markyboo wrote:Isn't interesting how many people remember Kael today and have forgotten Renata Adler...
Kael didn't need some tedious theory to write about movies - she told us what she liked or didn't like and then told us why. I don't understand why that's so difficult for people to understand.
Many of her detractors blamed her good and bad reviews on her hormones, she wanted to be a man, she was fickle, etc. - there was (and still is) a lot of chauvinism directed towards her from both the industry and her colleagues.
Given that Kael was with The New Yorker for a quarter century while Adler was at the Times for a mere year, it's not surprising that the former is much, much better known.
If you're interested in film as an art forum, then theory shouldn't be seen as "tedious." Film theory elucidates one's understanding and appreciation of movies, whether one agrees with or takes umbrage with that particular theory.
Kael liking or not liking something was no more profound than the reasons a 12-year-old likes or doesn't like a movie. Plus, there's the inescapable irony is that she attacked Sarris and the auteurists as being juvenile, and then she became the ultimate auteurist herself (without ever acknowledging her transformation), licking the boots of Speilberg, De Palma (a director on whom I'm agreement with her), Zemeckis, Toback, etc. One might reasonably say he or she enjoyed Kael's writings (though as far as I'm concerned anyone who likes that obnoxious, arrogant style is seriously lacking in acumen), bur no one can make a compelling case that she was a great critic. And no one ever has -- even the Paulettes fawn over her writing style and her attitude -- not her critical sensibility. She was, and remains, worthless.
Want to read a great critic who was also a great writer and is a hell of a lot of fun to read? Check out Manny Farber -- a new collection of his writings has just been published.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Isn't interesting how many people remember Kael today and have forgotten Renata Adler...
Kael didn't need some tedious theory to write about movies - she told us what she liked or didn't like and then told us why. I don't understand why that's so difficult for people to understand.
Many of her detractors blamed her good and bad reviews on her hormones, she wanted to be a man, she was fickle, etc. - there was (and still is) a lot of chauvinism directed towards her from both the industry and her colleagues.
She did pique interest in the films of directors she was fond of such as Altman and De Palma, but she was dismissive of so many others that anyone who relied on her opinions alone was missing a lot.
I would like to see a book of reviews by the ladies of the New York Daily News through the 1960s. Kate Cameron, Wanda Hale and the others were not brilliant writers either, but their reviews could generally be relied upon to get the public interested in seeing the films they liked. By 1970 they were gone and replaced by a batch of no-nothings who were so egregiously trying to be hip that one of them gave the only rave review for Getting Straight to appear anywhere. The film, which was a rancid un-hip "hip" film trying to cash in on the success of genuinely hip films like Easy Rider has been justly forgotten.
markyboo wrote:Pauline Kael was a brilliant, gifted critic. I remember the thrill of getting the NEW YORKER each week and reading her reviews - she guided me to many great films. I also wrote her twice, expressing my admiration for her talents, and received sweet, modest handwritten notes from her. She meant a lot to many people in the past and I am glad to see that these new books are reviving an interest in and an appreciation of her work. Some of us still miss her very much and I suspect if she had been a man, we wouldn't see things like this tastelessly-titled forum discussion...
What's her gender have to do with it? If there was a new biography of Bosley Crowther or Gene Siskel, I'd feel the same way (although they weren't as aggressively awful as Kael).
And, by definition, she was in no way "a brilliant, gifted critic," for she never formulated or followed any coherent critical theory.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Pauline Kael was a brilliant, gifted critic. I remember the thrill of getting the NEW YORKER each week and reading her reviews - she guided me to many great films. I also wrote her twice, expressing my admiration for her talents, and received sweet, modest handwritten notes from her. She meant a lot to many people in the past and I am glad to see that these new books are reviving an interest in and an appreciation of her work. Some of us still miss her very much and I suspect if she had been a man, we wouldn't see things like this tastelessly-titled forum discussion...
As I understand it, the book is very skimpy about her private life which she kept private, probably the only nice thing about her. It basically just rehashes what she had to say about certain films, which is kind of sillly since you can still find compilaitons of her actual long-winded reviews as well as her tossed off capsule reviews.
I just can't imagine who would want to read a biography of this person. If you are delusional enough to be impressed by her, you can read her old reviews. But nothing in her life, from what I can tell, is particularly interesting. It's not as if she was a covert agent for the CIA or anything. The only pages I'll flip through the next time I'm in a book store are the anecdotes regarding her bullying at the voting of the New York Film Critics Awards just because I'm always interested in how things play out at awards balloting.
Curious that in the Todd McCarthy interview the author states "I think she learned early on not to
trust in love. Her love of the movies was something else." And yet this is a person who claimed to never have seen a movie more than once. Talk about deep-rooted love. (Me, tonight I watched The Seventh Victim for what is probably the 9th time.)
