{"id":37169,"date":"2017-06-17T16:48:09","date_gmt":"2017-06-17T21:48:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/?p=37169"},"modified":"2019-05-01T19:09:48","modified_gmt":"2019-05-02T00:09:48","slug":"james-agee-astonishing-excellence-a-guest-post-by-charles-maland","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/2017\/06\/17\/james-agee-astonishing-excellence-a-guest-post-by-charles-maland\/","title":{"rendered":"James Agee: Astonishing excellence: A guest post by Charles Maland"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Agee<\/a><\/p>\n

James Agee.<\/em><\/p>\n

DB here: Charles Maland<\/strong>, a distinguished historian of American film, has just completed editing the definitive collection of James Agee’s film writings<\/a>.\u00a0It’s due to be published in July. <\/em><\/p>\n

Agee changed American literature with Let Us Now Praise Famous Men<\/strong>, and he changed film criticism with his reviews for The Nation<\/strong> and Time<\/strong>. After I wrote\u00a0a 2014 blog entry on\u00a0his work, I learned of Chuck’s project. Later\u00a0I decided to turn the entry into a chapter of\u00a0The Rhapsodes<\/strong>, a study of 1940s American film criticism. Naturally, I turned to Chuck for help. He was magnificently generous, steering me to sources and sharing new material he discovered. In particular, Agee’s\u00a0unpublished manuscripts contain some powerful arguments and insights. Chuck’s historical introduction to the collection fills in many details of Agee’s relation to popular journalism, to the political and intellectual currents of his time, and to the Hollywood industry.<\/em><\/p>\n

This book will be one of the most important film publications of 2017. \u00a0As a warmup, we invited Chuck to write a guest entry on Agee and the process of editing the volume. We’re glad he responded, and we think you will be too.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In the summer of 1927, a precocious seventeen-year-old high school student wrote this to an older friend:<\/p>\n

To me, the great thing about the movies is that it\u2019s a brand new field. I don\u2019t see how much more can be done with writing or with the stage. In fact, every kind of recognized \u201cart\u201d has been worked pretty nearly to the limit. Of course great things will undoubtedly be done in all of them, but, possibly excepting music, I don\u2019t see how they can avoid being at least in part imitations. As for the movies, however, their possibilities are infinite\u2014is, insofar as the possibilities of any art CAN be so.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sixteen years later, British poet W.H. Auden wrote of the \u201castonishing excellence\u201d of a movie column in The Nation<\/em>, written by the same person, calling it \u201cthe most remarkable regular event in American journalism today.\u201d<\/p>\n

Auden was commenting on none other than James Agee (pronounced AY\u2019-jee), a writer that New York Times <\/em>reviewer A.O. Scott later called \u201cthe first great American movie critic.\u201d Acknowledging that Agee didn\u2019t \u201cinvent\u201d movie criticism, Scott contends that he did show \u201cwhat it could be as a form of journalism and a way of talking about the world.\u201d<\/p>\n

I concur with Scott about the importance of James Agee\u2019s movie criticism, and for the past several years I\u2019ve been preparing a complete edition of Agee\u2019s movie reviews and criticism.\u00a0Complete Film Criticism: Reviews, Essays, Manuscripts<\/a><\/em> will appear this July from the University of Tennessee Press as Volume Five of The Collected Works of James Agee<\/a><\/em>. <\/em>Here I\u2019d like to tell you a little more about who James Agee was and how he became a movie reviewer, what problems I encountered and discoveries I made in compiling the volume, and why Agee\u2019s movie writings still deserve our attention.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Who was James Agee, and how did he become a movie reviewer?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Big<\/a><\/p>\n

James Agee (1909-1955) was born in Knoxville, Tennessee. In his relatively short career he was a feature writer for Fortune <\/em>magazine; a book reviewer and movie reviewer for Time <\/em>magazine; a movie columnist for The Nation<\/em>; a co-screenwriter of, among others, The African Queen <\/em>and The Night of the Hunter; <\/em>and author of a volume of poetry, Permit Me Voyage<\/em> (1934), an expansive social documentary book called Let Us Now Praise Famous Men <\/em>(1941), and two novels, The Morning Watch <\/em>(1951) and A Death in the Family <\/em>(1957). The latter was published posthumously and won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 1958.<\/p>\n

