What's so great about Pauline Kael?

I never knew Pauline Kael, but my impression of her is not that she was mean but that she was just very sure of herself and always stood up for her opinions.

Many years ago she appeared on “Writer’s Workshop,” an educational television program produced here in South Carolina. The host — who was no fool, I can assure you — tried complimenting her by referring to the writing style of both her and Arlene Croce as “impressionistic.”

She really lit into him; I can’t quote her exactly, but I recall her saying that “impressionistic” tends to be a word used only to describe the writing of women, and that it’s condescending, a kind of way of saying impulsive or emotional or less than reasonable.

She made it real clear real quick that she was nobody’s sweetheart.

“prob not at the time”

It became a topic pretty quickly.

“She gets turned on by the thrill of experiencing a movie — the kinetic side of it — and seems nonplussed by airy pretensions.”

I love the thrill of experiencing a movie as well, when the movie creates a complex experience for me to become involved with. Kael was only smart enough to appreciate “the kinetic side” so she actually missed out on a lot of thrilling movies that were over her head. So nothing is so great about her.

Richard Corliss writing in Time :

“When Quentin Tarantino was 15, he saw something on TV that changed his life: Pauline Kael. The New Yorker movie critic was being grilled by Tomorrow host Tom Snyder on her rave review of Philip Kaufman’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and she refused to back down. “I thought, Who is this wild old woman?” the writer-director of Pulp Fiction recalls, “and soon I was going to the library to find her books. She was as influential as any director was in helping me develop my aesthetic. I never went to film school, but she was the professor in the film school of my mind.”

’nuff said.

okay Matt u win with that qoute

Kael is horrible

God only knows what Kael thought of QT.

From a 1998 interview with Modern Maturity:

MM: Do you think your criticism has changed movies or affected filmmakers?

Kael: I’d rather not say. If I say yes, I’m an egotist, and if I say no, I’ve wasted my life. Although I’ve been told I have influenced some people to become directors. Unfortunately, most of them are lousy.

It’s ironic Pauline Kael’s thoughts about “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” have been mentioned…

That’s the one thing upon which I DO agree overwhelmingly with Kael.

Of the film, she said “it may be the best film of its kind ever made”. I find it difficult to beleieve she would be “grilled” for appreciating such a brilliant film, but it takes all sorts.

I’ve read Kael’s “Invasion” review. Even though I agree with her general appraisal of the work, she seems to delight in revealing the fate of a certain key cameo character (I won’t say which one) in the same way a novelist would get a kick out of suddenly revealing a plot twist in a suspense yarn (except it isn’t Kael’s story to tell here). Also, she mentions something about Brooke Adams’ voice generating “trick low rings” or some such weirdness. She seems to miss many points of the allegorical nature of the film and instead fritters away ink on revealing key details of the film and discussing the obscure quirks of the actors and actresses in the film…sort of like a rambling grandmother talking about the film she scarcely recalls seeing back in 1927.

Quentin Tarantino was probably more inspired by Kael’s obnoxious nature than anything else.

Earlier in this thread it was mentioned the villain in “Willow” was named after Kael. Erm…naming a villain after someone, especially a film critic, is NOT complimentary. In fact, the character’s name was a swipe at Pauline Kael, who was often unfavourable toward George Lucas (she wasn’t a “Star Wars” fan).

Kael falls way down my list of respect not because she doesn’t like certain classics I like, but because she seems go out of her way to invent “legitimate” reasons not to like them (akin to the “searching for reasons to justify liking a film” theory mentioned earlier in the thread).

Her review of “Network” is particularly hideous. Her review was entitled “HOT AIR”.

She doesn’t like the characters yelling at the top of their lungs…despite the fact the yelling is justified in every instance (you wouldn’t expect Beatrice Straight to whisper her Oscar winning speech given its context and content, would you?). Also, she felt Paddy Chayefsky was attacking the “soulless masses” who constitute the American television audience. Chayefsky, on the Dinah Shore show, actually admitted to enjoying television himself, and the film is obviously written by someone with a good popular knowledge of the medium. Chayefsky’s lament was the networks are becoming increasingly sloppy with their programming and advertising dollars were being placed ahead of common standards of decent journalism and quality programming.

It was said elsewhere in this thread that Kael was a prophet of sorts with her reviews. Bullshit. Her trashing of “Network” (penned by a REAL prophet, Paddy Chayefsky) shows Paddy knew where television and pop culture in general were heading and P.K. had no clue.

