusonqueersexualpoliticschallengedcriticswhoconsidered

representationsofsexualitywithoutfullyconsideringhowtheychallengedmainstream

Americansocialvalues.Forexample,writerSheldonRenandevotesasectionto“Sex”inhis

surveyoftheUnderground,IntroductiontotheAmericanUndergroundFilm,butmerely

providesadescriptiveaccountofhowtheunderground’sattitudeaboutsex“tendstobe

moreuninhibited.”89WhileRenanacknowledgestheNewAmericanCinema’salternative

sexualrepresentations,heignorestheirpoliticalimport:“Anundergroundfilm-makeris

morelikelytofollowhisowninclinations.Othersexualrelationshipsthanstrictly

heterosexualonesmaybeshown.”90Writersagreedthatundergroundcinemarepresented

86Ibid.87CorrespondencefromParkerTylertoRenataAdler,1September1968,Container5.1,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.88Ibid,2.89SheldonRenan,AnIntroductiontotheAmericanUndergroundFilm(NewYork:E.P.DuttonandCo,1967),31.90Ibid.

157

agreaterrangeofsexualdesire,buttheyfailedtoconsiderhowqueerrepresentations

challengedmainstreamAmericansocialandsexualvalues.Conversely,criticslikeMekas

celebratedhomosexualityincinematopromotetheNewAmericanCinema’stransgressive

valuebutfailedtoconsiderhowfilmmakersusedsexualdifferencetoexploitayouth

audience.Incontrasttohispeers,Tylerspecificallyquestionedtheundergroundcinema’s

sexualpoliticsandcritiquedfilmmakers’apoliticalappropriationsofqueeraesthetics.

Throughoutthe1960s,Playboypublishedaseriesofarticlesthatexaminedthe

historyofsexincinemaanddevotedanarticletorepresentationsofsexinexperimental

cinema.Whilethemagazine,firstpublishedin1953,representedanewfoundsenseof

sexualfreedom,Playboywasfocusedonheterosexualdesire,consumedbyastraightmale

audience,andsupportedpatriarchybyobjectifyingwomen.Writinginresponseto

Playboy’sApril14,1967issuefocusedon“TheHistoryofSexintheCinema,”Tyler

respondedwithanambivalentletterthat,atleast,commendsArthurKnightandHollis

Alpert,thearticle’swriters,“forbeingverymuchonball;thatis,whentheyarealsoonthe

course.”91TyleragreeswithKnightandAlbert’sclaimabouttheunderground’s“erotic

candor,”buthearguesthatfilmmakerslikeAndyWarholusedcamptorepresentqueer

identityas“deliberatelygaucheandgawky.”92ThePlayboywriters,Tylerargues,weretoo

“straight”torecognizethepoliticalcritiqueembeddedincamp:“Maybeallcampingtoone

side,ArthurKnightandHollisAlpertaretooplain‘straight’torecognizesomedeviatesex

anticsforexactlywhattheyare.”93Inmanyways,KnightandAlbertdidnotunderstandthe

91CorrespondencefromParkerTylertoEditor,Playboy,14April1967,Container5.1,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas;ArthurKnightandHollisAlpert,“TheHistoryofSexinCinema,”Playboy,April14,1967,136-53.92Ibid,2.93Ibid.

158

politicalaspectsofqueeraesthetics,andPlayboyappealedtoamainstreamreadership

interestedinvoyeuristicdepictionsof“deviant”sexualpractices.Intheirdesiretobe

shockedandsurprised,straightaudienceswereunabletodistinguishgenuinelyqueer

cinemafromersatzappropriations.Consequently,KnightandAlpertarguethatFlaming

Creatures(1963)wastakenfromthe“homosexual’shandbook,”94butTylerexplains,in

contrast,howthe“MattachineSociety…wouldjoinKinseyinstandinguptoprotestthe

aspersioninsincerehomosexualpractice.”95

Tyler’slettertoPlayboyexpressesseveralthemesthatanimatedhiscritiquesofthe

experimentalundergroundcinema’ssexualpolitics.Forone,Tylerwasthemostprominent

queercritictoreviewtheNewAmericanCinema,andheunderstoodthepoliticalaspectsof

queercinema.Inthisregard,Tylerprovidedareceptionofqueerfilmmakingthat

recognizedhowqueeraestheticscritiqueddominantsexualvalues.Tyleralsorecognized

howfilmmakersusedsexasaformofexploitation,andheexplainedhowAndyWarholand

JackSmithusedcamptocomicallysignifysexualdifference.AsTylerargued,thecamp

appealofWarholandSmith’sfilmsfunctionedasformofcomedythatsatirizedsexual

differenceandbecameawayforundergroundcinematotitillatestraightaudiences,

transmutingagenuinelysubculturalexpressionintoanappealforamainstreamaudience.

AsTylerexplainsinanunpublisheddraftofUndergroundFilm,“Camp…isoneofthemore

satiricformstakenbythenon-professionalaestheticismofUndergroundFilm.Butcamp

toohasgradesofwit,ormoralimportance.”96

94Ibid.95Ibid.96BackgroundoftheUnderground(“scrappedversion)firstworksheets,54,Container36.7,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.

159

AlthoughcampinterpretationsofclassicalHollywoodfunctionedascritiqueofthe

sexualvaluesencodedinthesefilms,undergroundcinematookthecampappealofthe“sex

goddess,”representedinthepastbyactresseslikeJeanHarlow,JaneRussell,andMarilyn

Monroe,toevenmoreexaggeratedlevels.97DragperformerMarioMontez,whosename

referencedcampiconMariaMontez,starredinundergroundfilmsdirectedbyAndy

Warhol,JackSmith,andRonRice.MarioalsobecameoneofWarhol’s“superstars”after

starringinFlamingCreatures.TylerdescribesMario’sroleinWarhol’sHarlot(1964):“The

campsymbolismoftheWarholfilm…istohaveMontezextractfirstonebananathen

anotherfromvariouscachesandmunchthemdeliberately,involuptuousleisure,forabout

anhour.Thisistheprincipleaction.”98TylerconsidersHarlotalitmustestforone’sability

totoleratetheunderground’sindulgences:“Getthepicture?Ifyoudo,youqualifyforthe

Undergroundsexscene.”99Despitehissarcasm,TylerexplainshowMarioMontez’s

evocationofacampiconreorientedcampreadingstrategies:campwasnowembodied

ratherthanread.AsTylerargues,Montez,whosemasculinefeaturescontrastedwithhis

feminineattire,wasadeliberatesend-upoftheoverdressed,oversexedHollywood

goddess.Harlot’sridiculousmise-en-scèneandcomicallyovertsymbolismfurther

heightenedthecampabsurdism.Undergroundcinemaalsoimbueditscamp

appropriationswithcounterculturestereotypes.AsTylerdescribesinUndergroundFilm,

“…thebeatheroistransparentlyhomosexual,thewomenatleastconspicuouslyoffbeat,

97WomeninHollywoodfilmswereeitherpassivesexualobjectsormaternalfigures,butsubculturalcriticismsoughttextualrupturesthatsubvertedHollywood’sdominantmessages.Forinstance,Tylerexplainshowcampicon“[MaeWest]daredtoaddalegitimatedashofhumortothemythoftheOedipuscomplex,”whichacknowledgedtheabsurdroleswomenplayedwhiledemonstratingheragencyasaperformer.See:ParkerTyler,TheHollywoodHallucination(NewYork:CreativeAgePress,1944),96.98ParkerTyler,Sex,Psyche,Etcetera(NewYork:HorizonPress,1971),24.99Ibid.

160

undoubtedlythepairarewildtravestiesoftheoldHollywoodstereotypes.”100Thisodd

couple,“thehomosexualbeat”and“offbeatwoman,”asTylerexplains,appealedtothe

counterculturethroughtheirevidentsexualdifference.WhileTylerseemstobecriticizing

thealternativerepresentationsofsexualityhehadpreviouslydemanded,hearguedthat

undergroundcinemausedcamptocomicallysignifyand,insomeinstances,mockqueer

identityaswaytoexploitstraightaudiences.

