Personal Views: Explorations in Film

9. Hawks De-Wollenized

233 An฀intellectual฀carrot—the฀mind฀boggles! ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀The฀Thing฀from฀Another฀World Peter฀Wollen’s฀Signs฀and฀Meaning฀in฀the฀Cinema฀(Secker฀and฀ Warburg,฀1969)฀is฀probably฀the฀most฀influential฀book฀on฀film฀ in฀English฀of฀the฀past฀decade.฀I฀do฀not฀believe฀its฀seminal฀nature฀ has฀been฀sufficiently฀acknowledged฀in฀print:฀the฀rehabilitation฀ of฀ Eisenstein,฀ semiology,฀ structuralism,฀ the฀ emphasis฀ on฀ Godard :฀it฀is฀all฀there,฀and฀more฀than฀embryonically.฀Probably฀its฀ most฀widely฀influential฀(because฀most฀easily฀accessible)฀section฀ is฀the฀chapter฀on฀Hollywood฀(“The฀Auteur฀Theory”).฀Wollen฀ (to฀judge฀from฀the฀“Afterword”฀to฀the฀revised฀edition฀published฀ in฀1972)฀appears฀to฀have฀forsaken฀the฀interests฀defined฀in฀that฀ chapter฀in฀favour฀of฀pursuing฀an฀avant-garde฀whose฀existence฀ (with฀the฀exception,฀or฀perhaps฀the฀inclusion,฀of฀recent฀Godard)฀ is฀largely฀theoretical,฀i.e.,฀a฀non-existence;฀and฀of฀issuing฀lists฀of฀ critical฀priorities฀to฀his฀fellows.฀But,฀although฀the฀present฀Wollen ฀does฀not฀believe฀that฀“development฀of฀auteur฀analyses฀of฀ Hollywood฀directors฀is฀any฀longer฀a฀first฀priority,”฀the฀chapter฀ continues฀to฀have฀its฀influence,฀and฀those฀of฀us฀not฀in฀the฀forefront ฀of฀critical฀progress฀are฀still฀concerned฀with฀such฀fuddyduddy ฀issues฀as฀the฀stature฀of฀Ford฀and฀Hawks฀as฀artists,฀and฀ the฀interpretation฀of฀their฀films.฀I฀want฀to฀focus฀first฀on฀Wollen’s฀ structural฀analysis฀of฀Hawks,฀and฀go฀on฀to฀question฀the฀general฀ assumptions฀on฀which฀it฀is฀based. ฀ As฀I฀am฀concerned฀here฀with฀the฀exposure฀of฀fallacies฀in฀a฀ text฀I฀find฀less฀convincing฀every฀time฀I฀return฀to฀it,฀it฀is฀proper฀to฀ 9 Hawks฀De-Wollenized 234 chapter฀9 begin฀by฀acknowledging฀a฀debt,฀the฀magnitude฀of฀which฀can฀be฀ suggested฀by฀adding฀that฀there฀is฀no฀critical฀text฀to฀which฀I฀have฀ returned฀more฀frequently.฀Readers฀of฀my฀books฀on฀Hitchcock,฀ Hawks฀and฀Penn฀(all฀written฀before฀I฀had฀read฀Wollen’s฀book)฀ will,฀I฀hope,฀consider฀it฀a฀just฀claim฀that฀the฀general฀principles฀ of฀Wollen’s฀approach—the฀analysis฀of฀a฀director’s฀work฀in฀terms฀ of฀recurrent฀thematic฀motifs—were฀not฀entirely฀new฀or฀alien฀ to฀me.฀They฀were,฀however,฀not฀at฀all฀rigorously฀or฀systematically ฀employed.฀Wollen’s฀chapter,฀plus฀an฀article฀by฀Alan฀Lovell฀ in฀Screen฀(March/April฀1969),฀taught฀me฀to฀apply฀“structuralist”฀ principles฀consciously,฀though฀my฀treatment฀of฀them฀has฀always฀ been฀sceptical฀and฀unorthodox.฀Articles฀I฀subsequently฀wrote฀ on฀Bu�uel,฀Makavejev฀and฀Michael฀Reeves฀were฀consciously฀and฀ directly฀indebted฀to฀Wollen฀and฀Lovell. ฀ Alan฀Lovell’s฀article฀took฀the฀form฀of฀a฀critique฀of฀my฀own฀ work,฀focusing฀eventually฀on฀my฀account฀of฀Penn.฀The฀kind฀of฀ unconscious฀previous฀relationship฀I฀had฀to฀structuralist฀criticism ฀can฀perhaps฀be฀suggested฀by฀comparing฀his฀findings฀to฀my฀ own.฀In฀my฀book฀on฀Penn฀I฀suggested฀that฀central฀to฀his฀work฀ was฀a฀conflict฀between฀the฀conscious-rational฀and฀the฀spontaneous -intuitive,฀to฀both฀of฀which฀Penn฀is฀strongly฀drawn.฀Alan฀ Lovell฀concludes฀that฀the฀recurring฀structural฀centre฀of฀Penn’s฀ films฀has฀been฀a฀conflict฀between฀a฀teacher/parent-figure฀and฀ an฀unsocialized฀adolescent.฀The฀similarity฀of฀the฀two฀accounts฀ will฀be฀obvious;฀I฀still฀regard฀my฀“model”฀as฀the฀superior฀one,฀ because฀ it฀ allows฀ for฀ greater฀ artistic฀ complexity฀ and฀ critical ฀flexibility,฀notably฀when฀the฀conscious/intuitive฀conflict฀is฀ contained฀within฀a฀single฀character฀(e.g.,฀Annie฀Sullivan฀in฀The฀ Miracle฀Worker).฀The฀important฀difference,฀however,฀is฀in฀the฀ status฀each฀of฀us฀gives฀to฀his฀“model”:฀for฀Lovell,฀perception฀of฀ the฀structural฀core฀is฀crucial,฀and฀everything฀else฀becomes฀dependent ฀on฀it;฀for฀me,฀it฀offers฀one฀possible฀way฀of฀exploring฀the฀ texture฀of฀Penn’s฀films,฀the฀subject/style/theme฀synthesis฀they฀ represent,฀the฀particular฀nature฀of฀each,฀which฀various฀circum- 235 hawks฀de-wollenized stances฀and฀factors฀might฀contribute฀to฀determine.฀I฀would฀see฀ no฀necessary฀correlation฀between฀the฀full฀realization฀of฀the฀recurrent ฀structure฀and฀the฀quality฀of฀an฀individual฀film. ฀ Two฀claims฀for฀“structuralist”฀procedure฀are฀either฀implicit฀ or฀explicit฀in฀Wollen’s฀and฀Lovell’s฀pieces.฀First,฀implicit฀in฀Wollen ฀is฀the฀notion฀of฀its฀interpretative฀and฀evaluative฀adequacy:฀ by฀the฀end฀of฀his฀structural฀analyses฀of฀Ford฀and฀Hawks,฀he฀is฀ ready฀to฀pronounce฀a฀confident฀verdict:฀while฀Hawks฀is฀merely฀ “an฀undoubted฀auteur,”฀Ford฀is฀a฀“great฀artist,”฀and฀his฀superiority ฀is฀proved฀by฀“the฀richness฀of฀the฀shifting฀relations฀between฀ antinomies”฀in...