Kael hated “Midnight Express” and her review of it is especially obnoxious. Her review was entitled “YELLOW JOURNALISM”. I won’t go into detail, but the fact she denounced Giorgio Moroder’s classic musical theme as “muzak” says it all about how unhip Kael was for the times.

She also had no time for “The Stepford Wives” and said the world wasn’t exactly waiting for a feminist gothic horror.

“Dirty Harry” was another one she despised. Ditto “A Clockwork Orange”, which she believed would desensitise people to violence (I can’t speak for everyone, but for me it had the opposite effect and actually made me VERY sensitive to violence portrayed in film, so there goes P.K.’s twaddle).

Finally, I’d like to know exactly what Pauline contributed to “Heaven Can Wait” as mentioned elsewhere on this thread. She didn’t write it, nor did she direct or produce the film, nor did she compose the wonderful score. I’ve heard she was sweet on Warren Beatty, but I think someone’s giving P.K. some undeserved credit here.

She was sweet on Beatty until he let her go from production work (she had helped Paul Schrader and James Toback with projects only reading the script and approving of Heaven Can Wait). After that, she panned everything including Reds (well not a pan exactly but very lukewarm—-considering its a masterpiece)

Yes, I have read she was let go by W.B. from production work.

Of course, we all know Warren was a ladies’ man.

Warren Beatty and Pauline Kael?

The mind shudders.

And for those who don’t know who Pauline Kael was…

Do you think Warren got his end in?

(Hey, she trashed “Network”, she deserves this!)

No even though he is said to have been with 15,000 I believe he stayed away from her

That 15,000 sounds like one of those bogus Wilt the Stilt claims. If he put that many notches on his bedpost, it would’ve been a pile of sawdust after the first few thousand.

However, Pauline is dead and Warren would never admit to it. So it remains a frightening possibility in my mind.

I’d also like to say, P.K. wasn’t as witty as people claim. Remember, she had a book entitled “I Lost It At The Movies”. It’s about as highbrow as Australian film critic-blowhard David Stratton calling his book “I Peed On Fellini”.

Hey…don’t laugh, you’ll only encourage him!

Edit: double post

“That 15,000 sounds like one of those bogus Wilt the Stilt claims. If he put that many notches on his bedpost, it would’ve been a pile of sawdust after the first few thousand.”

I tend to believe it. It is not impossible to get a lot of girls if u arent famous. When you are its even easier.

Den, you must do the mathematics here.

15,000…let’s say over the past 50 years.

300 different women per year for each of the past fifty years? Even while maintaining a steady relationship with Julie Christie and others?

Also, I’ve a difficult time believing anyone would stray from Julie. Even computers like her.

That is assuming it was one at a time.
Hef used to have 8 woman take turns in one session.

300 different women per year isn’t so ridiculous. Those Hollywood stars probably snort women like cocaine every single day. Only 300 would maybe be an off-year.

Many people don’t like her because she dissed their favorite movies.She also hated Sophie’s choice which was a very succesful movie.But she was the first who loved Bonnie and Clyde.She is a very smart critic I believe.

Lawrence…

“NO PRISONERS! NO PRISONERS!”

Ahem, thanks, Peter.

Lawrence (D.H., of Arabia or otherwise):

It’s not so much the “what” with Pauline Kael, it’s the “why”.

Okay, so she didn’t like this film or that film…not everyone will like a film…WHY didn’t she like them?

Read her reasons, some of them are moronic. At best, she outsmarts herself with pseudo-logic divorced from social reality. She wasn’t very hip to how society worked. Just a snooty critic penning poison from her ivory tower.

Socially irrelevant critics such as Margaret Pompous-rants and David Stratton also have a tendency not to really “get” anything outside their “latte left” lifestyle.

used to admire her, until i found out she hated a lot of great art film directors so fuck her. she was witty, true, but also rather close minded and ignorant. Frank mentioned the whole ‘anti-intellectual’ aspect of her but isn’t that true of most American film critics? Art films tend to get better reviews in Europe than America; always have, always will.

MARK: why should a critic be ‘hip to how society worked’? To me that is just pandering.

And i don’t know why you keep bringing up Magaret and David. They are so irrelevant, and barely even snobby. she loved the fast and the furious movies and gave John Carpenter’s ‘Vampires’ 4/5. Dave is a snob, occasionally, but he doesn’t try to hide it either so what’s the big deal?

