I'm just curious. For many of us (who are not in Italy) our first introduction to the giallo would have been out of context - for me it was in the UK in the 1980s (well over a full decade after they were originally released). Obviously, they were popular with audiences in Italy, but I was just wondering how contemporary Italian critics viewed the genre as a whole during its heyday.

A long shot, but does anyone know?

I don't know a whole lot about this subject, but I recall hearing or reading somewhere that Dario Argento was one of the few Italian critics to respond positively to Bava's Blood and Black Lace at the time of its release (I think that this information came from Tim Lucas's Blood and Black Lace DVD commentary, or possibly from Maitland McDonagh's Broken Mirrors, Broken Minds, but I'm not sure).

In doing research on 42nd St. theaters, I came across a Variety review of Bava's KILL, BABY, KILL, which opened at a 42nd Street theater in NYC sometime in 1966, I believe. It was written by Stuart Byron and it was highly favorable and touted Bava's skills and reputation. Byron, who later worked on Film Comment, was a notable champion of offbeat genre releases like Bava films. I forget what his Variety tag was, "Byro" or something like that. Worth looking up.

He didn't ask about American critics, but, Byron aside, I would be willing to bet that gialli were given the same treatment they gave slasher movies in the 1980s.

Not to hijack Justin's thread, but did any slasher movies receive many positive marks from U.S. critics? Not including HALLOWEEN, of course, which doesn't really qualify.

Certainly not too many, but I think that's a tricky question; many of the gialli are actually good, creative unique films (and not dissimilar to some of DePalma's films which certainly received plaudits), whereas should any of these slasher films have received good reviews? While certain things can be fun at a nostalgic level, is "He Knows You're Alone" or "Friday the 13th" a good film? I certainly look at "Halloween" and see a world of difference in the film making skill exhibited there as opposed to to that of any "Friday the 13th" film...

Valid point, Jim. Does seem like apples and oranges, except we were talking about how these films were greeted by American critics, who probably were unable or unwilling to see any distinction between the two genres. I suspect something like BLACK BELLY OF THE TARANTULA was reviled by the critical establishment the same as American slashers like, oh, THE PROWLER. Of course, this is just speculation on my part. An educated guess, to be sure (and immodest), but I haven't researched it.

That said, yeah, there are some good slasher movies. HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME, MY BLOODY VALENTINE, FRIDAY THE 13TH: THE FINAL CHAPTER, just to pull three outta my ear. Is the best slasher flick as good as the best giallo, or even the five best? Probably not.

Thanks everyone who has replied so far! ... I don't mind the thread to be hi-jacked to talk about slasher films, obviously! I've done quite a bit of research on that particular topic, and most 80s slasher films received sniffy reviews at best from the mainstream press (with them predicting the death of the subgenre from as early as 1980). At the worst they attracted derision, hatred - and were accused of destroying the moral fibre of American youth. Siskel and Ebert's attempted demolition of FRIDAY THE 13TH was typical in tone. Even HALLOWEEN attracted apathy and scorn initially, before a handful of critics built the positive critical snowball that accelerated to huge box office business.

It is my understanding that most Gialli - and most Italian horror flicks outside some early Argento - that received US releases were at the drive-in or grindhouse. It's still fascinating to ponder what Italian critics made of them at the time, but I agree that as the quality varied so did the reception. I wonder if the saturation point reached coming up to the mid-70s killed the genre off, or it was critical reaction that did that.

Of course, I also wonder how the krimi were received in Germany! I suspect that mainstream critics were sniffy, but audiences loved them regardless.

The Gremese dictionaries of film have a couple lines from contemporary reviews for many of their listings. If you can read or translate Italian, they're a great resource. While the reviews they chose may not be representative of the consensus at the time, and may just reflect the biases of the editors, the overall impression I get is that gialli were taken more seriously by critics than were slasher films, which IIRC were pretty much dismissed out of hand, but still treated as the disposable B-movies they were. Here are a few translations from Gremese:

Paranoia
A giallo made with a certain professionalism, but combining artificial narrative developments with an absolute lack of any psychological depth to its characters, reducing them to mere puppets...
(Segnalazioni Cinematografiche, 1970)