Inaddition,Tylerarguedthattheexperimentalundergroundreliedonexploitative

representationsofsextoappealtothevoyeuristicdesiresofastraightaudience.For

instance,Tylercomparesundergroundcinematopornography:“Notmerelytheaudienceis

seekingpeepholesensations,soaretheactorsandfilmmakerswhoprovidenumerous

filmsthatcorrespondtosexshowsandareaestheticallytoolittleabovethecommercial

nudiefilmshowonForty-secondstreet.”101Tyler’saversionwasnotbasedonadesireto

censor,buthearguedcinemahadtodomorethanappealtoanaudience’sprurientdesires

towarrantaconsiderationasart.TyleralsocritiquesWarhol’sexhibitionistfilmsthatwere

producedwithnoevidentpurpose:“ThepeculiarinterestsofWarhol’sblatantlyartless

films–anyaestheticinterestinthemispurelycoincidentalanddoesnotrefertoany

individuallivingordead–liesinthefactthattheyaredirect,technicallyprimitiverecords

ofimprovisedhumanbehavior.”102Warholwasawidely-celebratedfilmmaker,butTyler’s

focusonAmericansocialvaluescompelledhimtocriticizeWarhol’ssexualpolitics,andhe

arguedthattheappealofWarhol’sfilmswasbasedintheirexhibitionist,quasi-

pornographicnature.TylerfurthercriticizesWarhol’sfilmsbylabellingthem“primitive

100Ibid,52.101Tyler,UndergroundFilm,21.102Tyler,Sex,Psyche,Etcetera,12.

161

records.”Unlikedirectcinemadocumentarythatused“real”footagetocapturetheessence

ofasubject,Warhol’sfilmsseemedtohavelittleintentbeyondtheirprurientvalue.While

directorsworkingin“direct”cinemareliedoncarefulediting,juxtaposingfootagefor

narrativeorpolemicalpurposes,Warholpresentedlongtakeswithoutanyostensible

point:“TimeisofimmenseimportanceinWarhol’smesmericallyboringfilmssimply

becausethewatcher…isbeingforcedtoparticipateintheactualduréeofanobject.”103

Warhol’sfilmsalsoreliedonanexhibitionist“obligingness.”Indescribingthecouple

inWarhol’sFuck[BlueMovie](1969),Tylerexplains:“Thisisnottosaythattheusually

offbeatcharacterswhoworkforWarhol’scameras…areeitherinnerly[sic]depraved

morbidexhibitionistsorsimplefrauds.”104Instead,Warhol’sactorsperformed“forAndy.”

AsTylerexplains,“[Fuck]isnotmeanttorepresent;itismeanttobe.Andtherein…liesits

[sic]great,reallycooldistinction.Aretheperformershereself-conscious;dotheylookat

thecamera—orthecameraman?”105Thefilmevenfailedtoexciteinthemannerof

pornographicfilm,where,asTylerargues,“everythingiscalculated…toprovideanillusion

oferoticpleasureorlust.”106NorwasFucksuccessfulasadocumentarybecauseofits

performativenature.Fucksimplypresentedfootagewithoutintentorpurpose,and,inthis

regard,WarholrepresentedsexlikeherepresentedtheEmpireStateBuildinginEmpire:

“WeknowtheEmpireStateBuildingisalwaysthere…butitwouldnotoccurtoustowatch

itforeightorsixhours,nottomentiononehour.”107Thelackofartisticintentevidentin

103Ibid,14,emphasisorg.104Ibid,13.105Ibid,16emphasisorg.106Ibid.107Ibid,14.

162

Warhol’sfilmssuggestedtoTylerthatundergroundcinemareliedonvoyeurismtoexploit

amainstreamaudience,whowantedtobeshockedby“radical”cinema.

TylerlikewiseconsideredShirleyClarke’squasi-véritéfilm,PortraitofJason(1967)

anexampleoftheundergroundcinema’sexhibitionism.Clarke’sfilmfocusedonasingle

subject,Jason,whoprovidesamonologuefortheentiretyofthefilm.Jason,agay,black

man,whoperformsforClarke’scamera,ispromptedbyoffscreenquestionsanddrinks

alcoholtothepointofinebriation.Clarke’sfilmseemedtoquestiondocumentaryfilm

ethics,butTylerarguesthatitwasexploitativeandaffirmedhomosexualstereotypes.Tyler

writes,“PortraitofJasonprovidesaclimaxfortheUndergroundfilmcameraasamorally

sanctioned,altogetherself-righteousvoyeurwhosefindingsaremeantforpublic

consumption.108ClarkeusedTyler’sdescriptionforpromotion,buthiscommentisa

critiqueoftheunderground’sattemptstomaskitsvoyeuristicqualitieswithethical

purpose.Tylercontinuesbyfocusingonthefilm’sexhibitionistaspects:“Thefactremains

thatthetruecachetofPortraitofJasonisthatitportraysareal-lifeindividualwhoiswilling

toadmitpubliclyeverythingwhich(especiallyinthecaseofahomosexual)ithasbeen

consideredsociallydesirabletokeepsecret.”109Tyleradvocatedhonestrepresentationsof

homosexuality,buttheperformativenatureofPortraitofJasonandexploitativefocuson

Jason’spastasan“errand”boywasintendedforthevoyeuristicdesireoftheaudience.At

worst,Jason’sperformanceaffirmednotionsofhomosexualsasdeviant.Jason’smarginal

identityprovidedsomeglimpseofanidentityabsentinmainstreamcinema,buttheethical

108Tyler,UndergroundFilm,40.109Ibid,39.

163

questionssurroundingClark’srepresentationofJasonattenuatedwhateverprogressive

potentialthefilmpossessed.

Conclusion

In1958,filmmakerStanBrakhagewrotetoTyler,“Iunderstoodthatitwasprecisely

becauseyouareanartist…thatyoucouldaccomplishthesegreatfeatsinaesthetic

criticism.”110DespitehisinfluenceonAmericanexperimentalcinema,Tyler,whodiedin

1974,neverachievedtherecognitionofhiscontemporaries,JonasMekasandPaulineKael.

TylerwrotefornichepublicationswhileKaelreachedthousandsofreadersthroughthe

NewYorker.Tyler’srepeatedcriticismofundergroundcinemaalsoensuredthathe

remainedonthefringesofthecommunitythatsupportedexperimentalcinema,andhis

critiquesofheteronormativityalongsidehisrefusaltosupportliberalpoliticalmovements

engenderedoppositiononbothsidesofthepoliticalspectrum.However,Tyler’sradical

alteritywasessentialtohisqueercriticismthatrejectedthemainstreamwhileexposing

thehypocrisies,contradictions,andambivalencethatcharacterizedtheunderground’s

sexualpolitics,andhisqueercriticismchallengedthecinema’ssupportofheterosexuality.

Tyler’sinterestinAmericanexperimentalcinemadidnotendwiththepublication

ofUndergroundFilm,andheplannedafollow-upthatwasneverpublished.Tylerexplains

hisintentionbehindthebook,whichhadtheproposedtitle,“PioneeringtheUnderground/

StudiesofFilmsandFilm-makers1958-68,”inalettertoaneditoratAtheneum:“The

distinctionbetweenthisandtheGrovebookisquitesimple:theAtheneumbookwouldbe

historyfromtheinside,personal,documentary,interpretive;theGroveBook,historyin

110CorrespondencefromStanBrakhagetoParkerTyler,25May1958,3,Container6.7,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.