Dead nine years, and still the source of violent, hostile arguments either way.

Any other deceased critics who invite similar passions?

Start a thread on such safe, sweet, sacred cows as James Agee or Otis Ferguson or Manny Farber and see if anyone gives a shit, or for how long.

@Rodney: The fact that Kael still brings out passions 9 years after her death does not necessarily mean that there’s anything great about her criticism. After all, John Wilkes Booth is still remembered 145 years after his demise while many other better actors of his era are forgotten.

Agee, Ferguson, Farber, et al. may not be discussed or debated anymore but that may be because they were reliable and “safe” critics who based their reviews on intelligence and recognizable standards. If those who disliked Kael’s reviews went away, few would remember her either; she’d go into the history books with the other unheralded critics — in my humble opinion.

The fact that there are legions of cineastes who find fault with her specific assessments and general approach suggests that she’s “less than meets the eye.” After all, who hates her contemporary rivals, Andrew Sarris and Renata Adler, or Charles Champlain, Vincent Canby, etc.? One may agree or disagree with their opinions or methods, but that did not produce a visceral love-hate reaction. I, for one, do not think that LOLA MONTES is among the top 5 (or even 50) greatest films ever made but I was not made livid by Sarris’s over-the-top praise for Max Ophuls. However, Kael’s anti-intellectual rants against Resnais, Antonioni, and other artistic filmmakers (not to mention her obnoxious personal behavior at screenings that I mentioned earlier) made me mad.

In the end, it’s not so difficult (or even esteemable) to just be “controversial.” To me, being thoughtful is preferable, even if that means being “safe” and “sweet.”

I don’t know that I’d ever call Farber safe. He out thinks Kael without even trying. And he’s deeply engaging, full of insight, and provocative. As you’re reading him, you can hear him wrestling with his opinions. Setting something in place, then stepping back, considering the value of the arrangement, and either adding to it or subtracting from it, juxtaposing ideas it to see how they resonate, like the painter he was. It was quite heady stuff and exciting to be a part of. He never settles for just being right. With Kael, my reaction often was, is she out of her fucking mind? It wasn’t that she was always wrong, rather, it was her jittery, hyperbolic excessiveness that perplexed.

Raymond Durgnat is another critic, long forgotten, I still enjoy reading.

Ray is one of the greatest of all film critics and revival of interest in his work is LONG overdue.

Kael actually was quite witty in casual conversation. I’m not talking Dorothy Parker zingers — just someone who was great lively fun to talk with.

In many ways she didn’t so much review the films as she did the audience. She was incredibly interested in rbing gin down films she felt had been overrated (eg. 2001) and had an eye peeled towards thing sshe thought were genuinely new. Her reviews of “Bonnie & Clyde” and “Last Tango in Pairs” reflect this. She liekd the films for themeselevs but even more for theways they broke with the stuffiness of the past and looked forward to a looser more engaged future.

@K.J.: Yes, Raymond Durgnat was a very influential critic — thoughtful, astute, yet opinionated. He was a formative influence on my thinking about movies, along with Robin Wood and others. His book, FILMS AND FEELINGS, may be forgotten but it illustrates a way of understanding cinema that can still be influential. Durgnat fell out of favor in the 1970s because he was opposed to the academic turn toward semiotics. Some of his arguments turned out to be prescient; others were just wrong.

I don’t believe that he was a regular movie reviewer, though, in the sense that Kael, Sarris, et al. were (having to write a weekly column on recent releases). I may be wrong on that score, though, because I know that he published in MANY British and U.S. journals.

“The fact that Kael still brings out passions 9 years after her death does not necessarily mean that there’s anything great about her criticism.”

There’s something fine if not great about criticism that brings out passions. Her criticism hit people on a personal level, and don’t kid yourself: this is NOT nothing, and it’s not the same as being merely controversial, because controversy grows old, and brattiness and insolence and petulance grow old. Being merely loud and shrill and strident will not create a legacy.

“John Wilkes Booth is still remembered 145 years after his demise while many other better actors of his era are forgotten.”

John Wilkes Booth isn’t famous for being an actor. He’s famous for being a killer.

