Transcript: The Critic | Apr 05, 1989

John Simon appears. He’s in his fifties, clean-shaven, with short brown hair. He wears a black suit, white shirt, black vest, and a tie in shades of gray. He’s sitting in the studio with Elwy Yost. He’s in his fifties, mostly bald with some dark hair on the sides, and he has a moustache. He wears glasses, a greyish suit jacket, a white shirt, and a red and black tie.

Elwy says JOHN SIMON, YOU HAVE
AN INCREDIBLE KNACK,
AS YOU WELL KNOW, SIR,
FOR HAVING CREATED THEM:
A KNACK FOR PUNS.
READING SOME OF
THEM MORE RECENTLY,
I WAS THINKING THAT YOU
WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY MUCH
AT HOME WITH JAMES JOYCE
AND MARSHALL MCLUHAN
BECAUSE THEY ARE
OBSESSED WITH PUNS, TOO.
BUT THERE ARE A
COUPLE HERE.
THERE ARE THREE OF THEM,
AS A MATTER OF FACT.
TWO OF THEM, REGARDING
THE MOVIE
SWASHBUCKLER,
WHICH OUR RESEARCHERS
HAVE DUG OUT.
AND I THINK THEY
ARE DELIGHTFUL.
YOU SAID OF
SWASHBUCKLER,
“THE INCOHERENT WHOLE
IS EVEN WORSE THAN THE
SCUM OF ITS PARTS.”
MUST HAVE GIVEN YOU
RELISH TO PUT THAT DOWN.

John says I SUPPOSE.
THAT FILM WAS SO BAD IT WAS NOT
EVEN MUCH FUN TO BAD MOUTH IT.
BUT I GUESS ONE HAS TO AMUSE
ONE SELF WHEN ONE WRITES
ABOUT BAD MOVIES.
AND THAT'S ONE OF
THE WAYS ONE DOES IT.

Elwy says WELL, FURTHER, YOU SAID, “THE
DIRECTOR JAMES GOLDSTONE
HAS THE INVERSE OF THE SKILL
SOUGHT BY THE ALCHEMIST:
THE KNACK OF TURNING
GOLD INTO STONES.
HENCE, NO DOUBT, HIS NAME.”
BEAUTY.
AND OF
LIFEGUARD,
WHICH I'VE NEVER SEEN.
YOU WROTE OF
LIFEGUARD, “THE
HUMOURLESS PERSISTENCE
WITH WHICH THE SCRIPT WORRIES
ITS HERO'S EXISTENTIAL DILEMMA,
MAKES ME WONDER WHETHER
THE MOVIE ISN'T MORE
KIERKEGAARD THAN LIFEGUARD.”
I LOVED THEM.
I LOVE THEM.
I KNOW PUNS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE
CONSIDERED THE LOWEST FORM
OF HUMOUR, BUT I THINK IN YOUR
HANDS, THEY ARE DELIGHTFUL.
YOU ONCE STATED, JOHN SIMON -
AND THIS IS WHERE I WANT
TO START OUR CHAT
TODAY, THIS EVENING.
THE FIRST AND LAST
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FILM
CRITIC IS TO RAISE THE
STANDARD OF MOTION PICTURES.
UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS NOT
NEARLY SO SELF-EVIDENT
AS IT MIGHT BE TO ONE SEGMENT
OF THE POPULATION,
THE MOVIE REVIEWERS.
NOW, JOHN, I'M WONDERING,
SINCE MOVIES SEEM TO BE
MAINLY - AT LEAST IN MY
ESTIMATION, FOR THE MASSES,
AND MOVIE REVIEWS WOULD
SEEMED TO BE DESIGNED FOR THE
MASSES, I'M WONDERING HOW YOU
CAN SPEAK SO DISPARAGINGLY
THERE ABOUT MOVIE REVIEWERS?

John says WELL, YOU SEE, I THINK
THE WORLD IS A BIG PLACE,
AND IT HAS MANY MANSIONS.
AND THERE IS ROOM FOR ALL
KINDS OF ORIENTATIONS.
MY PERSONAL VIEW OF FILM
IS THAT IT INTERESTS ME ONLY
IN SO FAR AS IT CAN BE
AND SOMETIMES IS AN ART.

A caption appears on screen. It reads “John Simon. New York Magazine.”

John continues TO ME, FILM IS NO DIFFERENT
FROM BOOKS, LET US SAY, FICTION.
MILLIONS OF BOOKS GET
PUBLISHED IN THE WORLD, OF WHICH
I THINK, PERHAPS, 50 A YEAR
MAYBE ARE OF LASTING INTEREST.
BUT I THINK 50 A YEAR
ARE ENOUGH TO OCCUPY ME.
AND FIVE MOVIES A YEAR THAT I
CAN SEE HAVE LASTING INTEREST
ARE WHAT MAKES THE
JOB WORTHWHILE,
WHAT MAKES BEING A
FILM CRITIC IMPORTANT,
WHAT MAKES FILM IMPORTANT.
THE FACT THAT THERE ARE
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHER
MOVIES WHICH MAY HAVE
INCIDENTAL VIRTUES,
OR WHICH MAY EVEN BE QUITE
GOOD BY COMMERCIAL STANDARDS
IS ALL RIGHT.
THAT HELPS THE
INDUSTRY GO ON.
WITHOUT THEM,
IT COULDN'T.
BUT IT'S NOT OF
REAL INTEREST TO ME.
I'M ONLY INTERESTED
IN MOVIES AS ART.
AND ART IS NEVER
REALLY FOR THE MASSES.
THEY CAN BE BROUGHT TO IT,
THEY CAN SOMETIMES EVEN BE
MADE TO DRINK, BUT IT'S
NOT WHAT THEY REALLY WANT.
AND IT'S NOT WHAT
THEY REALLY RELISH.
AND GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO
MAKE PIGS OF THEMSELVES,
AND THEY ARE MUCH
HAPPIER THAT WAY.
BUT THAT DOESN'T
INTEREST ME.
I LEAVE THAT TO OTHER
PEOPLE, TO OTHER REVIEWERS,
TO OTHER CONSUMERS.
AND I FIGURE I AM
AN ELITIST CRITIC.
I WILL ALWAYS BE
AN ELITIST CRITIC.
AND THAT'S WHAT
I'M THERE FOR.
THERE ARE PLENTY OF
OTHERS TO DO OTHER THINGS.