164

general,impersonalperspective,long-range,critical.”111Asproposed,thebookoverlaps

withMekas’coverageoftheNewAmericanCinemainhis“MovieJournal”columns(1959-

71),butTyler’sillhealthandcommitmenttohislastbook,TheShadowofanAirplane

ClimbstheEmpireStateBuilding,whichambitiouslyconsidereda“worldtheoryoffilm,”

preventedhimfromfinishingafollow-up

However,UndergroundFilmwassuccessfulenoughtowarrantasecondprintingby

PenguinPress,andTylerwroteadditionalmaterial.112Intherevised1972edition,Tyler

addedconsiderationsofElTopo(1970),amidnightmoviedirectedbyMexicandirector

AlejandroJodorowskythatwasanexperimentalWestern,andKubrick’sAClockwork

Orange(1971).Intermsofproduction,bothfeature-lengthfilmsweremoreexpensivethan

thelow-budgetundergroundcinemaTylerhadconsideredinthefirstedition.AsTyler

explains,“Veryfewfilmshavecomeonthescenesince1969whichmightbeadded…very

few,thatis,whichareradicalandinventiveenoughtoclearlybelongtotheavant-gardeas

carriedforwardbyUndergroundFilm.Todayweareinthemidstofnewvogue,the

borderlinefilm,ortheunderground-conscious-of-being-overground.113Here,asTyler

argues,undergroundcinemaofthe1960shadbecomethe“borderline”cinemaofthe

1970s.This“borderline”cinema,whichreceivedsubstantialcapitalinvestment,used

formalinnovationalongsidegraphicsexandviolencetoappealtoamainstreamaudience,

but,inmanyways,the“borderline”filmrepresentedthefulfillmentoftheunderground’s

mainstreamambition.Yet,Tyler’squeercriticism,whichwasoftenmoreradicalthanthe

111CorrespondencefromParkerTylertoZenowhich,221December1968,Container5.6,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.112TheDaCapoPresspublicationfrom1995currentlyinprintisare-publicationofTyler’sfirstversionthataddshis1972prefacefromthePenguinedition.113“Note”onNewCopy,RevisedtextforPenguinedition,1July1974,Container37.4,ParkerTylerCollection,TheHarryRansomCenter,UniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.

165

experimentalcinemaitanalyzed,challengednormativeAmericanvaluesthataffirmedthe

culturaldominanceofheterosexualitywhileinitiatingagreaterfocusonmarginal

identities.WhileTyler’speerslikeRenansimplyremarkedupontheundergroundcinema’s

representationsofsexualdifference,andMekasuncriticallycelebratedqueeraspectsofthe

NewAmericanCinemaforpromotionalpurposes,Tylerchallengedaputativelyradical

cinemathatusedsexualdifferenceforexploitativepurposes,anticipatingcontemporary

queeralternativeandacademiccriticismthatusesanalysisofthecinematoquestion

Americansocialandsexualvalues.

166

Conclusion

PopularCultureisPoliticalCulture:TheLegacyofCriticsoftheNewAmericanCinema

IntheirrespectivecritiquesofNewAmericanCinema,PaulineKael,JonasMekas,

andParkerTylerdemonstratedthefilmcritic’sauthorityinshapingreceptionofthe

Americancinemabychallengingpopularcriticismthatsupportedboththefilmindustry

and“highbrow”intellectualcriticismthatdismissedcinemaaslowculture.Theircritiques

alsocounteredMarxistargumentsthatpopularculturesuchascinemasupportedthe

analyzingAmericansocialvalues,andthishelpedAmericansrecognizethevalueof

marginalindependentandexperimentalcinema.Mekasattemptedtointegrate

experimentalcinemaintomainstreampopularculture,andTylerhelpedreaders

appreciatethiscinemawithinahistoricaltradition.PaulineKaelprimarilyreviewed

mainstreamcinemawhilesheprovidedaseriousreceptionofHollywoodthat

demonstratedAmericanpopularculture’sabilitytoengagewithsocialissuesandexhibit

formalinnovation.Finally,Kael,Mekas,andTyler’scritiquesaccountedfortheindustrial

andculturalchangesthatproducedtheNewAmericanCinema;theirfilmwriting

challengedperceiveddistinctionsbetween“high”and“low”culture,popularcultureand

fineart,andmainstreamandmarginalculture.

TheindustrialandculturalchangesthataffectedHollywoodinpostwarAmerica

fundamentallychangedreceptionofAmericancinemabyprovidingfilmcriticsagreater

opportunitytoinfluencereception.Hollywoodhadcontrollednearlyeveryfacetofthe

Americancinemasincethe1930s,butthepostwardissolutionofthestudiosystemandthe

filmindustry’seconomicdifficultiescreatedthespacenecessaryfornewkindsofreception.

167

AsAmericanaudiencesconsumedtheindependent,experimental,and“New”Hollywood

cinemathatconstitutedtheNewAmericanCinema,theylookedtofilmcritics,working

outsideofthefilmindustry,foranalysisandinterpretationofcinemathatchallengedtheir

expectationsofAmericanfilmmaking.JonasMekasandParkerTyler,whowrotefor

alternativeartsandculturepublicationsbasedinNewYork,andPaulineKael,whowrote

fortheNewYorker,appealedtoreadersinterestedinanalyticalfilmwritingthatdidmore

thansimplypromoteHollywood’snewestrelease.ReaderslookedtoKael,Mekas,andTyler

toexplaintheNewAmericanCinema’sformalandsocialaspects,buteducatedreaders

appreciatedtheiranalysisoftheAmericancinemathatmovedfilmcriticismbeyond

“consumer’sguide”reviewsthatappearedinnewspapers.

AsthesecriticsprovidedamoreseriousreceptionofcontemporaryU.S.cinema,

theyinsertedpoliticalandsocialanalysisintofilmcriticismthatindustry-supported

publicationswouldhaveresisted.PaulineKaelanalyzedHollywood’srepresentationsof

gender,sexuality,andviolence,andshepopularizedfilmwritingthatanalyzedsocial

issues.JonasMekasandParkerTylerreceivedtransgressiveexperimentalandindependent

cinemaandrecognizedhowthiscinemachallengedHollywood’sindustrialorthodoxy,

aestheticconventions,andsupportofdominantAmericanvalues.Mekasalsocelebrated

experimentalNewAmericanCinemaforconfrontingAmericanvaluesofsocialconformity

andcapitalistconsumption,andhearguedthatalternativecinemacouldbecomeanagent

ofculturalreformation.Mekas’criticismcelebratedtheNewAmericanCinema’s

transgressivequalitiesforpromotionalpurposes,butParkerTylerpioneeredaradical,

subculturalcriticismthatanticipatedthequeerandfeministcriticismtofollow.Inhis

criticismoftheNewAmericanCinema,Tylerevaluatedthecinema’ssexualpoliticsby

168

analyzingtheunderground’sappropriationsofqueeraestheticsandattemptstoappealtoa

mainstreamaudiencethroughanexploitativerepresentationsofsex.Consequently,Tyler’s

criticism,whichappearedinmagazinesandjournalsduringaperiodoframpant

homophobia,shouldberecognizedasanimportantinfluenceonqueeracademicand

popularreceptionthatcritiquesthedominantsexualvaluesencodedintheAmerican

cinema.

InchampioningalternativeAmericanexperimentalandindependentcinema,these

threecriticsinitiatedanincreasedacceptanceandrecognitionofmarginalAmerican

cinemas.IndustrialchangeshadcreatedthespacenecessaryforalternativestoHollywood,

butindependentandexperimentalcinemastillneededaseriousreceptionandmade

audiencesawareofitsaestheticandculturalvalue.Mekasplayedanessentialrolein

promotingexperimentalcinema,andhehelpedpopularizecinemathatchallenged

Americanexpectationsofthecinema’saestheticandsocialcharacteristics.Hispromotional

criticismalsoconsideredthiscinemainaccessibleculturaltermsthathisreaders,whomay

havebeennewtofilmappreciationandcouldnotnecessarilyappreciateformalanalysis,

couldunderstandandappreciate.IncontrasttoMekas,ParkerTylerprovidedan

evaluativeassessmentofexperimentalcinema,buthiscriticismtookthiscinemaseriously

asanaspectofAmericanculturethatrequiredintellectualanalysis.Tylerdemonstrated

thateventhemostmarginalcinemaattentionandrecognition,andhisseriousengagement

with“trash”cinema,producedbyJackSmithorAndyWarhol,anticipatedthelatercritical

receptionoffilmmakerslikeJohnWaters,whoappropriated“low”cinemaforqueerand

subculturalpurposes.Increatingacriticalreceptionofcinemathatexistedwelloutsideof

Hollywoodandthemainstream,MekasandTylerdemonstratedthevalueofalternative

169

cinemafromthe“margins,”andtherebyanticipatedtoday’sreceptionorientedaround

specificgenres,directors,andsubcultures.