The novel also draws on Agee\u2019s autobiography. When Agee was six, his father was killed in a car accident, and the novel explores just such a situation of a young boy, growing up in the Fort Sanders neighborhood of Knoxville, and the way he and his family cope with\u00a0the father\u2019s death. In real life, following his father\u2019s tragic death, Agee\u2019s mother sent her son to the St. Andrew\u2019s School, a boarding school in Sewanee, Tennessee. After a year at Knoxville High School, Agee transferred to Phillips Exeter Academy in New Hampshire. There he finished high school and published his first movie review, on F.W. Murnau\u2019s The Last Laugh,<\/em> which is included in the volume. He then completed his education as an English major at Harvard.<\/p>\n

Agee loved movies from childhood.\u00a0A Death in the Family<\/em> includes a scene in which father and son walk from their neighborhood to go to the movies in downtown Knoxville, where they see a Charlie Chaplin short and a William S. Hart western. But he didn\u2019t get the opportunity to review movies professionally until the 1940s. His first job as a feature writer for Henry Luce\u2019s Fortune <\/em>magazine paid the bills.\"Book<\/a><\/p>\n

His book on Alabama sharecropper farmers in the Depression, Let Us Now Praise Famous Men<\/em>, started as an assignment from Fortune,<\/em> but when Agee discovered that the subject far exceeded the boundaries of a feature article, he took a leave from Fortune <\/em>to write the book. When it appeared in 1941, Americans were thinking about World War II and it sold only 600 copies, despite some positive reviews.\u00a0The book\u2019s reputation began to grow during the social turbulence of the 1960s, when it was reprinted and spoke to readers during that era in powerful ways. .<\/p>\n

Following that disappointing commercial response, Agee returned to work for Time, Inc., now as a book reviewer for Time. <\/em>(Volume 3<\/a> of the Collected Works<\/em>, edited by Paul Ashdown, includes all of Agee\u2019s published book reviews and non-film journalism.)\u00a0\u00a0 While reviewing books, Agee kept alert to openings in the movie section, and he finally got his chance by reviewing The Big Street, <\/em>starring Lucille Ball and Henry Fonda; the piece\u00a0appeared in the September 7, 1942, issue of Time. <\/em><\/p>\n

From then on, he remained on staff at Time <\/em>as a movie reviewer until November 1948. His reviewing stint was interrupted after he wrote a powerful cover story for Time <\/em>about the detonation of atomic bombs in Japan. For a few months in late 1945 and early 1946, Henry Luce put him on special assignment to write on social and political topics.<\/p>\n

In December 1942, Agee also received an invitation from Peggy Matthews, arts editor of The Nation\u00b8<\/em> a left-leaning journal of politics and the arts, to do a regular movie column for that audience. Agee accepted and his first contribution appeared late that month. Agee was writing about movies in two different places until his last Nation <\/em>column on July 31, 1948. In between, by my best count, he reviewed 561 films in Time <\/em>and 460 films in The Nation<\/em>. Of that number Agee discussed\u00a0320 titles in both<\/em> venues.<\/p>\n

Agee stopped reviewing because he got the itch to write screenplays. Between 1948 and his death, he sometimes supported himself and his family as a screenwriter. His two most famous credits are on John Huston\u2019s The African Queen<\/em> (1951) and Charles Laughton\u2019s The Night of the Hunter<\/em> (1955). (Volume Four<\/a> of the Collected Works<\/em>, edited by Jeffrey Couchman, contains the script versions of these two films.) Partly to provide some income after he stopped reviewing but before his screenwriting career gained traction, Agee contracted with Life <\/em>magazine (another Luce publication) to write extended essays on silent film comedy and John Huston. The resulting pieces, \u201cComedy\u2019s Greatest Era\u201d and \u201cUndirectable Director,\u201d are familiar to many readers. These pieces, along with some other individual Agee movie essays, like a review of Sunset Boulevard <\/em>in Sight &\u00a0Sound<\/em>, also appear in the collection.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Problems and discoveries<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Agee<\/a>The goal of this Agee collection is to provide access in one volume\u2014for the first time\u2014to all of Agee\u2019s movie reviews, all of his other published articles and essays on movies, and a number of unpublished manuscripts I discovered in my research that cast light on Agee\u2019s movie aesthetic and writing. Nearly all of Agee\u2019s Nation <\/em>reviews appeared in Agee on Film, Reviews and Essays <\/em>(1958)\u2014<\/em>oddly, only his review of It\u2019s a Wonderful Life<\/em> was omitted\u2014so compiling and editing those reviews was relatively uncomplicated.<\/p>\n

