Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Sarristes?

Expand Messages
  • jess_l_amortell
    Any Sarristes still aboard? A curious article in today s Times, by one Michael Powell (no less!), on Andrew Sarris -- who has unfortunately parted ways with
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 12, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Any "Sarristes" still aboard?

      A curious article in today's Times, by one Michael Powell (no less!), on Andrew Sarris -- who has unfortunately parted ways with the New York Observer, apparently more definitively than earlier reported -- states that Sarris and Kael "defined a more primal rivalry, to the extent that their followers came to be known as the Sarristes and the Paulettes, the Sharks and Jets of the sun-starved cinephile crowd."

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/movies/12powe.html?_r=1

      I have never heard that term, "Sarristes," in all these many years -- at least in English and in an auteurist context. (A search turns up a usage related to a French political figure.) Or could it have been the exclusive property of the "Paulettes"?

      Anyway, nice to see a piece so even-handed that a hoary epithet like "sun-starved cinephile crowd" can be applied, for once, to both sides of the aisle.
    • Bilge Ebiri
      ... I always find it intriguing when people in and around NY (like, say, a writer for the NY Times) use this put-down, as if somehow NY is a place where people
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 12, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        > Anyway, nice to see a piece so even-handed that a hoary epithet like
        > "sun-starved cinephile crowd" can be applied, for once, to both sides of
        > the aisle.
        >

        I always find it intriguing when people in and around NY (like, say, a
        writer for the NY Times) use this put-down, as if somehow NY is a place
        where people place a lot of importance on being out in the sun. I can
        understand it coming from somebody in LA perhaps, but really? Also isn't it
        funny how theater also requires sitting in the dark and yet nobody seems to
        complain about regular theatergoers being sun starved. Why? I suspect class
        may actually have something to do with it.

        -Bilge
      • edelvision
        ... Well, it might be because theaters have matinees only on Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday and few theatergoers these days--including critics--go to three
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 12, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          On Jul 12, 2009, at 4:22 PM, Bilge Ebiri wrote:

          > always find it intriguing when people in and around NY (like, say, a
          > writer for the NY Times) use this put-down, as if somehow NY is a
          > place
          > where people place a lot of importance on being out in the sun. I can
          > understand it coming from somebody in LA perhaps, but really? Also
          > isn't it
          > funny how theater also requires sitting in the dark and yet nobody
          > seems to
          > complain about regular theatergoers being sun starved. Why? I
          > suspect class
          > may actually have something to do with it.

          Well, it might be because theaters have matinees only on Wednesday,
          Saturday, and Sunday and few theatergoers these days--including
          critics--go to three matinees every week. Whereas the true cinephile
          sits through movies all day many days. I don't find this much of a put-
          down (few of those people will die of skin cancer!) and I don't think
          it has anything to do with class. In the old days, cinema completists
          with no access to video took pride in spending less time in the sun
          than in darkened movie houses. I know in the '80s before I had kids I
          was in theaters for four or five hours a day and was delighted to be
          pale in the name of the art.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • jess_l_amortell
          ... It just struck me that it s probably just a typo for Sarrisites. (That term has even appeared in a_film_by.)
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 12, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            > I have never heard that term, "Sarristes," in all these many years --

            It just struck me that it's probably just a typo for "Sarrisites." (That term has even appeared in a_film_by.)
          • Tom Sutpen
            ... ***** I haven t encountered it either; and it s entirely possible that it s something Powell heard in the course of his reporting; presuming it to have a
            Message 5 of 5 , Aug 1, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jess_l_amortell" <monterone1@...> wrote:

              > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/movies/12powe.html?_r=1
              >
              > I have never heard that term, "Sarristes," in all these many years -- at least in English and in an auteurist context. (A search turns up a usage related to a French political figure.) Or could it have been the exclusive property of the "Paulettes"?

              *****
              I haven't encountered it either; and it's entirely possible that it's something Powell heard in the course of his reporting; presuming it to have a pedigree of some duration.

              That would at least be in keeping with the article as a whole, which is really no more than the kind of consensus history one would expect from a reporter who isn't, uhh, overly acquainted with the subject at hand (a quick check reveals that the bulk of Michael Powell's reporting has been done for the Times' National Desk).

              > Anyway, nice to see a piece so even-handed that a hoary epithet like "sun-starved cinephile crowd" can be applied, for once, to both sides of the aisle.

              *****
              Hoary it is, but I wouldn't call it an epithet. To me it almost qualifies as an institutional analysis.

              Tom Sutpen
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.