Finally,thesecriticsusedtheirreviewsoftheNewAmericanCinematochallenge

distinctionsbetween“high”and“low”culturethathaddominatedAmericanpopular

culturefordecades.PaulineKaelcelebratedHollywoodaspopularcultureandpopulistart,

andhercriticismexplainedhowAmericanpopularculturecouldengagewithsocialissues

anddemonstrateformalinnovation.Kael’slongformcriticismalsoprovidedaserious

receptionofHollywoodthathasinfluencedsubsequentgenerationsofcriticsandwriters,

whoprovidecriticalanalysisofmainstreampopularculture.Mekas’attemptstopopularize

experimentalcinemachallengeddistinctionsbetweenartandpopularcultureby

positioningseriousfilmmakerslikeStanBrakhagealongsidejazz,Beatliterature,and

popularculturelikeHollywoodcinema,andMekascelebratedtheAmericanCinemain

culturaltermsorientedaroundarejectionofmainstreamvalues.ParkerTyler’searly-

careeranalysisofHollywoodused“high”modernistcriticismtoanalyze“low”commercial

cinema,buthiscriticismofthe“underground”recognizedhowAmericanexperimental

cinemarecontextualized“low”culturethroughcampandpasticheandrespondedto

changesinAmericansocietybyincorporatingaestheticelementsofthecounterculture.

AlthoughTylerwashighlycriticaloftheunderground’srelationshiptothecounterculture

andcritiquedundergroundfilmmakers’useofqueeraesthetics,herecognizedhowthis

cinemarepresentedabroaderdialoguebetweenpopularcultureandmarginalartistic

productionlikeexperimentalcinema.

PaulineKael,JonasMekas,andParkerTyler’srespectivecritiquesoftheNew

AmericanCinemaalsodemonstratedfilmwriting’ssocialandpoliticalvalue.Byusingfilm

170

writingtoquestionaspectsofAmericanidentityintermsofclass,gender,andsexuality,

thesecriticsanticipatedfilmanalysisfocusedonidentitysuchasthequeerandfeminist

filmcriticismandreceptionfocusedonrepresentation.Inexaminingthesocialvaluesin

Hollywoodfilmorexperimentalcinema,thesecriticsarguedthatcinemawasanimportant

conduitforAmericansocialvalues.Atthesametime,ParkerTylerdemonstratedhow

alternativecinemaactuallysupportedthesocialvaluesitpurportedtochallenge.Mekas'

criticismlikewiserevealedhowalternativereceptioncouldreinforcetraditionalgender

roles.AlthoughPaulineKaelwasthemostpoliticallyconservativeofthethreecritics,she

questionedclass-basedhierarchiesrelatedto“taste”andwasapioneeringfigureinamale-

dominatedprofession.Intheend,PaulineKael,JonasMekas,andParkerTyler’sinfluenceis

apparentincriticismandcriticalreceptionofAmericanexperimental,independent,and

Hollywoodcinemathatconsidersthiscinemainpoliticaltermsandvaluesitasanartform.

America’sCulturalCapital

Today’scriticalreceptionhasbeenchangedbytheriseofdigitalmediatechnologies

andthedeclineofprint-basedpublications.Forumsforfilmcriticismwithsignificant

resourcesandreadershipshavesuccessfullyadaptedtoachangingmedialandscape,but

magazinesliketheVillageVoice,whichceasedpublicationin2018,haveshutdowndueto

economicpressureandcompetitionfromtheInternet.But,inthe1960s,NewYorkCity-

basedpublicationswithnationalreadershipsdeterminedwhatAmericanculturemattered.

Asaresult,theyprovidedPaulineKael,JonasMekas,andParkerTyler,eachofwhomwrote

forinfluentialpublicationsbasedinthecity,authorityinaperiodwhenAmericans

respectedprintjournalism.NewYorkCitywasthecenterofAmericanartandculturedue

toitsvastinfrastructureofmuseums,performancespaces,theatres,andpublishinghouses

171

andwashometoprominentAmericanwriters,artists,andintellectuals.TheNewYorker,

VillageVoice,andEvergreenReviewwerebasedinNewYorkCity,andthesepublications

representedthecity’sculturetoreadersthroughouttheUnitedStates.

ThefilmwritingthatappearedinthesepublicationsassociatedcinemawithNew

YorkCity’sarts,culture,andpolitics.TheNewYorkerrepresenteduptownsophisticationby

focusingonfineartsliketheatre,opera,dance,andliterature,andKael’sfilmwritinginthe

magazineassociatedcinemawith“high”NewYorkculture.IncontrasttotheNewYorker’s

uptownfocus,theVillageVoiceandtheEvergreenReview,whichpublishedTyler’sfilm

criticism,representeddowntownNewYorkculture.Bothpublicationscoveredimportant

Americanartandconsideredcinemaaspartofthecity’scounterculture.TheVillageVoice

representedGreenwichVillage,which,inthe1960s,washometoBeatliterature,thefolk

revival,andavibrantqueercommunity,andthemagazineconsideredcinemaanimportant

expressionoftheVillage’scultureandpolitics.TheEvergreenReviewalsoplacedcinemain

auniquecontextbyplacingfilmwritingalongsidefictionfromNewYorkwritersWilliam

Burroughs,NormanMailer,andHenryMiller.Finally,publicationsrepresentedNewYork

Citybecauseofitswriters,wholivedinthecityandwereinvolvedinthearts.ParkerTyler,

wholivedon15CharlesStreetinGreenwichVillage,foregroundedthisidentityinhisfilm

writingbyreferencingNewYorktheater,artsexhibitions,andculturalevents,aswellas

GreenwichVillage’squeercommunity.

ByassociatingKael,Tyler,andMekas’filmwritingwithNewYorkCity’scultural

authority,theNewYorker,theVillageVoice,andtheEvergreenReviewprovidedthese

criticstheneededauthoritytoinfluenceAmericanreaders’perceptionsofthecinema.

Kael’sreviewsoftheNewHollywoodprovidedthiscinemaasenseofsophisticationthat

172

readersassociatedwiththeNewYorker,andthecounterculturepoliticsoftheVillageVoice

andEvergreenReviewhelpedlegitimizeMekas’andTyler’scritiquesofmiddle-classand

suburbansocialvalues.Itisalsoimportanttorememberwhatthegeographiesofprint

publicationsignifiedinanerabeforedigitaltechnologiesderacinatedAmericanjournalism.

NewYorkCityheldanimportantpositioninAmericanculture,andpublicationsthat

representedthecity’scultureprovidedagatekeepingfunctioningbyindicatingwhat

culturematteredtoreadersacrossthecountry.TheNewYork-basedmagazinesthat

publishedKael,Tyler,andMekasinthe1960sassociatedtheirfilmwritingwithNew

York’sculturalauthorityandprovidedthecinematheywroteaboutadistinctsenseof

urbansophistication.

APoliticalCriticism

TheNewYorker,VillageVoice,andEvergreenReviewallowedKael,Mekas,andTyler

toinserttheirownpoliticalsensibilitiesintofilmwritingthroughtheirexaminationsof

Americansocialvaluesandidentity.AlthoughKael,Mekas,andTylerunderstoodidentity

intheirownways,andwerewritinginaperiodbeforewritersprovided“intersectional”

analysis,theymadeAmericanfilmwritingandcriticismpoliticalinwaysthatanticipate

contemporaryfilmanalysisinfluencedbyidentitypolitics.Yet,eachcritic’sfocuson

identitywasalsomotivatedbytheirownbackgroundsandlifeexperiences.Kael,whogrew

upinaworking-classfamilyinruralCaliforniaandstruggledeconomicallyforyearsasa

singlemother,broughtaneededawarenessofsocialclasstoherfilmwritingthat

challengedelitistculturalhierarchies.Asaconsequence,shewasacutelyawareofhow

Americansocialclasswasrepresentedon-screen,andthisshechallengedtheclass

blindnessofelitecritics,whowerethebeneficiariesofupper-classbackgrounds.Kael’s

173

challengestoelitistculturalhierarchiesanddefenseofpopularculturealsoanticipatesthe

seriousreceptionthatAmericanpopularcultureliketelevisionorvideogames,which

intellectualshavedismissed,nowreceives.