What in the world does this bullshit statement mean: “Agee, Ferguson, Farber, et al. … based their reviews on intelligence and recognizable standards”? Ugh. Standards. They had…standards. You make it sound as if writing film criticism for these genetlemen was more akin to filling out a grant application than engaging in a creative act.

That just sounds so horribly academic and staid and dead. Bloodless. it sounds as if you think criticism is some very exacting science, that there is an identifiably right opinion and a wrong one, that it can be done by a machine, provided it is programmed with “intelligence and recognizable standards.”

“If those who disliked Kael’s reviews went away, few would remember her either; she’d go into the history books with the other unheralded critics — in my humble opinion.”

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG — she wouldn’t go away because the legions who read her would never stop QUOTING HER.

“The fact that there are legions of cineastes who find fault with her specific assessments and general approach suggests that she’s `less than meets the eye.’”

Actually it could well mean the opposite, and for reasons already stated. She’s the one critic no one ignores. They always have to pick a fight with her. No one picks a fight with Manny or Otis or a lot of others because few people read them to the end, you know?

Also, it’s not “anti-intellectual” to criticize Antonioni or Resnais. In some cases, it is the opposite.

I somehow like her because she trashed some of my favourite movies (as in her famous essay "The Sick Soul of Europe parties on “La Dolce Vita”, “Last Year at Marienbad” and “La Notte”)

Durgnat wrote the first critical study of Bunuel, and it was very shallow. He didn’t say a single thing that was interesting or unpredictable or showed a fresh perspective. It was just a lot of fawning genuflection, with zero sense of the director’s sublety or complexity.

-Raymond Durgnat is another critic, long forgotten, I still enjoy reading-

Yes. And I agree that Kael is eminently “safer” than the likes of Farber and Durgnat

@Rodney Welsch: First, regarding Durgnat’s LUIS BUNUEL book, in my opinion, the chapter ion UN CHIEN ANDALOU alone is one that demonstrates “the director’s subtlety and complexity.” He explains the film’s Freudian and political metaphors, while astutely deconstructing the formal “symbolism” at work in its visual design. I assign it as required reading to students who are usually puzzled by the film’s apparent formlessness.

Second, on your longer post supposedly demolishing my arguments about Pauline Kael’s legacy: as they say in the law, Res ipse loquitur (The thing speaks for itself). So, your words speak for themselves. I could go through your post point by point and re-explain my arguments and why what you say does not contradict my points, but the tone of your post says it all. Fans of Kael (although not all) tend to value argumentativeness for its own sake, as evidenced in your use of the sophisticated term “bullshit.” Maybe my approach is not just “horribly academic and staid and dead. Bloodless.” Maybe it’s logical and polite, which I was taught were good things — and I was also taught that one could maintain one’s strong passion without being disagreeable. (For instance, I am VERY passionate about Fellini, Antonioni, and Resnais but I don’t need to use barnyard language to express that love.)

My negative comments were aimed at Kael’s writings, not you personally. Your reply to my critique of Kael seemed to be directed at me. As your namesake Rodney King once said, “Can’t we all get along?”

Frank P. Tomasulo, Ph.d. — I was not named for Rodney King, first of all. He came along much later.

As to the question raised by King’s popular cliche, it stands at considerable contrast with the Latin cliche. I’m not sure we can get along, as you give ample evidence throughout your post that people who profoundly disagree with you are simply too crude and stupid to live and don’t generally deserve to be answered

I am not, however, arguing for argumentativeness. I am arguing for style, verve, personality and wit, as well as an informed intelligence and a willingness to provoke. If a critic lacks these virtues, nothing else he has much matters in the long run. That’s why Kael survives.

Durgnat’s work on “Un Chien Andalou” was, like most Freudian criticism on the film, imaginary, which is not necessarily a criticism. The film is an assortment of jarring images Bunuel and Dali dreamed up between them and sequenced together in a dream narrative fashion. I used to think Bunuel was kidding when he said none of it has any meaning whatsoever. I’m more inclined now to think that all interopretations of the film are equally valid, which is to say, useless.

My main beef with Durgnat is in the succeeding chapters, in which he seemed to look at everything though a fixed lens. It’s as if he — and other critics, such as Freddy Buache — set out to write with a intractable thesis: Luis Bunuel is a political leftist and an an atheist; therefore, every film he made promotes a leftist and atheist point of view.

Consequently, they seem to me to misread everything. Where Bunuel is tender and light and amusing, Durgnat is brutal and harsh.