Elwy says WOULDN'T YOU AGREE THAT
FILMS ARE ESSENTIALLY
AN ART FOR THE MASSES?
ISN'T THE BEAUTY OF MOTION
PICTURES THE FACT
THAT IT IS THE
PEOPLE'S ART?
IT CAME OUT OF CIRCUSES
AND BACK STREETS?

John says I DON'T THINK THAT'S
ALL THAT BEAUTIFUL.
I THINK THE BEAUTIFUL
THINGS ARE REACHING FOR
THE HIGHEST POSSIBILITIES
OF THE HUMAN SOUL.
AND THAT IS NOT COMPATIBLE
USUALLY, OR PERHAPS AT ALL,
WITH WHAT THE MASSES
STAND FOR AND WANT.
CONSEQUENTLY, I THINK THE
BEAUTY OF FILM IS THAT IT CAME
FROM LOW ORIGINS,
BUT IT'S BEEN ABLE
TO WORK ITSELF UP TO
GREAT HEIGHTS.
TO ME, FILMS ARE PEOPLE LIKE
INGMAR BERGMAN, AND ANTONIONI,
AND FELLINI AND BRESSON AND
A FEW OTHERS LIKE THAT.
THEY ARE NOT THE
HOLLYWOOD MASS OUTPUT,
OR THE EUROPEAN OR WHATEVER
OTHER MASS OUTPUT.
THAT TO ME IS INCIDENTAL.
IT IS SOMETHING YOU
HAVE TO TOLERATE.
BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING TO
ADMIRE OR REVEL IN OR DEDICATE
YOUR LIFE'S CRITICAL
ACTIVITIES TO.

Elwy says ISN'T YOUR ONLY HOPE, REALLY,
OF RAISING STANDARDS,
WHICH YOU SET OUT
AS YOUR PRIME CREDO,
ISN'T IT THROUGH SOMEHOW,
BY WHATEVER MEANS
REACHING THE MASSES, THOUGH?
HOW COULD YOU HOPE TO DO
IT, TO RAISE STANDARDS,
BY BEING MORE
ESOTERIC, JOHN?

John says WELL, YOU DO
IT INDIRECTLY.
IT'S A SOFT PYRAMID.
YOU SEE, THE PYRAMID
COULD WORK TWO WAYS.
THE USUAL WAY FOR IT TO
WORK IS FOR THE BASE
TO INFLUENCE THE APEX.
I THINK IT'S HIGH TIME THAT
THE APEX STARTED INFLUENCING
THE BASE, WHICH IT
CANNOT DO DIRECTLY,
BUT IT CAN DO IT
STEP WISE.
IT CAN INFLUENCE THE
LAYER JUST UNDERNEATH,
AND THAT CAN INFLUENCE THE
LAYER JUST UNDERNEATH IT,
AND SO ON DOWN THE LINE.
OBVIOUSLY, A LOT GETS LOST
BETWEEN THE APEX AND THE BASE,
BUT SOMETHING,
SOMETHING PERCOLATES.
AND THAT SOMETHING I THINK
IS STILL WORTH STRIVING FOR.

Elwy says YOU SEE YOURSELF
IN THAT KIND OF,
ALMOST LIKE A
PERCOLATOR THEN.
PERCOLATING PROCESS THEN.
HOW DO YOU GO ABOUT -
AND I'M SURE OUR VIEWERS
ARE AS INTERESTED IN THIS,
I KNOW THEY WILL BE,
AS I AM, IN
ACTUALLY CREATING,
I HATE TO USE THE WORD
REVIEW, BUT A CRITIQUE.
A FILM CRITICISM.

John says NO, REVIEW IS FINE.
LET'S NOT QUIBBLE
OVER WORDS.

Elwy says YEAH.
HOW DO YOU GO ABOUT ACTUALLY
CREATING ONE FROM THE MOMENT
YOU DECIDE TO GO TO A FILM?

John says I DON'T KNOW.
IT'S NO DIFFERENT FROM
ASKING ANY KIND OF WRITER
HOW HE WRITES A PIECE OF WORK,
WHETHER IT'S PROSE OR POETRY,
FICTION, WHATEVER, A PLAY.
FINALLY THE TIME COMES
WHEN YOU HAVE TO SIT DOWN
BECAUSE IT'S LATE,
AND THE THING IS DUE
TOMORROW MORNING OR
TOMORROW NOON, WHENEVER.
AND YOU FINALLY SIT
DOWN, AT LEAST I DO,
AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE,
AND YOU LOOK AT THE PAGE.
IT'S A BLANK PAGE.
AND YOU TAKE OUT YOUR PEN
AND YOU WRITE SOMETHING.
AND AFTER A COUPLE
OF HOURS IT IS THERE.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT
COMES OUT OF MY THUMBS
OR OUT OF MY TOES OR OUT
OF THE BACK OF MY HEAD.
IT'S JUST THERE.
OBVIOUSLY, SOME IDEAS ARE
PRESENT EVEN BEFORE BECAUSE
I CAN TALK TO PEOPLE
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE MOVIE
AND EXPRESS FAIRLY FLUENTLY WHAT
I THINK IS RIGHT OR WRONG
OR INTERESTING OR
DULL ABOUT IT.
BUT THE REALLY COHESIVE AND
SHAPED AND CLOSELY ARGUED
AND REASONED REVIEW,
WHICH I HOPE COMES OUT,
AT LEAST WHEN I'M IN GOOD
FORM, IS SUDDENLY THERE.
AND THERE'S NO WAY OF
DESCRIBING IT IN TERMS
OF A SYSTEM OR A METHOD.
I DON'T DO FIRST DRAFTS
AND SECOND DRAFTS.

Elwy says I WONDERED ABOUT THAT.

John says NO, I JUST SIT DOWN.
IN LONGHAND I WRITE IT,
AND THEN I TYPE IT.
AND AS I TYPE IT, SINCE
I'M A SLOW TYPIST,
NOT REALLY A TYPIST AT
ALL, I DO IT QUITE SLOWLY,
AND AS I TYPE, I
MAKE LITTLE CHANGES.
I CHANGE A WORD
HERE, A WORD THERE,
MAYBE EVEN A WHOLE
SENTENCE.
AND THEN THAT'S IT.
THERE ARE NO
FURTHER SENTENCES.