UnlikeKael,JonasMekasandParkerTylerusedfilmwritingexplicitlytochallenge

mainstreamsocialvalues.Mekasunderstoodthatchallengingmiddle-classvaluesofsocial

conformityandconsumptionwouldappealtoayouthreadershipthatwantedtosignal

theirrebellion.Mekaswasnotthefirstculturalcritictounderstandtheappealofcritiquing

socialnorms,butherecognizedthatchallengingAmericanmiddle-classvalueswould

appealtoadisaffectedsuburbanites.Mekas’challengestothestatusquoalsoprovidedhim

animportantidentityasacritic.ByconnectinghisfilmcriticismandpromotionoftheNew

AmericanCinemawithbroadersocialandpoliticalchallenges,Mekasalignedhimselfwith

the1960scounterculture,whichmadehiscriticismappealingtoyoungerreaderswhomay

nothavetrustedtheopinionsofamiddle-ageLithuanianimmigrant.IncontrasttoMekas,

Tyler’sfilmwritingwasnotpromotionalandrepresentsagenuinechallengetoAmerican

socialandsexualvalues.Tylerwasopenlygayinahomophobicculture,andheusedfilm

writingtochallengeasocietythatviewedhomosexualityasdeviant.Beyondthis,Tyler’s

filmwritingmadequeeridentityvisibleinaperiodwhereitwasoftenhidden,and,inthis

sense,hiscriticismreflectsthepoliticsoftheemergentgayliberationmovement.

ContemporaryreceptionthatfocusesonidentityortheAmericancinema’spolitical

importowesadebttothepioneeringcriticismofKael,Mekas,andTyler.Contemporary

filmwriters,whetherwritingfortraditionaljournalisticoutletsliketheNewYorkTimesor

websitesthatprovideculturalanalysisliketheA.V.Club,areespeciallyawareofhow

Americanidentityisrepresentedincinema.Thisfocusisinfluencedbycontemporary

174

identitypolitics,butKael,Mekas,andTyler’sfilmwritingprovidesanearlymodeloffilm

writingandcriticismthatwantbeyondconsumerguidereviewsorafocusonaesthetics.

Kael,Mekas,andTylerexaminedhowAmericanidentitywasreflectedthroughbroader

socialissues,whetheritwasKael’sfocusontherelationshipbetweenclassandtaste,

Mekas’critiqueoftherelationshipbetweenmasculinityandcapitalistconsumption,or

Tyler’sanalysisoftherelationshipbetweensexualityandaesthetics.Thepoliticalconcerns

ofthesecriticswererootedinrespectiveidentitiestovariousdegrees,buttheypavedthe

wayforfilmreceptionthatconsidersthecinemaaconduitforthesocialvaluesthatdefines

whatitmeanstobeanAmerican.

TheFilmGeneration

Kael,Tyler,andMekaswerelikelyunawaretheywerechangingAmericanculture,

buttheyplayedafundamentalroleincompellingAmericanstovaluethecinemaasartand

culture.ByputtingthesecriticsindialoguetoconsiderthefullscopeoftheNewAmerican

Cinema,itiscleartheuniquemomentinAmericanfilmhistorythiscinemarepresents.In

the1960s,Americansembracedcinemaasanartform,andfilmmakersrespondedwitha

decadeofinnovativeindependent,experimental,andHollywoodcinema.Kael,Mekas,and

TylergavevoicetoAmericans’newfoundappreciationofthecinemaandhelpedreaders

understandanimportantperiodoffilmproduction,buttheywerefollowingtheirown

intellectual,cultural,andaestheticinterests.Butincarefullyreadingtheirreviews,essays,

books,andconsideringthemasadialogue,itisclearthesecriticsprovidedthereception

theNewAmericanCinemaneededtochangeAmericanfilmculture.Seriouscinemathat

exploredsocialthemesanddemonstratedformalinnovationneededanequallyserious

reception.Indemonstratingthecinema’ssocialandartisticvalue,Kael,Mekas,andTyler

175

metthechallengeposedbyAmericanfilmmakersofthe1960s,andtheycreatedthe

receptiontheNewAmericanCinemarequired.

ThevalueofKael,Tyler,andMekas’filmwritingtofilmculturecanalsobeassessed

byconsideringhowthecinemahaschangedintheirwake.Filmmakerscontinuetoproduce

innovativecinema,butbig-budgetgenrefilmsdominateAmericantheatresasHollywood

providesaudiencesfeweroptions.Oneconsequenceofthecompletedominanceofthe

blockbuster–whichhasbeenascendantsincethemid-1970s–isthatfilmcriticshavelost

theauthorityandinfluencethatKael,Mekas,andTyleroncepossessed.Insomesense,the

NewAmericanCinemaalsorepresentsanaberrationinAmericanfilmhistory:Americans

inthe1960suniquelyvaluedthecinemaasartandculture.However,thekindofserious

filmmakingKael,Mekas,andTylerpreferredhasnotentirelydisappeared.Independent

theatresstillscreenchallengingnon-commercialcinema,andAmericanscontinuetowatch

anddiscoverthefilmmakingthatconstitutestheNewAmericanCinema.Americansalso

continuetoreadintellectualfilmwritingthatconsiderscinemaasartoranalyzesits

politicalmeaning.WritersManohlaDargisorRichardBrodyanalyzecinema’saesthetic

value,andpoliticalanalysisofthecinematermsofgender,race,orclassiscommontothe

pointwhere“political”filmcriticismnowreceivesbacklash.1Butintoday’satomizedmedia

landscapeitisunlikelycriticscancommandtheinfluenceandauthoritytofundamentally

changehowAmericansthinkaboutthecinema.Intheend,thefilmwritingofPaulineKael,

JonasMekas,andParkerTylerrepresentsauniquemomentinAmericanfilmhistory

1See:JessaCrispin,“Ispoliticsgettinginthewayofassessingwhetherfilmsareactuallygood?”TheGuardian,Jan.13,2020.

176

definedbytheconfluenceofinnovativecinemaandseriousreceptionthatcreateda“film

generation,”whoparticularlyappreciatedthecinema’scultural,social,andaestheticvalue.

177

Bibliography

Primary“AReligionofFilm.”TimeMagazine,Sept.20,1963.Brackman,Jacob.“TheGraduate,”NewYorker,July27,1968.“CinemaUnderground,”NewYorker,July13,1963.Crowther,Bosley.“Run,BonnieandClyde.”NewYorkTimes,September3,1967.“TheFirstStatementoftheNewAmericanCinemaGroup.”InFilmCultureReader,editedby P.AdamsSitney,79-83.NewYork:Praeger,1970.Gilliatt,Penelope.“TheCurrentCinema:TheParty.”NewYorker,August19,1967.Kael,Pauline.“BonnieandClyde.”NewYorker,Oct.21,1967.------.“BlessedProfanity.”InDeeperIntotheMovies,92-6.Boston:Little,Brownand Co.,1973.------.“Coming:‘Nashville.’”InReeling,591-99.NewYork:WarnerBooks, 1976.------.“Contrasts.”InWhentheLightsGoDown,291-98.NewYork:Holt,Rinehartand

Winston,1980.------.“TheCurrentCinema:SugarlandandBadlands.”NewYorker,March18,1974.------.‘TheCurrentCinema:Tango.”NewYorker,October28,1972.------.“TheCurrentCinema:UndergroundMan,”NewYorker,Feb.9,1976.------.“EverydayInferno.”InReeling,235-43.NewYork:WarnerBooks, 1976.------.“FearofMovies.”InWhenTheLightsGoDown,427-40.NewYork:Holt,Rhinehartand Winston,1980.------.ForewordtoReeling,13-17.NewYork:WarnerBooks,1976.------.“HighSchoolandOtherFormsofMadness.”InDeeperIntotheMovies,19-25.Boston: Little,BrownandCo.,1973.