Only a small selection of Agee\u2019s Time <\/em>reviews had appeared in Agee on Film. <\/em>Because I began with what I thought was a full and accurate bibliography of all of Agee\u2019s Time <\/em>movie reviews, <\/em>I thought that compiling them\u00a0would be an uncomplicated task, too. I was wrong.<\/p>\n

When he started reviewing for Time,\u00a0<\/em>and especially in his last months there, Agee was only one of several movie reviewers (although he was generally the primary reviewer). For the whole period he worked there, Time<\/em> did not give bylines to writers. To verify\u00a0what reviews Agee wrote,<\/em> I enlisted the services of Bill Hooper, Time\u2019s <\/em>chief archivist. From him I learned that a copy-desk employee would handwrite in one master copy of each issue the name of the author of every\u00a0article and review. These issues were then bound quarterly, and they eventually were deposited in the Time <\/em>archives.<\/p>\n

Mr. Hooper generously checked each volume against the bibliography I sent him and also responded to a number of questions that arose from the initial inquiry. The only period he was unable to verify was for the first three months of 1946: the bound volume from that period was missing. Fortunately, though, that was the time when Agee had taken an assignment as a special correspondent for social and political affairs.<\/p>\n

\"Agee<\/a>As a result of these inquiries, I discovered that thirteen of the Time <\/em>reviews and articles included in Agee on Film<\/em> were in fact written by other journalists. It was even more suprising to discover that all thirteen of those pieces also appeared in the Library of America edition of Agee\u2019s writings<\/a>, Film Writing and Selected Journalism<\/em> (2005). Thus, of the 39 film reviews, essays, and profiles included in that volume, Mr. Hooper and I discovered that Agee had written only 26 of them. So I\u2019m deeply indebted to Mr. Hooper. He enabled me to compile all of Agee\u2019s film writings at Time <\/em>in one place for the first time, at least as close as it is humanly possible to do.<\/p>\n

The Agee papers, held principally in the special collections units at the University of Texas and the University of Tennessee, also contained a variety of fascinating information. I learned from financial records that Agee was well paid as a salaried employee of Time <\/em>and that he was paid modestly at The Nation<\/em> ($25 a column at first, later\u2014it seems\u2014by the word, which often amounted to less than $25). A few uncashed checks from The Nation<\/em> in the archives suggest that Agee wasn\u2019t much of a businessman. Other documents contained lists of film screenings that had been set up for Agee; they suggest that he saw a great many films, both in press screenings\u00a0and regular theatre showings.<\/p>\n

Perhaps most interesting for our purposes were a number of previously unpublished manuscripts. They included: 1) four-page typed \u201cMovie Digest,\u201d written in late 1935 or early 1936, containing thumbnail reviews (most with grades\u2014A through F) of films, mostly from 1934 and 1935; 2) a scathing 1938 review of Bard\u00e8che and Brassilach\u2019s The History of Motion Pictures <\/em>that Partisan Review<\/em> decided not to publish, probably because of how unrelentingly harsh it was; 3) a long letter that Agee wrote upon the request of Librarian of Congress Archibald MacLeish with suggestions about possible films to include in the Library of Congress film collection; and 4) some notes on movies and reviewing, probably from 1949, for a proposed Museum of Modern Art roundtable discussion of movies. All these manuscripts, including several essays or proposals for essays on Ren\u00e9 Clair and Sergei Eisenstein\u2014both Agee favorites\u2014are included in the collection.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Agee as movie critic<\/strong><\/p>\n

It\u2019s hard in a short space to make generalizations about Agee\u2019s aesthetic and why he should continue to interest us as a movie reviewer. Yet I would say he\u2019s important for at least five reasons.<\/p>\n

\"Agee<\/a>First, grounded in the history of film, he took films seriously and thought they were capable of being great, even though most movies failed to live up to his exacting standards. Beginning his childhood movie-going about the time that Chaplin was becoming an enormous star, Agee came to embrace a pantheon of filmmakers against which he measured other work. That pantheon included silent film comics like Chaplin and Keaton; filmmakers with great ambitions who had difficulty fitting into the system in which they worked, like D.W. Griffith, Erich von Stroheim, and Sergei Eisenstein; and European masters like Murnau, Pabst, Clair, Hitchcock, Dovzhenko, and Dreyer. He also praised a variety of contemporary American filmmakers, including those as diverse as William Wyler, Preston Sturges, Val Lewton, and John Huston.<\/p>\n