Elwy says WHAT ABOUT WHILE YOU ARE
VIEWING THE PICTURE?
DO YOU OPERATE WITH ONE
OF THOSE LITTLE PENCIL
FLASHLIGHTS AND
A PAD OF PAPER?

John says NO, NEVER.
THAT'S VERY IRRITATING TO
PEOPLE WHO SIT NEXT TO YOU.
AND THERE IS A SORT OF NOTION
THAT CRITICS ARE A BUNCH
OF GLOWWORMS LIGHTING
UP THE DARK.

Elwy says SOME DO IT, THOUGH.

John says I'M HAPPY TO SAY IN
NEW YORK THEY DON'T,
AND I DON'T THINK WE WOULD
TOLERATE IT BECAUSE IT IS
BLOODY ANNOYING TO HAVE
SOMEBODY SUDDENLY
FLASH A LIGHT WHILE
YOU ARE TRYING TO...
SO WE ALL MANAGE TO
TAKE NOTES IN THE DARK.
WHICH, OF COURSE, SOMETIMES
MEANS NOT BEING ABLE
TO READ YOUR OWN
HANDWRITING.
AND I OFTEN SPEND A LOT OF
TIME TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
WHAT IT IS I TOOK DOWN.
AND THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES
WHEN I'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE
TO CRACK MY OWN CODE.
BUT THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
THAT'S A SMALL ONE.

Elwy says THE WRITING OF ONE MIGHT TAKE
A COUPLE OF HOURS OR SO?

John says YEAH, ABOUT THAT.
THEN WHATEVER TIME
IT TAKES TO TYPE IT.

Elwy says DO SOME FAMOUS
CRITICS, JOHN SIMON,
NOT REALLY WRITE THEIR REVIEWS
TO BE QUOTED IN MOVIE ADS?

John says YES, YES.
THERE ARE NOT VERY MANY
FAMOUS CRITICS IN THE WORLD.
THERE ARE A FEW
WELL KNOWN ONES.
BUT I THINK THERE'S A
GREAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
BEING WELL KNOWN AND
BEING FAMOUS.
I THINK FAME IS SOMETHING THAT
HAS TO DO WITH AFTERLIFE,
WITH POSTERITY, WITH HAVING
MADE A CONTRIBUTION
TO HISTORY OF THOUGHT
AND LITERATURE,
WHICH CRITICISM IS A BRANCH,
AND I THINK AN IMPORTANT BRANCH.
BUT TO BE WELL KNOWN, TO BE A
REX REED, OR A JUDITH CRIST,
OR WHOEVER IT IS WHO GETS,
OR CLIVE BARNES OR WHATEVER,
WHO GETS QUOTED A LOT, WHOSE
NAME MAY APPEAR ON MARQUEES
IS OF SOME REPUTATIONAL VALUE
IN THE IMMEDIATE PRESENT.
BUT IT'S OF NO FAME VALUE
IN TERMS OF POSTERITY,
WHICH IS THE ONLY
KIND OF FAME, I THINK,
THAT'S REALLY
WORTH LOOKING FOR.
NOW, IT IS TRUE THAT SOME OF
THESE REX REEDS AND JUDITH
CRISTS OF THIS WORLD, WHO ARE
ABOUT AS LOW AS THEY COME
IN MY ESTIMATION, THEY DO
WRITE FOR THE MARQUEE,
THEY DO WRITE FOR THE QUOTE,
THEY DO WRITE FOR THE
NEWSPAPER OR MAGAZINE
AD, AND SO ON.
AND THAT IS WHAT MAKES THEIR
CRITICISM, AMONG OTHER THINGS,
SO CONTEMPTIBLE.
EVEN THE PHRASING OF IT IS
NOT THOUGHTFUL PHRASING.
IT'S NOT CONSIDERED
REASONING PUT INTO WORDS.
IT'S JUST FLASHY, SPLASHES
OF PRIMARY COLOUR
SLAPPED ONTO THE PAPER,
SOMETIMES VERY INCORRECTLY.
IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE RATHER
SIMPLE SENTENCES FAIRLY CLOSELY,
SOMETIMES THEY
DON'T EVEN MAKE SENSE.
BUT THEY ARE SPLASHY,
AND THEY DO GET QUOTED,
AND THEY MAKE THE PERSON WELL
KNOWN, BUT NOT, I THINK,
FAMOUS IN THE GOOD
SENSE OF THE WORD.

Elwy says WOULD JUDITH CRIST AND
REX REED REPRESENT THE TWO
CRITICS YOU HAVE THE LEAST
RESPECT FOR, IF NOT,
IN FILMS I'M SPEAKING
OF, OF COURSE HERE?

John says I THINK THEY ARE THE
TWO BEST KNOWN PEOPLE.
I HAVE LEAST RESPECT FOR
THOUSANDS OF CRITICS,
BUT THEY ARE THE TWO PROBABLY
BEST KNOWN OF THOSE THOUSAND.
THERE ARE OTHERS, BUT I THINK
THEY ARE GOOD REPRESENTATIVE
SAMPLING OF WHAT I THINK
CAN BE REALLY WRONG
WITH CRITICISM, AND IS.

Elwy says WHOM WOULD YOU REALLY
ADMIRE, AND WHY?

John says WELL, THE FILM CRITICS THAT I
HAVE RESPECT FOR ARE PEOPLE
LIKE DWIGHT MACDONALD, WHO
UNFORTUNATELY DOES NOT WRITE
MUCH CRITICISM ANYMORE.
HE DOESN'T WRITE
MUCH ANYTHING.

Elwy says HE WROTE SEVEN
YEARS FOR
ESQUIRE,
DIDN'T HE,
APPROXIMATELY.