178

------.ILostitattheMovies.Boston:LittleBrownandCo.,1965.------.“AMinorityMovie.”InGoingSteady,76-84.Boston:Little,BrownandCo., 1968.------.“Movieland–TheBum’sParadise.”InReeling,253-262.NewYork:WarnerBooks, 1976.------.“MoviesonTelevision.”NewYorker,June3,1967.------.“NotesonEvolvingHeroes,Morals,Audiences.”InWhentheLightsGoDown,195-203. NewYork:Holt,RinehartandWinston,1980.------.“OntheFutureofMovies,”NewYorker,Aug.5,1974.------.“PipeDream.”InDeeperIntotheMovies,277-85.Boston:Little,Brownand Co.,1973.------.“StanleyStrangelove.”InDeeperIntotheMovies,373-78.Boston:Little,Brownand Co.,1973.------.“Trash,Art,andtheMovies.”InGoingSteady,85-129.Boston:Little,BrownandCo, 1968.Mekas,Jonas.“April23,1964,ONLAW,MORALITY,ANDCENSORSHIP.”InMovieJournal:

TheRiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,1959-71,132-36.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.

------.April24,1969,ONTHECHANGINGNATUREOFAVANT-GARDEFILMSCREENINGS.”

InMovieJournal:TheRiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,1959-71,342-43.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.

------.“August1,1968,”ONERNIEGEHRANDTHE‘PLOTLESSCINEMA.’InMovieJournal:

TheRiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,1959-71,314-16.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.

------.“August8,1963,CHANGINGTECHNIQUEOFCINEMA.”InMovieJournal:The RiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,1959-71,91-93.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.------.“December1,1966,ONROBERTDOWNEYANDCHAFEDELBOWS.”InMovieJournal:

TheRiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,1959-71,263.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.------.“December9,1965,THENEEDFORNARRATIVEANDNONNARRATIVE

EXPRESSIONSINTHEARTS.”InMovieJournal,TheRiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,218-19.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.

179

------.“December18,1969,UNDERGROUNDFILMACCORDINGTOPARKER TYLER.”InMovieJournal,TheRiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,362-64.NewYork: CollierBooks,1972.------.“December21,1967,ONHOWTHEUNDERGROUNDFOOLEDHOLLYWOOD.”In

MovieJournal,TheRiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,301-2.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.

------.“TheDiaryFilm.”InTheAvant-GardeFilm:AReaderofTheoryandCriticism,editedP. AdamsSitney,190-98.NewYork:NewYorkUP,1978.------.“TheExperimentalFilminAmerica.”InFilmCultureReader,editedP.Adams

Sitney,21-7.NewYork:Praeger,1970.------.“February6,1969,ONGEORGEKUCHAR.”InMovieJournal,TheRiseoftheNew AmericanCinema,334-35.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.------.“February10,1960,ONHOMOSEXUALITYANDFRIENDSHIP.”InMovieJournal,The RiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,11-12.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.------.“February10,1970,INDEFENSEOFZABRISKIEPOINT(1).”InMovieJournal,The RiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,371-72.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.------.“February20,1964,ONTHEMYSTERYOFTHELOW-BUDGET‘ART’FILM.”InMovie

Journal,TheRiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,120-21.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.

------.“February25,1959,MAYADERENANDTHEFILMPOEM.”InMovieJournal,TheRise oftheNewAmericanCinema,1-3.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.------.“February28,1963,ONIMMEDIATESEEING.”InMovieJournal,TheRiseoftheNew AmericanCinema,78-9.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.------.“January25,1962,THECHANGINGLANGUAGEOFCINEMA.”InMovieJournal,The RiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,48-50.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.------.“July17,1969,ONARTANDPOLITICS,OR‘THEAUTEURTHEORY,’1969.”InMovie

Journal,TheRiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,351-52.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.

------.“July23,1970,JACKSMITH,ORTHEENDOFCIVILIZATION.”InMovieJournal,The RiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,388-97.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972. ------.“July25,1963,ONWOMENINCINEMA.”InMovieJournal,TheRiseofthe NewAmericanCinema,89-90.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.

180

------.“July25,1963,WHYWEAREN’TANGRYYOUNGMEN.”InMovieJournal,TheRiseof TheNewAmericanCinema,88-90.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.------.“June16,1966,MOREONSTROBELIGHTANDINTERMEDIA.”InMovieJournal,The RiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,244-47.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.------.“June23,1966,ONTHETACTILEINTERACTIONSINCINEMA,ORCREATIONWITH

YOURTOTALBODY.”InMovieJournal,TheRiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,247-50.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.

------.“June28,1962,ONFILMCRITICISMANDMYSELF.”InMovieJournal,TheRiseofthe NewAmericanCinema,62.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.------.“March2,1961,ONIMPROVISATIONANDSPONTANEITY.”InMovieJournal,TheRise oftheNewAmericanCinema,26-9.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.------.“March11,1965,MOREONTHEIRRESPONSIBLITYOFNEWYORKFILM

REVIEWERS.”InMovieJournal,TheRiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,179-80.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.

------.“May13,1965,ONFLY-BY-NIGHTFELLOWS,ORHOWTHEUNDERGROUNDFILM ISINVADINGTHEBEAUTIFULAMERICANHOME.”InMovieJournal,TheRise oftheNewAmericanCinema,186-88.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.------.“May2,1963,ONTHEBAUDELAIREANCINEMA.”InMovieJournal,TheRise oftheNewAmericanCinema,85-6.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.------.“May2,1963,THEIRRESPONSIBILITYOFMYCOLLEAGUEFILMCRITICS.”InMovie Journal,TheRiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,84-5.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.------.“May10,1962,ONFILMCRITICISM.”InMovieJournal,TheRiseoftheNewAmerican Cinema,59.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.------.“May29,1969,”MOREONFORM,STRUCTURE,ANDPROPORTION.”InMovieJournal, TheRiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,346-48.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.------.“NotesontheNewAmericanCinema”inFilmCultureReader,editedP.AdamsSitney 87-107.NewYork:Praeger,1970.------.November7,1960,ONFEMININESENSIBILITIES.”InMovieJournal,TheRiseofthe NewAmericanCinema,21.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.------.“November7,1963,ONMONEY.”InMovieJournal,TheRiseoftheNewAmerican Cinema,105-7.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.

181

------.“November7,1968.“WHYWESHOULDTHROWBRICKSATFILMCRITICS.”InMovieJournal,TheRiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,323-24.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.

------.“November9,1967,SHOULDTHEARTISTSCRUMBLEWHENTIMESCHANGE?”In

MovieJournal,TheRiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,296-97.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.

------.“November16,1970,LONGLIVECLIQUESINART.”InMovieJournal,TheRiseof theNewAmericanCinema,405.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.------.“November18,1959,PULLMYDAISYANDTHETRUTHOFCINEMA.”InMovieJournal, TheRiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,5-6.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.------.“October16,1961,ONSTANBRAKHAGE.”InMovieJournal,TheRiseoftheNew AmericanCinema,34-6.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.------.September16,1965,THENEWYORKFILMFESTIVALASANENEMYOFTHENEW

CINEMA.”InMovieJournal,TheRiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,203-4.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.

------.“September26,1968,ONTVMONITORSANDPUBLICOFFICES.”InMovieJournal,The RiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,323.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.------.“September23,1965,WHATPUALINEKAELLOSTATTHEMOVIES,ANDWHYTHE

NEWYORKFILMFESTIVALDOESN’TINDICATETHEREALSTATEOFCINEMA.”InMovieJournal,TheRiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,205-6.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.

------.“September27,1962,ABOUTTHECHANGINGFRONTIERSOFCINEMA.”InMovie

Journal,TheRiseoftheNewAmericanCinema,67-9.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.------.“September.29,1966,ONTHECHELSEAGIRLS.”InMovieJournal,TheRiseoftheNew AmericanCinema,254-57.NewYork:CollierBooks,1972.ParkerTylerCollection.TheHarryRansomCenter,TheUniversityofTexas,Austin,Texas.PaulineKaelArchive.LillyLibrary,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington,Indiana.Tyler,Parker.“AnAmericanTheatreMotif:ThePsychodrama.”TheAmericanQuarterly,Vol 15,No.1,Part15(Summer1963):140-51.------.“DoTheyorDon’tThey?WhyitMattersSoMuch,”No.78,May1970.InFromthe

ThirdEye:TheEvergreenReviewFilmReader,editedbyEdHalterandBarneyRosset,177-8.NewYork:SevenStoriesPress,2018.

