A CRITICAL LAPSE

To the Editors of The Crimson:

Charles Stephen's review of A Woman Under the Influence in the February 26th issue of The Crimson raises serious doubt as to the validity of this and all other art reviews published by the paper. Upon reading the review I was immediately struck by the similaritles between these comments and a review by Pauline Kael in the Dec. 9, 1974 issue of the New Yorker. Specifically, Stephen, like Kael, begins his review with a few comments on the theories of schizophrenia expressed by R.D. Laing. Dispersed throughout the article are several particularly unusual phrases used by Kael in her review. One of Stephen's lines reads as follows: "[Gena Rowlands] moves from spasms of manic nervousness to chastened, hurt-animal despair..." Kael's review reads, "Mabel returns, chastened, a fearful hurt-animal look on her face." This is a common enough phrase, were it not followed later in Stephen's review by the Jine, "Mabel waits for the schoolbus to return with her kids, pacing like an anxious speed freak..." Kael writes: "...a big beautiful blonde in tight, short chemises, she darts about like an anxious speed freak."

Commenting on the director's stylistics, Kael states. "This time [Cassavetes, the director] abandons his handsome, grainy simulated cinema-verite style." Stephen states: "The only scene of Nick at work is shot in the handsome, grainy, cinema-verite style characteristic of Cassavetes's earlier work." Kael closes her article by comparing Cassavetes to Harold Pinter: "[Cassavetes's] special talent--it links his work to Pinter's--is for showing intense suffering from nameless causes." Stephen, towards the end of his review, states, "Cassavetes's admirers compare his home-movie method to Harold Pinter's drama."

While this is not a case of large-scale plagiarism, questions are raised as to the boundary between one critic's inspiration by another's analysis, and the blatant use of published material without acknowledgement. It is naive to suppose that no critic takes notice of another critic's comments, but how can one account for such coincidental comments?

The charges I am making are seriously directed with a sincere concern for accuracy. Whether these particular phrases were used consciously or unconsciously, I cannot accept the incident as coincidental. In my opinion, there is no doubt that plagiarism in one form or another has occurred. The integrity of the entire Crimson Editorial Board has been seriously marred. Mark Tetor '77