John says YES, YES, SOMETHING
LIKE THAT.
AND OF COURSE HIS STUFF HAS
BEEN COLLECTED IN A VERY
USEFUL BOOK, “DWIGHT MACDONALD
ON MOVIES OR ON FILM.”
STANLEY KAUFFMANN WHO WRITES
FOR
THE NEW REPUBLIC
IS A
THOUGHTFUL AND INTELLIGENT
AND CAREFUL CRITIC.
I WISH HE HAD MORE SPACE.
HE CLAIMS HE DOES NOT
HAVE SPACE LIMITATIONS,
BUT I'M SURE HE DOES
WITHOUT EVEN REALIZING IT.
I THINK SOME OF HIS REVIEWS ARE
SHORTER THAN I WISH THEY WERE.
OF COURSE, WE ALL
HAVE THAT PROBLEM.
THE ONLY PERSON WHO
DOESN'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM
ARE THE TWO PEOPLE WRITING
FOR
THE NEW YORKER,
WHICH REALLY SEEMS TO
HAVE UNLIMITED SPACE.
PAULINE KAEL AND
PENELOPE GILLIATT.
THEY CAN GO ON AS
LONG AS THEY WANT TO,
AND THEY OFTEN GO ON MUCH
TOO LONG FOR MY MONEY.
BUT STILL IT'S BETTER
TO HAVE TOO MUCH SPACE,
THAN TOO LITTLE.
KAUFFMANN, KAEL, WITH WHOM I
DISAGREE ON ALMOST EVERYTHING,
NEVERTHELESS, IS AN
INTERESTING WRITER,
AND AN INTERESTING
PERSONALITY.
AND SHE HAS HER FINGER ON
THE PULSE OF HOLLYWOOD,
AND SHE KNOWS WHAT'S GOING
ON BEHIND THE SCENES,
AND SHE HAS A
LIVELY STYLE.
SO I THINK SHE IS AN IMPORTANT
CRITIC, EVEN THOUGH
SHE STANDS FOR ALMOST ALL THE
WRONG THINGS, AS I SEE IT.

Elwy says ANDREW SARRIS,
VILLAGE VOICE.

John says SARRIS IS A CURIOUS
PHENOMENON.
I THINK HE IS SOMEWHAT CRAZY,
AND NOT TERRIBLY BRIGHT.
BUT I DO THINK THAT
HE IS DEDICATED.
I DO THINK HE IS DESPERATELY
EARNEST ABOUT WHAT HE IS DOING.
AND THERE IS A CERTAIN
BEAUTY IN THAT KIND OF IDIOT
DEDICATION, IN THAT KIND OF
FANATICAL ABSORPTION WITH A
SUBJECT, EVEN IF WHAT COMES
OUT IS FUZZY, MUDDLE-HEADED,
AND I THINK, IN MANY CASES,
BASED ON INSUFFICIENT
KNOWLEDGE OF OTHER
THINGS, INSUFFICIENT...
WHAT SHOULD I SAY - I
WONDER WHETHER PEOPLE
LIKE THAT HAVE A
TIME TO LIVE.
THE AMOUNT OF FILM INPUT
THAT GOES INTO SARRIS
MUST PREVENT VERY MANY OTHER
ASPECTS OF HUMAN THOUGHT
AND ACTIVITY TO REACH HIM.
THERE IS NOT THAT
MUCH TIME IN LIFE.
AND IF EVERYONE SETS OUT TO
SEE EVERY FILM THERE IS,
HE MUST CUT OUT ENORMOUSLY
IMPORTANT AREAS OF HUMAN
AND ARTISTIC EXPERIENCE, WHICH I
THINK ARE ALL VERY NECESSARY
TO BE BROUGHT TO BEAR ON
YOUR MORE SPECIFIC AREA,
WHICH IN THIS
CASE IS FILM.
AND SARRIS, I THINK,
DOESN'T EXIST.
SPORTS, HE KNOWS ABOUT,
POLITICS, HE KNOWS ABOUT,
BUT I THINK THAT'S IT.

Elwy says ARE YOU BASICALLY -
HOW CAN I PUT THIS?
IN LOVE WITH FILM
AS A HUMAN BEING?
AND DO YOU CONSIDER YOUR
ANSWER AN ADVANTAGE OR
DISADVANTAGE IN
BEING A MOVIE CRITIC?

John says WELL, I DON'T KNOW
WHAT IN LOVE MEANS.

Elwy says A GREAT PASSION FOR, I
WOULD THINK IN LOVE MEANS.
A GREAT PASSION.

John says I WOULD SAY THAT ANYONE WHO
CAN DO SOMETHING YEAR IN,
YEAR OUT AND NOT
GROW STALE AT IT,
AND NOT GIVE UP IN DISGUST, AS
SO MANY BRILLIANT CRITICS
IN THE HISTORY OF THEATRE
AND FILM CRITICISM HAVE.
THEY DO IT FOR FIVE,
SIX, SEVEN YEARS,
THEN THEY FEEL THERE JUST
ISN'T ENOUGH - THIS IS MORE
FREQUENT IN THEATRE
THAN IN FILM,
BUT IT HAPPENS
IN BOTH AREAS.
THEY FEEL THERE JUST ISN'T
ENOUGH TO MERIT THEIR CONTINUED
ATTENTION, AND THEY
GO ON TO SOMETHING ELSE.
IF SOMEONE CAN STAY IN THIS
FIELD, YEAR IN, YEAR OUT,
IT MEANS HE OBVIOUSLY
CARES ABOUT IT,
AND IS DEDICATED TO IT.
BUT PASSION, USUALLY, WHEN
PEOPLE SAY I LOVE A FILM,
THEY USUALLY MEAN LOVING
FILM INDISCRIMINATELY,
THE WAY HENRI LANGLOIS FOR
EXAMPLE DID, AND THAT,
I THINK, IS AN UNCRITICAL
STATE OF MIND.
YOU OBVIOUSLY COULD NOT BE A
VALID CRITIC OF YOUR CHILDREN,
WHOM YOU PRESUMABLY LOVE
DEEPLY AND COMMITTEDLY,
AND PERHAPS EVEN IN
A SENSE PASSIONATELY.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE
BLIND TO THEIR FAULTS.
CONSEQUENTLY, CRITICISM,
HAVING TO BE TO A
VERY LARGE EXTENT A
DISPASSIONATE ACTIVITY.
IT IS NOT THAT KIND OF LOVE,
AND THAT KIND OF PASSION,
BUT IT IS CERTAINLY A
DEVOTION, A CONCERN,
AN INTEREST, A CURIOSITY, AND
INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY
THAT CONTINUES.
AND THAT IS THE ONLY
WAY TO BE A CRITIC,
WITH THAT KIND OF BLIND,
ADORING, ALL CONSUMING LOVE,
YOU COULD NEVER
BECOME A CRITIC.
YOU CAN BECOME A FAN,
YOU CAN BECOME A BUFF,
BUT YOU CANNOT BE
A CRITIC.

