Erin Foster's article gives a brief history of Surrealism in cinema beginning with the desire of French filmmakers in the avant-garde movement to establish itself against Hollywood, the role of Impressionism and Dada in the years before Surrealist cinema, and then focusing on a few directors (such as Dulac and Buñuel and Dalí) and a few films (such as The Seashell and the Clergyman, Un chien andalou, and later films). She writes that The Seashell and the Clergyman was the only screenplay of his scenarios that Artaud completed and he deposited it at a film institute because he lacked the money to produce it himself where it was picked up by Dulac. “The surrealists considered Dulac, who was already well established in the Parisian avant-garde film community, to be strictly impressionist—too loyal to traditions of naturalism and symbolism for their liking” however “Dulac followed Artaud's script closely in her 1928 film, only changing a few practical elements when necessary” (Foster). Foster comments as well on Artaud's rejection of Dulac's film as “a distortion of his theories on surrealism” but does not mention his subsequent acknowledgement of it as the first Surrealist film. Foster also adds later that “Though the surrealists themselves rejected the film, most critics today consider La Coquille et le Clergyman to be the first surrealist film”.
Foster's article adds another layer of complexity to an attempt to discern whether The Seashell and the Clergyman should be considered the first Surrealist film: the rejection of contemporary Surrealists despite it's characterization by modern critics. The analysis in the works by Flitterman-Lewis and Williams revealed that not only did Dulac's movie fulfill some of the basic elements of Surrealist films, namely in its characterization of a dream as well as its attempt to create a participatory experience for the viewer, it was also accepted as Artaud as the first Surrealist film regardless of his own dissatisfaction with it. The film satisfies these criteria, but how should the perception of other Surrealists who denied it's status as Surrealist play into this evaluation? Here Artaud's own reactions should be considered as he was a Surrealist. His initial rejection of the film is overshadowed by his later acceptance of it (perhaps in the vein of conflicting, surprising messages that permeated Surrealist work) as the first Surrealist film. Ultimately, the question becomes one of criteria: should the evaluation of modern critics based on theories of Surrealism in art be valued more than the seemingly arbitrary (at the time, Artaud was the only one who had written a somewhat comprehensive theory of Surrealist cinema; see Flitterman-Lewis) evaluation of contemporary Surrealists? In the end, Artaud's own evaluation based on the methods and goals of later Surrealist films and that of modern critics is more convincing than that of contemporary Surrealists who, as Artaud illustrates, have a conflicting record of what they consider to be Surrealist cinema.
Foster, Erin. "Surrealism: Surrealist Film." 2008. Film Reference. 24 Nov. 2008 <http://www.filmreference.com/encyclopedia/romantic-comedy-yugoslavia/surrealism-surrealist-cinema.html>.