182

------.,“DragtimeandDrugtime;or,FilmàlaWarhol,”No.46,April1967.InFromtheThirdEye:TheEvergreenReviewFilmReader,editedbyEdHalterandBarneyRosset,46-52.NewYork:SevenStoriesPress,2018.

------.“ForShadows,AgainstPullMyDaisy.”InFilmCultureReader,editedP.Adams Sitney,108-18.NewYork:Praeger,1970.------.TheHollywoodHallucination.NewYork:CreativeAgePress,1944.------.“IsFilmCriticismOnlyPropaganda.”InTheNewAmericanCinema:ACritical Anthology,editedbyGregoryBattcock,64-74.NewYork:E.P.DuttonCo,1967.------.“HollywoodastheUniversalChurch.”TheAmericanQuarterly,Vol.2,No.2(Summer 1950):165-76.------.MagicandMythoftheMovies.NewYork:HenryHoltandCo.,1947.------.“OrsonWellesandtheBigExperimentalFilmCult.”InFilmCultureReader,editedby P.AdamsSitney,376-86.NewYork:Praeger,1970.------.ScreeningtheSexes:HomosexualityintheMovies.NewYork:Holt,Rinehartand Winston,1972.------.Sex,Psyche,Etcetera.NewYork:HorizonPress,1971.------.“ThoseHomophileHusbands,”No.91,July1971.InFromtheThirdEye:TheEvergreen

ReviewFilmReader,editedbyEdHalterandBarneyRosset,272-77.NewYork:SevenStoriesPress,2018.

------.TheThreeFacesoftheFilm:TheArt,TheDream,andTheCult.NewYork:A.S.Barnes, 1960.------.UndergroundFilm:ACriticalHistory.NewYork:DaCapoPress,1995.SecondaryArthur,Paul.“RoutesofEmancipation:AlternativeCinemaintheIdeologyandPoliticsof

theSixties.”InToFreetheCinema:JonasMekasandtheNewYorkUnderground,editedbyDavidJames,17-48.Princeton:PrincetonUP,1992.

Anderson,Christopher.HollywoodTV:TheStudioSystemintheFifties.Austin:The UniversityofTexasPress,1994.Balio,Tino.TheForeignFilmRenaissanceonAmericanScreens,1946-1973.Madison:The UniversityofWisconsinPress,2010.

183

Battcock,Gregory.IntroductiontoTheNewAmericanCinema:ACriticalAnthology,12-14. EditedbyGregoryBattcock.NewYork:E.P.DuttonCo,1967.Benjamin,Walter.“TheWorkofArtintheAgeofMechanicalReproduction.“IninThe NortonAnthologyofTheoryandCriticism,SecondEdition,editedbyVincentB.Leitch,

WilliamE.Cain,etal.,1051-71.NewYork:W.W.NortonandCo.,2010.Benshoff,HarryM.andSeanGriffin,QueerImages:AHistoryofGayandLesbianFilmin American.Lanham:RowmanandLittlefieldPublishers,Inc.,2005.“BiographicalSketch.”ParkerTyler:AnInventoryofHisCollectionattheHarryRansom

Center.Accessed24September2019,https://norman.hrc.utexas.edu/fasearch/findingAid.cfm?eadid=00674

Bordwell,David.How1940sCriticsChangedAmericanFilmCulture.Chicago:TheUniversity ofChicagoPress,2016.Brakhage,Stanley.DogStarMan,1961-64,“Commentary.”ByBrakhage:AnAnthology,Vol. 1,TheCriterionCollection,2003.DVD.Caspar,Michael.“IWasThere,”TheNewYorkReviewofBooks,June7,2018. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/06/07/jonas-mekas-i-was-there/.Charters,Ann.“Introduction:VariationsonaGeneration.”InPortableBeatReader,ed.Ann

Charters,xv-xxxvi.NewYork:Penguin,1992.Corrigan,Timothy.“AuteursandtheNewHollywood.”InTheNewAmericanCinema,edited byJonLewis,38-63,Durham:DukeUP,1998.Corey,Mary.Theworldthroughamonocle:theNewYorkeratmidcentury.Cambridge: HarvardUP,1999.D’Emilio,JohnandEstelleFreedman.IntimateMatters:AHistoryofSexualityinAmerican, 2ndEdition.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1997.Doherty,Thomas.TeenagersandTeenpics:TheJuvenilizationofAmericanMoviesinthe 1950s.Philadelphia:TempleUP,2002.Ehrenreich,Barbara.HeartsofMen:AmericanDreamsandtheFlightfromCommitment. GardenCity:AnchorPress/Doubleday,1983.Friedberg,Anne.“Misconception=TheDivisionofLaborintheChildbirthFilm,”Millennium FilmJournal4-5(1979):64-70.Gaines,Jane.Pink-Slipped:WhatHappenedtoWomenintheSilentFilmIndustries.Urbana: UniversityofIllinoisPress,2018.

184

Greenberg,Clement.“Avant-GardeandKitsch.”InTheCollectedEssaysandCriticism,

Volume1:PerceptionsandJudgements,1939-44,editedbyJohnO’Brian,5-22.Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,1986.

Haberski,Raymond.It’sOnlyaMovie!FilmandCriticsinAmericanCulture.Lexington:The UniversityPressofKentucky,2001.Hebdige,Dick.Subculture:TheMeaningofStyle.NewYork:Routledge,1988.Hoberman.J.“AHistoryofFilmCriticismattheVillageVoice,”TheVillageVoiceFilmGuide:

50YearsofMoviesfromClassicstoCultHits,editedbyDennisLim,3-6.Hoboken:JohnWileyandSons,2007.

------.“Postscript:MyDebttoJonasMekas,”NewYorker,Jan.24,2019. https://www.newyorker.com/news/postscript/my-debt-to-jonas-mekas------.“WhyIcannotreviewJonasMekas’sConversationswithFilmmakers.”Lastmodified

June30,2018,http://j-hoberman.com/2018/06/why-i-cannot-review-jonas-mekass-conversations-with-film-makers/.

James,DavidE.AllegoriesofCinema:AmericanFilmintheSixties.Princeton:PrincetonUP, 1989.------.IntroductiontoToFreetheCinema:JonasMekasandtheNewYorkUnderground,3- 16EditedbyDavidJames.Princeton:PrincetonUP,1992.Jellenik,Glenn.“TheproblemofPaulineKael:aconsiderationofacademicandmainstream criticism.”PostScript,Vol.35,Issue1,September22,2015:1-7.KohnEric.“Whythis96-year-oldLegendwasOurMostImportantCinephile.”IndieWire,

Jan.23,2019.https://www.indiewire.com/2019/01/jonas-mekas-rip-cinephile-obituary-1202037652/

Krämer,Peter.“’DearMr.Kubrick’:AudienceResponsesto2001:ASpaceOdysseyinthe

late1960s.”Participations:JournalofAudienceandReceptionStudies,6,No.2(2009):240-59.

Lewis,Jon.IntroductiontoTheNewAmericanCinema,1-8.EditedbyJonLewis.Durham: DukeUP,1998.------.“MoneyMatters:HollywoodintheCorporateEra,”inTheNewAmericanCinema, editedbyJonLewis,87-121.Durham:DukeUP,1998.Lim,Dennis.IntroductiontoTheVillageVoiceFilmGuide:50YearsofMoviesfromClassicsto CultHits,1-2.EditedbyDennisLim.Hoboken:JohnWileyandSons,2007.