A slate appears. It reads “PART 2. Conversation with Andrew Sarris, critic for the Village Voice.”

Andrew Sarris appears. He is in his sixties, clean-shaven, with black hair. He is wearing a dark gray suit, a white shirt, and a burgundy tie. He is sitting opposite Elwy in a studio, over a white furry circular carpet. There’s a little brown table with glasses of water on it.

Elwy says WANT TO TURN TO YOU AS THE
MAN YOU ARE, THE CRITIC,
APART FROM THE MOVIE LOVER,
BUT THE FILM CRITIC.
WHAT'S THE ROLE AND FUNCTION
OF A FILM CRITIC, ANDREW?

Andrew says WELL, WHATEVER FUNCTION
HE CAN MAKE FOR HIMSELF
IN A VERY CROWDED
FIELD AT THE MOMENT.
SO MANY PEOPLE
WANT TO BE CRITICS.
WHEN I STARTED IT
WASN'T SO POPULAR,
PARTICULARLY THE HIGHBROW
WRITING OCCASIONAL ARTICLES
IN PLUME MAGAZINES
FOR NO MONEY,
THIS WAS NOT EVERYBODY'S
IDEA OF WHOOPDEY.
TODAY THERE IS A GREAT
DEAL MORE INTEREST IN IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF EVERY
CRITIC WANTS TO INFLUENCE.
WHEN I THINK OF THE CRITICS
THAT HAVE INFLUENCED
ME THE MOST, OR WHO HAVE
DONE ME THE MOST GOOD,
LIKE ANDRE BAZIN, THE FRENCH
CRITIC, WHO IS MORE OF
AN INSTITUTION, REALLY,
AND THE CAILLE PEOPLE
AND AGEE AND WARSHOW AND
ALL THESE PEOPLE WHO GOT ME
AN IDEA THAT CULTIVATED MIND
COULD BE DEVOTED TO FILM,
AND COULD DEVELOP IDEAS
AND STRUCTURES FROM IT.
I THINK WHAT WE WANT, REALLY
WHAT WE SAY WE WANT
IS TO MEDIATE BETWEEN THE
ARTIST AND THE PUBLIC.
WHAT WE WANT IS TO
SERVE OUR READERS.
WHAT WE WANT IS
TO DO THIS.

A caption appears on screen. It reads “Andrew Sarris.”

Andrew continues ACTUALLY, WHAT WE WANT IS TO
GET OUR CHEQUE EVERY WEEK
FROM OUR EDITOR, YOU
KNOW, OUR PUBLISHER,
AND KEEP MAKING A LIVING.
BUT I THINK, DEEP DOWN, WHAT
WE WANT IS TO, I THINK,
ULTIMATELY, MOST OF
US, I THINK ALL OF US,
IS TO WRITE A PROFOUND
APPRECIATION OF A WORK OF ART
THAT GIVES US PLEASURE SO
THAT THAT APPRECIATION
WILL LIVE AS LONG AS
THE WORK OF ART LIVES.
NOT SUPERSEDE IT.
IT WILL NOT ENGULF IT, BUT IT
WILL BE LIKE A PARTNER WITH IT.
IT WILL BE LIKE AN
ASSOCIATE.
NOT A JUNIOR
PARTNER, OF COURSE.
A LESSER THING, BUT
IT'S ANOTHER THING.
IT'S A BEAUTIFUL THING.
SO I THINK ULTIMATELY
WE ARE, ULTIMATELY,
IN THE JOB OF CREATING
AN ART OF OUR OWN.
THE ART OF BELLES-LETTRES,
THE ART OF CRITICISM,
THE ART OF INTERPRETATION.
SOMETHING TO ENRICH PEOPLE'S
APPRECIATION OF THIS WORK
OF ART THAT HAS
GIVEN US PLEASURE.
I THINK IF A CRITIC CANNOT
FIND THAT GREAT PLEASURE,
I DON'T THINK HE
WILL WRITE ANYTHING
THAT'S OF ANY
LASTING INTEREST.
I THINK ALL THE ONES THAT
THEY KNOW WE MENTION, AGEE
AND WARSHOW AND FERGUSON AND
BAZIN, AND ALL THESE PEOPLE.

Elwy says STANLEY KAUFFMANN?

Andrew says WELL, I DON'T WANT TO TALK
ABOUT MY CONTEMPORARIES.
MY REACTION TO STANLEY,
AND I KNOW STANLEY,
AND I RESPECT HIM
VERY MUCH.
I THINK STANLEY IS
A VERY FINE WRITER.
I THINK HE HAS GOOD TASTE.
MY QUARREL WITH STANLEY WOULD
BE THAT I THINK, SOMEHOW,
I THINK HE LACKS A CERTAIN
DEGREE OF ENTHUSIASM
FOR THIS PARTICULAR AREA.
I THINK HE WANTS MORE TO
BE A RENAISSANCE PERSON.
HE WANTS TO BE A SENTINEL
AT THE GATES OF HIGH ART.
I THINK HE SOMETIMES COMES UP
WITH VERY BRILLIANT INSIGHTS.
CERTAINLY VERY
BRILLIANT PHRASES.
HE WRITES VERY WELL.
I ADMIRE HIS WRITING.
I ENVY SOME OF HIS,
LIKE, THE VISCONTI MILL,
ROCOCO AND HIS BROTHERS,
THAT'S A BRILLIANT PHRASE.
AND I WISH I'D
THOUGHT OF IT MYSELF.
SO I RESPECT HIM
VERY DEEPLY.
I FEEL A COMPLETE DISAFFINITY
WITH HIM AS A CRITIC.
IN OTHER WORDS, I THINK IF YOU
COULD TAKE TWO CRITICS
WHO ARE DIALECTICALLY OPPOSED
IN THEIR SENSE OF THEIR -

Elwy says IT COULD BE THE
TWO OF YOU.

Andrew says YEAH, I FIND MYSELF
RESPONDING OPPOSITELY.
I THINK IT'S LARGELY A
MATTER OF TEMPERATURE.

Elwy says PAULINE KAEL.
HOW WOULD SHE FIT IN
THERE,
THE NEW YORKER?

