> 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.)
- --- In email@example.com, "jess_l_amortell" <monterone1@...> wrote:
> 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.