This (1976) was the time I was hanging around with Sarris quite a bit, and I can confirm his enthusiasm for ROBIN AND MARIAN. (That's Sarris's gushing blurb at the end.) If Sarris had produced an annual list for 1976 as he had in "The American Cinema" for all of the years leading up to 1968, ROBIN AND MARIAN would have been at the top, and it would have been italicized. The same would have been true of ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN, about which Sarris wasn't quite as ecstatic on its first release, but which gained favor in the great critic's mind in subsequent weeks and months.
In fact, the only three American films in Sarris's top ten list for 1976 are ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN, ROBIN AND MARIAN, and FAMILY PLOT, in that order.
Moving on to W.C. Fields: It has been said that Sarris was never a good critic when it came to comedy, and that is true. Sarris compares Fields to Chaplin and that's just ridiculous. Fields was much funnier than Chaplin. There's no comparison. One joke from THE BANK DICK--the name "A. Pismo Clam" on a film director's white megaphone--is funnier than any gag Chaplin ever came up with.
But Chaplin is without question the greater director. Fields wasn't even trying to make elegant movies. His films were little more than recorded bits. As such, they are glorious, and the highest art.
I've written before about Sarris and Woody Allen. In Sarris's reviews of Allen's "early, funny ones" such as BANANAS, Sarris will admit that he laughed uproariously throughout. Then he'll give the film a dismissive review.
Is there no value to laughter? Maybe Sarris should take another look at one of his favorite films, SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS. It's not easy to keep an audience laughing continuously. And when it comes to Fields, the laughter continues, internally, forever. As Sarris states in this review, the mere idea of Fields is hilarious.
This (1976) was the time I was hanging around with Sarris quite a bit, and I can confirm his enthusiasm for ROBIN AND MARIAN. (That's Sarris's gushing blurb at the end.) If Sarris had produced an annual list for 1976 as he had in "The American Cinema" for all of the years leading up to 1968, ROBIN AND MARIAN would have been at the top, and it would have been italicized. The same would have been true of ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN, about which Sarris wasn't quite as ecstatic on its first release, but which gained favor in the great critic's mind in subsequent weeks and months.
In fact, the only three American films in Sarris's top ten list for 1976 are ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN, ROBIN AND MARIAN, and FAMILY PLOT, in that order.
Moving on to W.C. Fields: It has been said that Sarris was never a good critic when it came to comedy, and that is true. Sarris compares Fields to Chaplin and that's just ridiculous. Fields was much funnier than Chaplin. There's no comparison. One joke from THE BANK DICK--the name "A. Pismo Clam" on a film director's white megaphone--is funnier than any gag Chaplin ever came up with.
But Chaplin is without question the greater director. Fields wasn't even trying to make elegant movies. His films were little more than recorded bits. As such, they are glorious, and the highest art.
I've written before about Sarris and Woody Allen. In Sarris's reviews of Allen's "early, funny ones" such as BANANAS, Sarris will admit that he laughed uproariously throughout. Then he'll give the film a dismissive review.
Is there no value to laughter? Maybe Sarris should take another look at one of his favorite films, SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS. It's not easy to keep an audience laughing continuously. And when it comes to Fields, the laughter continues, internally, forever. As Sarris states in this review, the mere idea of Fields is hilarious.