Andrew says PAULINE IS A MIXTURE.
SHE'S A MIXTURE OF
SKEPTICISM AND ENTHUSIASM.
THE TWO THINGS BALANCE
AT WAR WITH EACH OTHER.
I FIND PAULINE - OF
COURSE WE'VE HAD FEUDS
OVER THE YEARS SO
MY OPINION-

Elwy says I'VE READ SOME OF THEM.

Andrew says IS NOT OBJECTIVE,
BY ANY MEANS.
IF ANYTHING IS OBJECTIVE,
THAT CERTAINLY IS NOT.
BUT I WOULD SAY THAT ONE OF
THE INTERESTING THINGS
ABOUT PAULINE - MOST PEOPLE HAVE
THIS IMPRESSION OF PAULINE
AS THIS BULLISH PERSON
INFLICTING HER OPINIONS,
AND SO ON, WHEREAS
ACTUALLY, IN HER WRITING,
AS OPPOSED TO CERTAIN
RHETORICAL HABITS SHE HAS,
AND CERTAIN HABITS SHE HAS
CERTAINLY IN HER PERSONALITY,
I FIND MUCH MORE TENTATIVE.
I THINK PAULINE HAS TO
SUMMARIZE THE ATMOSPHERE
AT A GIVEN TIME.
I THINK NOT ALWAYS ACCURATELY,
NOT ALWAYS FAIRLY,
NOT ALWAYS JUSTLY, BUT SHE
DOES PERFORM AN ACT OF SUMMATION
SO YOU GET A SENSE
OF A TOTAL ATMOSPHERE.
SOMETIMES IT'S A VERY
DISTORTED ATMOSPHERE, BUT...

Elwy says ANDREW, YOU BROUGHT,
SINGLE HANDEDLY -

Andrew says MY FAVOURITE CRITIC, I MIGHT
SAY, IS MOLLY HASKELL,
WHO I THINK IS
THE GREATEST.

Elwy says WHO HAPPENS TO BE, SHALL I
JUST ILLUSION EVERYBODY,
Mrs. ANDREW SARRIS
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
I CAN'T LET YOU
GET AWAY WITH THAT.
I CAN'T ARGUE WITH YOU.
I'M VERY FOND OF HER
WRITING, TOO, ANDREW.
SINGLE HANDEDLY, I THINK
BACK ABOUT '61, YOU BROUGHT,
SORT OF IMPLANTED,
TRANSPORTED TO AMERICA,
THE FAMOUS, THE
CONTROVERSIAL AUTEUR THEORY.
COULD YOU DESCRIBE IT VERY
BRIEFLY TO OUR AUDIENCE?

Andrew says IT'S VERY COMPLICATED.
IT'S NOT AN IDEA, IT'S
NOT A THEORY, I MEAN,
IT'S NOT SOMETHING
THAT'S RIGID.

Elwy says IT'S GAINED CONTROVERSY.

Andrew says I THINK THE PHRASE
DID, THE TERM DID.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT
CAUGHT ON.
LIKE SUSAN SONTAG
FEELS ABOUT CAMP,
I FEEL A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
AUTEUR BECAUSE I THINK
IT'S BEEN MISINTERPRETED
SOMEWHAT.
I THINK THERE ARE
TWO PARTS TO IT.
I THINK I WENT THROUGH THIS
LITANY BEFORE A LITTLE BIT,
BUT I'LL JUST
RESTATE IT SLIGHTLY.
ONE PART WAS THAT I THINK THE
INTERESTING THING WAS THAT
OUT OF WORK THAT DOESN'T
SEEM TO PARTAKE OF HIGH ART,
DOESN'T SEEM TO PARTAKE
OF PERSONAL STYLE,
WE CAN FIND
PERSONAL STYLE.
IT WAS A DISCOVERY.
I MADE THAT POINT.
NOW, BY THE SAME TOKEN,
THERE ARE CERTAIN PEOPLE
FOR WHOM AUTEURISM
IS NOT NECESSARY.
LIKE INGMAR BERGMAN
OR ORSON WELLES.
YOU DON'T NEED THIS
THEORY FOR THEM.
PEOPLE WERE MAKING
THESE STATEMENTS.
IT WAS PEOPLE LIKE HITCHCOCK
AND HAWKS, PARTICULARLY HAWKS,
WHO TO FIND A PATTERN
WAS A WORK OF DETECTION.
NOWADAYS, EVERYBODY
WANTS TO BE AN AUTEUR.
EVERYBODY WANTS
TO BE PERSONAL.

Elwy says FOR OUR VIEWERS, IT
IS THE IMPLANTING
OF A PERSONALITY, ISN'T IT?

Andrew says RIGHT.

Elwy says I'M TRYING TO GET AT WHAT YOU
REALLY MEAN BY THAT TERM.

Andrew says JEAN RENOIR, WHO IS SORT OF
ONE OF THE GREAT DIRECTORS
BY ANY STANDARD, BUT BY
AUTEURIST, ESPECIALLY,
HAS MADE THE STATEMENT THAT
ALL ARTISTS BASICALLY
MAKE THE SAME MOVIE
OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
THIS IS A NOTION THAT I THINK
WE'RE MUCH MORE AT HOME IN
WITH PAINTING AND SCULPTURE,
THAN WE ARE WITH FILM,
OR LITERATURE.
LITERATURE, THERE TENDS
TO BE A VERY MUCH PERSONAL
INTERPRETATION AND
PERSONAL THEMES.
THERE ISN'T THAT MUCH.
BUT THERE IS ALSO THE FEELING
SOMEONE HAS TO CREATE WORK
OF VARIETY AND SCOPE
AND SO FORTH.
WHEREAS WE FEEL THE AUTEURIST
APPROACH, VERY MUCH,
WANTS TO FIND THIS
PERSONAL THING.
NOW, THERE ARE
CERTAIN WEAKNESSES.
AND THIS IS THE
WEAKNESS IN THIS BOOK.
IT IS EASIER TO TELL, ONCE THE
PATTERN HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
IT'S MUCH HARDER TO JUDGE
WITH ONE OR TWO WORKS.
WHEN SOMEBODY COMES ALONG YOU
CAN'T TELL AUTOMATICALLY
IF THIS IS A FLASH.
THIS IS A PROBLEM.
THAT'S WHY I'M VERY TENTATIVE
ABOUT THE NEW PEOPLE.
I KNOW, OF COURSE, A LOT MORE
ABOUT SOME OF THE PEOPLE
LIKE PECKINPAH AND ALTMAN.