Second, his work is historically significant. He began writing just as the film industries of the United States and its Allies were trying to determine the role of movies during the world war that was raging. In his earliest reviews,\u00a0Agee tended to celebrate the Allied documentaries (what he called \u201crecord\u201d films) to the detriment of\u00a0fiction movies. He was especially sensitive to a kind of poetic realism that he celebrated\u00a0in Italian Neorealism (in\u00a0his review of Shoeshine<\/em>, for example) and in George Rouquier\u2019s Farrebique<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Third, Agee was a magnificent and witty writer. He could write sustained, insightful essays, like his Time<\/em> cover stories on Ingrid Bergman and on Laurence Olivier\u2019s Henry V<\/em> or his famous three-part defense of Chaplin\u2019s Monsieur Verdoux. <\/em>But he was also funny, especially when criticizing a film. Early in 1948 Agee got behind in his Nation <\/em>reviews when he was hospitalized with appendicitis: to catch up he reviewed as many as 25 films in a single column, often in one sentence or two. Here are a few favorites:<\/p>\n

On a mystery film starring Claude Rains, Agee wrote: \u201cThe Unsuspected<\/em> is suspected too soon by the audience and too late by most of his fellow actors.\u201d He disposed of\u00a0an odd cinematic blend of whodunit and romance with this review: \u201cEmbraceable You<\/em> is dispensable entertainment.\u201d A John Wayne vehicle also took it on the chin: \u201cTycoon<\/em>. Several tons of dynamite are set off in this movie; none of it under the right people.\u201d He titled his February 14, 1948 column \u201cMidwinter Clearance.\u201d\u00a0Perhaps my favorite was a Jeanne Crain-Dan Duryea vehicle: \u201cYou Were Meant for Me. <\/em>That\u2019s what you think.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Fourth, Agee stands out because he had such catholic tastes. Although he was hard to please, he wrote enthusiastically and positively about a wide range of films. Agee praised European classics like Zero for Conduct, Ivan the Terrible (Part One), Day of Wrath, Children of Paradise, <\/em>and Farrebique;<\/em> British films like Henry V, Hamlet, Great Expectations, Odd Man Out, <\/em>and Black Narcissus;<\/em> a variety of American movies like The Miracle of Morgan\u2019s Creek, Meet Me in St. Louis, The Big Sleep, The Best Years of Our Lives, Notorious, Monsieur Verdoux, <\/em>and The Treasure of Sierra Madre; <\/em>documentary films like Desert Victory, San Pietro,<\/em> and They Were Expendable;<\/em> Hollywood B films like Val Lewton\u2019s Curse of the Cat People;\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0the emerging Neorealist films; and dark urban dramas like Double Indemnity<\/em> that later became known as film noir<\/em>. Any critic who could write informatively and with enthusiasm about such a broad range of films had to possess a wide-ranging sensibility that welcomed the breadth of artistic possibilities presented by the movies of his era.<\/p>\n

I should acknowledge here that some commentators have argued that Agee was not critical enough about really bad films and that he was too equivocal, trying to find something good to say about most of the films he reviewed. I\u2019d respond to these claims in a couple of ways. First, it\u2019s true that Agee was often equivocal in his reviews, but that equivocation often took the form of saying a film could have been more successful if it had done something better, but it didn\u2019t. Another form of Agee equivocation was to say that an otherwise failed film did have some redeeming element (a song, a performance, a stylistically effective moment).<\/p>\n

I think the fact that he would sometimes give bad films some positive gesture was partly a function of his love of the movies as an art form. I have to say I\u2019m sympathetic to Agee here. I usually find something redeeming in almost every movie I see, and my wife regularly tells our friends that she\u2019s the true critic in the family\u2014they should ask her<\/em>, not me, if they should see a film!<\/p>\n