Deep Red
Hitchcock teaches, with his sense of proportion that distinguishes him. Just compare his PSYCHO with this film, based on the similarly absurd crimes of a mysterious psychopath, to notice how the genre has been spoiled and corrupted, turning toward the most appalling and horrifying effects, which aim to hit a spectator in the stomach, rather than capture him with subtle intelligence. I understand the reasons that led Argento to return to the thriller after the failure of his 5 DAYS, but frankly I can not follow the path of this film to low butchery. Too bad, because the young man is not lacking in talent.
(Il Resto del Carlino, 1975)

Ciak si muore
Films of this kind do not deserve extravagant words: confusing and slapdash direction, some fashionably dirty sequences, good-for-nothing acting.
(Corriere Mercantile, 1975)

Torso
Blood galore, some sex, a pinch of Tribadism and plenty of naked breasts, all topped off with notes of absurdity, confused, naive and often served with performances that are amateurish to say the least.
(Il Lavoro, 1973)

The Fifth Cord
The script, direction and acting are the usual. That is, made in a series as befitting a consumer product, aimed at satisfying the demands of the general public, which is easy, granted, for they are too morbid. Who cares if the murderer is trapped in a phony way just before the last shot, or whether the account of the corpses, the how and why they were killed, doesn't add up to an acceptable standard?
(Il Secolo, 1971)

Bloodstained Butterfly
A thriller that entrusts its few items of interest other than its characters, drawn with broad approximation, to the laborious construction of the plot.
(Segnalazioni Cinematografiche, 1971)

Naked Girl Killed in the Park
...is a thriller that's not ugly, but largely without merit and, ultimately, interest.
(La Notte, 1972)

Vincent Canby gave a really scathing review to DEEP RED in the New York Times. I quote I always remember is him calling Argento "a director of incomparable incompetence".

Vincent

Comments from contemporary critics can also be found in some of cinematografo.it 's 'cine data base' entries (click on 'visualizza scheda completa' posted at the top and bottom of the abbreviated movie summaries the site defaults to). Here's Tullio Kezich (dean of film critics, and a pretty fair openminded sort; he passed away just recently) on Profondo Rosso (my very approximate translation):

My impression of critical response is a) that an intrepid few reviewers had semi-positive things to say about individual gialli in the early stages of the cycle, but rejected the genre once it utterly saturated the market, and B. [related] the standard rap was that these films were calculated exercises in bad taste for vulgar audiences; the best that could be said was that the director was a good technician and a master of his metier misapplying his energies. Bava, a well liked individual, often got this treatment. Argento got his own variation of same but inflected with disappointment about Dario's rapid descent from promising artist into tabloid paper notorious character doing anything to get noticed. Tinto Brass and Salvatore Samperi were similarly disapproved of: they'd gone over to the dark side.

A rule of thumb about Italian reviewing from the forties through the eighties at least: There were two camps of high profile critics divided along ideological lines. Neither was especially friendly to genre movie making. On the one side were the center right wing Catholics who were censorious moralists and approved only of wholesome (or at least innocuous) fare that painted Italy and religion and government in a good light ; on the other, left wing Marxists who demanded rigorous engagement with the cause, and wanted neorealist (or, at a later date, Godardian) parables. These folks would exile a former compadre in an instant for 'selling out'.

Oddly or not, the Communist critics had a measure of sympathy and hope (up through 1968 or so) for Italian westerns, especially the ones involving confrontation between peons and gringos. It was thought that such entertainments could inculcate the lessons of class struggle to the masses and foment radicalization. That genre-alliance got dissolved pretty quickly, however. Crime films set in Milan and other northern metropolises (the early ones directed by Lizzani) and political gialli were sometimes praised -or at least taken seriously- for similar reasons...especially if the director was someone like Damiani or Elio Petri.

Of course there were individuals like Kezich and Alberto Moravia (and Argento) who'd occasionally or more frequently champion stuff they weren't supposed to approve of; and there were also small cineclub fanzines on the French auteur-happy model championing delirious trash pataphysically. Those fledgling critics are the elders of today which may explain why Edwige Fenech and friends get so much ink currently, and why Tarantino occupies such a central place (as exemplar and as critical voice) in contemporary Italian film studies and coverage.

Thanks for the responses. Very interesting!