Elwy says THAT WAS BACK IN '68.

Andrew says THIS IS '68.
SO NOW, BY '75, A LOT OF THESE
PEOPLE ARE MUCH CLEARER
THAN THEY WERE THEN ON WHAT
THEY ARE LIABLE TO DO,
AND WHAT THEY CAN DO.
I THINK IF I HAD LOOKED AT THE
FIRST FEW FILMS OF HAWKS OR
FORD OR HITCHCOCK, I
WOULD HAVE HAD NO IDEA
HOW THEY WOULD
HAVE EVOLVED.

Elwy says ANDREW, HAVE YOU EVER WRITTEN
A DISHONEST FILM REVIEW?

Andrew says NOT ONE THAT I KNOWINGLY
KNEW TO BE DISHONEST.
I HAVE WRITTEN WHAT I WOULD CALL
PERHAPS IGNOBLE FILM REVIEWS.
I HAVE WRITTEN REVIEWS BECAUSE
I WAS TIRED OR BECAUSE
I WAS VEXED, OR BECAUSE
I WAS SELF-PITYING.
I'VE WRITTEN PROSE
THAT WAS MORE SPITEFUL.
YEATS' PHRASE, “I MADE RHETORIC
OUT OF MY QUARREL WITH OTHERS,
RATHER THAN POETRY OUT OF THE
QUARREL WITH MYSELF.”
I'VE DONE THAT A LOT.
I THINK MOST PEOPLE HAVE
DONE IT A GREAT DEAL.
THAT'S WHAT I
WOULD CONSIDER.
DISHONEST?
NO.
NOT DISHONEST IN THE SENSE
IT WAS NOT WHAT I FELT.
SOMETIMES, I DON'T BELIEVE AT
ALL WHAT ONE FEELS IS SACRED.
I DON'T THINK THAT SINCERITY
IS THE GREAT VIRTUE.
I THINK HITLER WAS
VERY SINCERE, ALSO.
I MEAN, SINCERITY
IS NOT ENOUGH.
THERE HAS TO BE A CERTAIN
PERSPECTIVE AND DETACHMENT
AND A CERTAIN FAIRNESS AND
JUSTICE IN ONE'S ATTITUDE.
I THINK CRITICS
HAVE ENORMOUS POWER.
PERHAPS NOT TO BRING X NUMBER
OF PEOPLE INTO THE BIJOU,
BUT THEY HAVE A TREMENDOUS
POWER TO WOUND.
I KNOW BECAUSE WHEN
MY BOOK IS REVIEWED,
AND YOU THINK THAT WOULD
TEACH ME TO BE MORE MERCIFUL,
BUT IT DOESN'T.
WE DON'T LEARN.
WE MAKE A DIFFERENT LAW FOR
OURSELVES THAN OTHER PEOPLE.
BUT I WOULD SAY NO, I DON'T
THINK I'VE EVER WRITTEN
ANYTHING THAT I
WOULD CALL DISHONEST.
BUT I WOULD SAY NOT
EVERYTHING I'VE WRITTEN
IS ON THE SAME
SCALE OF NOBILITY.

Elwy says HOW DOES IT DIFFER
TO WRITE FOR, SAY-
AND HERE I PUT YOU INTO A
POSITION OF COMPARISON
WITH YOUR WORTHY COLLEAGUES,
IN WRITING, SAY, FOR
THE VILLAGE VOICE, AS IN
WRITING FOR
THE NEW YORKER
OR, THE NEW YORK TIMES,
HOW DOES THE FILM CRITIC'S
LIFE ALTER FROM THOSE MEDIA?

Andrew says VILLAGE VOICE
IS GETTING -
IT CERTAINLY HAS A VERY GOOD
WAGE RIGHT NOW, SO I'M NOT
COMPLAINING ABOUT THAT ONE.
VOICE
IS A PECULIAR ORGAN.
FOR ONE THING, IT'S CONSIDERED
WAY OUT, IT'S RADICAL,
IN COMPARISON WITH MOST OF
THESE OTHER PUBLICATIONS,
OR AT LEAST UNRULY,
ANARCHISTIC.
I'M NOT IN THAT MOLD,
MYSELF, AS ANYBODY CAN SEE.
I'M JUST A SQUARE SELF.
I'M NOT REALLY TYPICAL OF
THE VOICE
IN MANY WAYS.

Elwy says YOU HAVEN'T BLOWN
UP A SINGLE THING
SINCE YOU'VE BEEN IN
TORONTO, ANDREW.
I CAN ATTEST TO THAT.

Andrew says I'M NOT A MOLOTOV COCKTAIL
PERSON, BASICALLY,
BUT ONE GREAT VIRTUE OF
THE VOICE
IS IT IS READ.
AND I REACH A GREAT MANY
YOUNG PEOPLE WITH MY WRITING.
I THINK A LARGER PERCENTAGE
OF MY TOTAL READERS
ARE YOUNG PEOPLE THAN SOME
OF THESE OTHER PEOPLE ARE.
ALSO, IT DOESN'T HAVE
ACADEMIC PRESTIGE.
IT DOESN'T HAVE THIS AUTHORITY
A LOT OF OTHER THINGS HAVE
WITH THE POWERS THAT
BE, BUT IT IS READ.

Elwy says YES.

Andrew says IT IS READ VERY AVIDLY.
SO YOU GET THIS FEELING
OF LIVE CONTACT.

Elwy says BUT THE REVIEWS
DIFFER THOUGH.
THE SUBSTANCE OF A REVIEW,
IF YOU WERE WRITING SAY,
FOR AN
ESQUIRE.
LET'S SAY YOU WROTE
FOR ALL OF THEM.
WOULD THERE BE A DIFFERENT -

Andrew says I THINK THE STYLE
WOULD DIFFER.
ESQUIRE
HAS THIS
ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF SPACE.
YOU HAVE TO WRITE
ABOUT 2 MILLION WORDS
TO DRAW A BREATH THERE, TO
FILL THOSE ENORMOUS COLUMNS.
SO PEOPLE TEND, WILFRID
SHEED HAS WRITTEN TO THIS.
THEY TEND TO WRITE
LONGER SENTENCES.

Elwy says I SEE.