Second, I think there\u2019s some difference between Agee\u2019s Nation<\/em> and Time<\/em> reviews. He was under tighter editorial oversight at Time,<\/em> and I think he was under\u00a0more pressure to avoid completely lambasting a film than he was in his Nation<\/em> columns. Getting a chance to read all of Agee\u2019s Time<\/em> and Nation <\/em>reviews will offer readers an opportunity to think about how he wrote differently about movies for different audiences. The fact remains, however, that of the films and filmmakers he really admired, Agee showered praise on an unusually wide range of different kind of films.<\/p>\n

Finally, as David Bordwell has observed, <\/em>the publication of Agee on Film: Reviews and Essays<\/em> in 1958 had a strong influence on the growth of film culture in the United States during the 1960s and after. As Bordwell put it,<\/p>\n

There\u2019s no knowing how many teenagers and twentysomethings read and reread that fat paperback with its blaring red cover. We wolfed it down without knowing most of the movies Agee discussed. We were held, I think, by the rolling lyricism of the sentences, the pawky humor, and the stylistic finish of certain pieces\u2014the three-part essay on Monsieur Verdoux<\/em>, the Life<\/em> piece \u201cComedy\u2019s Greatest Era,\u201d the John Huston profile \u201cUndirectable Director.\u201d The adolescent fretfulness that put some critics off didn\u2019t give us qualms; after all, we were unashamedly reading Hart Crane, Thomas Wolfe, and Salinger too. Some of us probably wished that we could some day write this way, and this well.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Agee on Film <\/em>came along at a propitious time: European art film was beginning to flourish and a new generation of critics and reviewers\u2014Sarris, Kauffman, Kael, Schickel, Simon, and later Ebert\u2014engaged with this exciting new film culture. All, at one time or another, acknowledged Agee\u2019s contributions. All, like Agee, published their reviews in book form.<\/p>\n

For all these reasons, James Agee\u2019s writings on the movies deserve our continued attention. I hope that by preparing a volume which contains all of Agee\u2019s movie reviews and essays in Time <\/em>and The Nation<\/em>, all his other published writings on movies, and a number relevant but previously unpublished essays, I will help enable interested readers to get an accurate and fuller appreciation of Agee\u2019s contributions to our evolving film culture.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Charles Maland is the author of Chaplin and American Culture<\/a><\/em> (Princeton University Press, 1991) and the BFI classics volume<\/a> on City Lights<\/em> (2008). We thank him for his willingness to serve as a guest blogger.<\/p>\n

Agee’s youthful encomium to film comes from\u00a0Dwight Macdonald, \u201cAgee & the Movies,\u201d in Dwight Macdonald on Movies<\/a><\/em> (Prentice-Hall, 1969),\u00a03. Auden’s praise of his criticism is in\u00a0\u201cAgee on Film (Letter to the Editor),\u201d Nation<\/em>\u00a0159, no.\u00a021 (18 November 1943):\u00a0628. A. O. Scott’s remarks come from\u00a0Gerald Peary\u2019s For the Love of the Movies: The Story of American Film Criticism<\/a><\/em> (Bullfrog Films, 2009). The Bordwell quotation is in The Rhapsodes: How 1940s Critics Changed American Film Culture<\/a><\/em> (University of Chicago Press, 2016), 2-3.<\/p>\n

Agee\u2019s name was frequently mispronounced. At the end of a 1948 Nation <\/em>column, Agee apologized for mistakenly calling Amos Vogel \u201cAlex\u201d in a column, then went on to say, \u201cI apologize to Mr. Vogel and to you; and sadly join company with an aunt of mine who used to refer to Sacco and Vanetsi, and with all those who call me Aggie, Ad\u2019ji, Adjee\u2019, Uhjee\u2019, and Eigh\u2019 ggeee\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n

Our next stop: Bologna’s Cinema Ritrovato<\/a>!<\/p>\n

P.S. 1 May 2019:<\/strong> For more on Agee, observed from many perspectives, including Chuck Maland’s, see the commentaries at the Criterion Collection<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"Agee<\/a><\/p>\n

James Agee, portrait by Helen Levitt.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

James Agee. DB here: Charles Maland, a distinguished historian of American film, has just completed editing the definitive collection of James Agee’s film writings.\u00a0It’s due to be published in July. Agee changed American literature with Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, and he changed film criticism with his reviews for The Nation and Time. After […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[42,215,34],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-37169","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-books","category-critics-agee","category-people-we-like"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37169","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=37169"}],"version-history":[{"count":18,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37169\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":41924,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37169\/revisions\/41924"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37169"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37169"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37169"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}