185

Lopate,Phillip.IntroductiontoAmericanMovieCritics:AnAnthologyfromtheSilentsUntil Now,xiii-xxvii.Editedby.PhillipLopate.NewYork:LibraryofAmerica,2008.MacDonald,Scott.“TheFilmmakerasVisionary.”FilmQuarterly,Vol.56,No.3(Spring 2003):2-11.------.IntroductiontoArtinCinema:DocumentsTowardaHistoryoftheFilm

Society,1-12.EditedbyScottMacDonaldandFrankStauffacher.Philadelphia:TempleUP,2006.

------.IntroductiontoCinema16:DocumentsTowardaHistoryoftheFilmSociety,1-35. EditedbyScottMacDonald.Philadelphia:TempleUP,2002.Meyer,Moe.“Introduction:ReclaimingthediscourseofCamp.”InThePoliticsandPoeticsof Camp,editedbyMoeMeyer,1-19.NewYork:Routledge,1994.Michelson,Annette.“FilmandRadicalAspiration.”InTheNewAmericanCinema:ACritical Anthology,editedbyGregoryBattcock,83-101.NewYork:E.P.DuttonCo,1967.Needham,Alex.“JonasMekas,titanofundergroundfilmmaking,diesat96.”TheGuardian,

Jan23,2019.https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/jan/23/jonas-mekas-titan-of-underground-filmmaking-dies-aged-96

Perrin,Tom.“OnBlustering:DwightMacdonald,ModernismandtheNewYorker.”In

WritingfortheNewYorker:CriticalEssaysonanAmericanPeriodical,editedbyFionaGreen,228-48.Edinburgh:EdinburghUP2015.

Powers,Devon.WritingtheRecord:TheVillageVoiceandtheBirthofRockCriticism. Amherst:UniversityofMassachusettsPress,2013.Rabinovitz,Lauren.PointsofResistance:Women,PowerandPoliticsintheNewYorkAvant- gardeCinema,1943-71.Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress,1991.------.“WearingtheCriticsHat:History,Discourses,andtheAmericanAvant-Garde

Cinema.”InToFreetheCinema:JonasMekasandtheNewYorkUnderground,editedbyDavidJames,268-83.Princeton:PrincetonUP,1992.

Radway,Janice.AFeelingforBooks:TheBook-oftheMonthClub,LiteraryTasteandMiddle- ClassDesire.ChapelHill:TheUniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,1997.------.ReadingtheRomance:Women,PatriarchyandPopularCulture.ChapelHill:The UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,1991.Renan,Sheldon.AnIntroductiontotheAmericanUndergroundFilm.NewYork:E.P.Dutton andCo,1967.

186

Riesman,David.TheLonelyCrowd:AStudyoftheChangingAmericanCharacter.New Haven:YaleUP,1950.Rubin,Joan.TheMakingofMiddlebrowCulture.ChapelHill:TheUniversityofNorth CarolinaPress,1992. Ruoff,JefferyK.“HomeMoviesoftheAvant-Garde:JonasMekasandtheNewYorkArt World.”CinemaJournal,Vol.30,No.3(Spring,1991):6-28.Sarris,Andrew.“NotesontheAuteurTheoryin1962.”InFilmCultureReader,editedbyP. AdamsSitney,121-35.NewYork:Praeger,1970.------.“TheIndependentCinema.”InTheNewAmericanCinema:ACriticalAnthology,edited byGregoryBattcock,51-56.NewYork:E.P.DuttonCo,1967.Schwabsy,Barry.ReplybyMichaelCaspar.“OnJonasMekas:AnExchange,”TheNewYork

ReviewofBooks,July19,2018,https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/07/19/on-jonas-mekas-an-exchange/;

Shubert,Amanda.“TheGhostofPaulineKael.”InTalkingAboutPaulineKael:Critics,Filmmakers,andScholarsRememberanIcon,editedbyWayneStengel,159-70.Lanham:RowmanandLittlefield,2015.

Sitney,P.Adams.“AReader’sGuidetotheAmericanAvant-GardeFilm.”InFilmCulture Reader,editedbyP.AdamsSitney,3-12.NewYork:PraegerPublishers,1970.------.VisionaryFilm:TheAmericanAvant-Garde,1943-1978.NewYork:Oxford UP,1979.Sontag,Susan.“Theimaginationofdisaster.”InAgainstInterpretation,209-225.NewYork: Farrar,StrausandGiroux,1966.------.“Noteson‘Camp.’”InAgainstInterpretation,275-92.NewYork:Farrar, StrausandGiroux,1966.------.“Onecultureandthenewsensibility.”InAgainstInterpretation,293-304.NewYork: Farrar.StrausandGiroux,1966.Suárez,JuanA.BikeBoys,DragQueens,andSuperstars:Avant-garde,MassCulture,andGay Identitiesinthe1960sUndergroundCinema.Bloomington,IndianaUP,1996.“StarWars:TheLastJedi.”BoxOfficeMojo.AccessedSeptember27,2019. https://bit.ly/2m5fIib.

187

Taylor,Gregory.ArtistsintheAudience:Cults,Camp,andAmericanFilmCriticism.Princeton: PrincetonUP,1999.Thornton,Sarah.ClubCultures:Music,Media,andSubculturalCapital.Middletown, WesleyanUP,1996.Wasson,Haidee.MuseumMovies:TheMuseumofModernArtandtheBirthofArtCinema. Berkeley,UniversityofCalifornia,2005.Weber,Bruce.“JonasMekas,‘GodfatherofAmericanAvant-GardeFilm,isDeadat96.New YorkTimes,January23,2019.Wilinsky,Barbara.SureSeaters:TheEmergenceofArtHouseCinema.Minneapolis: UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2001.Worland,Rick.SearchingforNewFrontiers:HollywoodFilmsinthe1960s.Hoboken:John WileyandSons,2018.Wyatt,Justin.“Marketing/DistributionInnovations.”InTheNewAmericanCinema,ed.Jon Lewis,64-86.Durham:DukeUP,1998.Youngblood,Gene.ExpandedCinema.NewYork:E.P.DuttonandCo.,Inc.,1970.SelectFilmography

2001:ASpaceOdyssey.DirectedbyStanleyKubrick.MGM,1968.

Badlands.DirectedbyTerrenceMalick.WarnerBros.,1973.

BonnieandClyde.DirectedbyArthurPenn.WarnerBros.-SevenArts,1967.

ChelseaGirls.DirectedbyAndyWarhol.FilmmakersDistributionCenter,1966.

Chumlum.DirectedbyRonRice.1964.

AClockworkOrange.DirectedbyStanleyKubrick.WarnerBros.,1971.

TheConnection.DirectedbyShirleyClarke.1961.

TheCoolWorld.DirectedbyShirleyClarke.WisemanFilmProductions,1963.

DogStarMan,Prelude–IV.DirectedbyStanleyBrakhage.1961-64.

EasyRider.DirectedbyDennisHopper.ColumbiaPictures,1968.

FlamingCreatures.DirectedbyJackSmith.1963.

Go!Go!Go!DirectedbyMarieMenken.1962-64.

TheGraduate.DirectedbyMikeNichols.EmbassyPictures.1967.

Jaws.DirectedbyStevenSpielberg.UniversalPictures,1975.

188

LittleStabsatHappiness.DirectedbyKenJacobs.1959-63.

TheLongGoodbye.DirectedbyRobertAltman.UnitedArtists,1973.

McCabeandMrs.Miller.DirectedbyRobertAltman.WarnerBros.,1971.

MeanStreets.DirectedbyMartinScorsese.WarnerBros.,1973,

Mothlight.DirectedbyStanBrakhage.1963.

Nashville.DirectedbyRobertAltman.ParamountPictures,1975.

PortraitofJason.DirectedbyShirleyClarke.Film-Makers’DistributionCenter,1967.

PullMyDaisy.DirectedbyRobertFrankandAlfredLeslie.1959.

Rocky.DirectedbyJohnG.Avildsen.UnitedArtists,1976.

TheSugarlandExpress.DirectedbyStevenSpielberg.UniversalPictures,1974.

StarWars:ANewHope.DirectedbyGeorgeLucas.20thCenturyFox,1977.

TaxiDriver.DirectedbyMartinScorsese.ColumbiaPictures,1976.

TheWildBunch.DirectedbySamPeckinpah.WarnerBros.-SevenArts,1969.