Andrew says THE VOICE, I WRITE IN
A MORE CLIPPED STYLE.
I USE VERY BASIC
CLAUSE STRUCTURE,
VERY BASIC SENTENCE STRUCTURE
WITH A LOT OF ANDS AND BUTS,
BUT BASICALLY RATHER
SIMPLE SENTENCES.
I DON'T HAVE THESE ELABORATE
KINDS OF THINGS I THINK
I WOULD WRITE IN THE
PARTISAN REVIEW.
I THINK I WOULD USE
MORE SUBJUNCTIVES
AND MORE INVOLVED
CLAUSES.
I THINK THESE
THINGS DO HAPPEN.
ALSO, YOU BEGIN TO DEVELOP
AN INSTINCT, A PRACTICE.
SOMETIMES YOU
DEVELOP BAD HABITS.
SOMETIMES YOU DEVELOP SOME
EXPERTISE, SOME KNOWLEDGE.

Elwy says ANDREW, IF YOU WERE GOING TO -
HERE'S THE CLICHÉ OF THEM ALL -
GOING TO A
DESERT ISLAND,
AND YOU COULD ONLY TAKE TEN
MOTION PICTURES WITH YOU,
AND A PROJECTOR, OF
COURSE, AND A SCREEN,
WHAT WOULD THOSE TEN
MOTION PICTURES BE?

Andrew says FIRST OF ALL, I'D NEVER
GO TO A DESERT ISLAND.
I COULDN'T SURVIVE
ON A DESERT ISLAND.
I DON'T KNOW IF I'D
BRING EVEN MOVIES ALONG.
I THINK LOOKING AT TEN MOVIES,
EVEN THE TEN IN THAT MOMENT
THAT I PICKED I LIKED, I
WOULD FEEL SO DESOLATE
ABOUT ALL THE OTHER THOUSANDS
I WOULD NEVER SEE,
THAT I DON'T THINK I
COULD EVEN ENJOY THEM.
AND AFTER A WHILE, I THINK IF
I KEPT PLAYING THEM OVER
AND OVER AGAIN, I DON'T THINK
I'D ENJOY THEM PARTICULARLY.
NEW IDEAS I GET FROM FILMS,
AND HERE I DISAGREE WITH
A LOT OF MY COLLEAGUES.
I ALSO TEACH AT
COLUMBIA, INCIDENTALLY.
I'M AN ACADEMIC, ALSO.
I HAVE ALL THE SINS.
SOME PEOPLE THINK
TO LEARN A FILM,
YOU LOOK AT IT AGAIN AND
AGAIN 10, 20 TIMES, IN A ROW.
THAT'S NOT QUITE THE
WAY I THINK IT WORKS.
I THINK WHAT YOU
DO, YOU LOOK AT IT,
THEN YOU GO LOOK AT A
LOT OF OTHER THINGS.
YOU READ, YOU
LOOK AT PAINTINGS,
YOU BEGIN TO THINK OF ALL THE
PROBLEMS WITH ART AND LIFE
AND EVERYTHING, AND THEN YOU
LOOK AT THE FILM AGAIN
WITH THIS ADDED PERSPECTIVE
AND BRING MUCH MORE TO IT
THE NEXT TIME.
AND YOU SEE IT IN CONTEXT
WITH EVERYTHING ELSE,
AND YOU BEGIN TO MAKE A
SEPARATION BETWEEN THOSE
THINGS IN FILM WHICH ARE
FUNCTIONAL AND PERSONAL,
AND THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE -
I MEAN, THOSE THINGS
THAT ARE FUNCTIONAL, AND THOSE
THINGS THAT ARE PERSONAL.
A LOT OF THINGS PEOPLE
TALK ABOUT FILM TECHNIQUE,
A LOT OF FILM TECHNIQUE IS
JUST SIMPLY VERY MECHANICAL.
YOU HAVE TO FIND THAT PART
OF IT THAT IS REALLY
ULTIMATELY MEANINGFUL, I
THINK REQUIRES THE SENSE
OF THE VASTNESS
OF THIS AREA.
SO I CAN'T PLAY
THAT GAME.
I'VE GIVEN TEN BEST LISTS
AND FIVE BEST LISTS,
BUT I THINK THE BEAUTIFUL
THING ABOUT FILM
IS THE TOTALITY OF IT,
EVEN THE BAD MOVIES.
I THINK YOU LEARN ENORMOUS
AMOUNT ABOUT GOOD MOVIES
FROM LOOKING AT BAD MOVIES.

Elwy says WE PLAN TO RUN
SOME ON CHANNEL 19.

Andrew says I TELL YOU, I DON'T CARE HOW
BAD YOU THINK ANY MOVIE YOU RUN,
SOMEBODY OUT THERE
IS GOING TO THINK
IT'S ONE OF THE GREAT
UNSUNG MASTERPIECES.

Elwy says OH, YES.
WE'RE RUNNING “UNDER
WESTERN STARS.”

Andrew says SOMETHING FILM CRITICS RUN INTO
IS THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS FILM.
EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS IT.
EVERYBODY CAN WALK
OFF THE STREET,
THERE'S ABOUT A THOUSAND
PEOPLE OUT THERE,
CAN WALK OFF THE STREET AND
CAN DO A BETTER CRITIQUE
OF “SCAR FACE” THAN
I EVER COULD DO.
THEY THINK.
PERHAPS I WOULD THINK
AFTER I'VE HEARD IT.
I GIVE LECTURES, AND I FIND
PEOPLE ARE MORE SPECIALIZED
IN CERTAIN AREAS THAN I AM,
AND THERE IS A FANTASTIC
AMOUNT OF KNOWLEDGE AND
EXPERTISE OUT THERE.
WHICH MEANS YOU HAVE
TO STAY ON YOUR TOES.
YOU CAN'T BULLDOZE PEOPLE
WITH PSEUDO AUTHORITY.
AND YOU JUST HAVE TO KEEP
LOOKING AT THINGS AND THINKING
ABOUT THEM AND COMING
UP WITH NEW THINGS.
AND IT'S A GREAT
CHALLENGE.
BUT IT'S A
TREMENDOUS FUN.
I MEAN, WHAT A WAY
TO MAKE A LIVING.

Elwy says OH, I WOULD SAY, WHAT
A WAY TO MAKE A LIVING.
I'M RIGHT WITH
YOU THERE, SIR.

Watch: The Critic