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Love the title of the thread, Damien. Why can't she stay dead, indeed. It's not just that her opinions were mostly valueless, her writing was terrible, flowery, annoying and ultimately meaningless. Adler nails it in her 1981 (not 1980) article.
Funny that Judith Crist should have been considered cutting edge for dumping on Cleopatra. Didn't everyone? And what was so brave about Kael dumping on The Sound of Music? The film was not universally loved by critics, but was, of course, critic-proof.
Pauline Kael Biographer: Why Writing About the Legendary Film Critic
Was a 'Tremendous Challenge' (Q&A)
5:00 AM PDT 10/27/2011 by Todd McCarthy
[]
Penguin Group USA
In an interview with THR chief film critic Todd McCarthy, Brian
Kellow also discusses her naivete when it came to Hollywood -- and
what didn't make the book.
Brian Kellow has been receiving praise for his biography of legendary
film critic Pauline Kael, which hits stores Thursday. In the book,
titled Pauline Kael: A Life in the Dark, the writer sheds lights on
light on the voice that championed Bonnie and Clyde,"her failed
Hollywood adventure and her battles with William Shawn.
Kellow sat down with The Hollywood Reporter's
chief film critic Todd McCarthy to talk about the challenges involved
in writing the book, her naivete when it came to Hollywood and what
didn't make the book.
The Hollywood Reporter: What first lit up the idea in you to embark
on this project?
Kellow: I began reading Pauline Kael's reviews when I was around 13.
She had a voice that spoke to me immediately. I read her for years
and committed great chunks of her reviews to memory. I prefer to
write biographies that to some extent represent fresh territory.
Setting down Pauline's life seemed like a tremendous challenge --
which it was, as it turned out.
THR: Has there ever been a biography of a film critic before? What
about critics in other fields? What made writing about a critic,
someone who by nature is a reactor, different from the other subjects
you've tackled?
Kellow: I don't know that there has been a biography of a movie
critic until now. There have been biographies of theater critics --
Kathleen Tynan wrote a wonderful one about her husband, Kenneth. One
of my favorite aspects of working on Pauline Kael: A Life in the Dark
was the chance to track the influences that helped form her taste and
style. Also, writing this book gave me a great opportunity to delve
into the film history of the 1960s and '70s. It was exciting to show
how what was happening on the screen really was, to a great extent,
Pauline's life.
THR: Other than Pauline's published writing, what other material
existed in archives or her personal collection for you to draw upon?
Letters, diaries, datebooks, etc.?
Kellow: I had great luck in having access to Pauline's extensive
archive at the Lilly Library at Indiana University in Bloomington.
It's a treasure trove. There are very few letters from Pauline
herself, but she seems to have saved nearly every letter she received
-- even letters from fans and readers. She always said she didn't
want a biography written, but she certainly saw to it that her life
was meticulously catalogued, so I'm not sure I believe her.
THR: The early life material is particularly fascinating. How did you
learn about her childhood, family, early responses to literature and
movies, her difficult relationships at Berkeley and subsequent
struggles before belatedly breaking through professionally?
Kellow: Research. I went to Petaluma, Calif., and learned a great
deal about the community of Jewish chicken ranchers in which she grew
up. I was also very lucky: I found her ex-husband, Edward Landberg,
who was still living in Berkeley. He was her only husband, although
she liked to confuse people by telling them she had been married
three times. As her daughter Gina said, "She loved a good story." I
was also very lucky in rounding up a lot of people who had worked
with her when she was programming the Berkeley Cinema Guild, the
nation's first twin art house. That period of the mid- to late 1950s
is one of my favorite parts of the book.
THR: I never got the sense that Pauline was ever really in love with
anyone. And nearly all the relationships she did have, with men who
were essentially gay, were set-ups for disaster. How did you come to
see view her emotional life? Did she just sublimate everything else to movies?
Kellow: I think Pauline was in love early on. I certainly think she
was in love with the poet Robert Horan, who was gay. But I think she
felt, quite early, that love between two people never lasted. And
let's face it, often it doesn't! I think she learned early on not to
trust in love. Her love of the movies was something else. That she
could count on, and trust. I've tried not to hammer the whole
seduction-of-the-movies idea too hard in my book. But there's no escaping it.
THR: You mention that in earlier years she was constantly writing
little plays, stories, screen ideas she'd send to Hollywood and so
on. Did you read much of her creative writing in these areas? Was
there any merit to any of it? Any way you can describe it?
Kellow: Pauline would be the first to admit that her attempts at
creative writing weren't very good. And they aren't. I've read
carefully through all the pieces that survive. They're arch and full
of ideas and attitudes, but they just don't move dramatically. The
characters just don't have the breath of life.
With a new biography and a collection of her writings, movie reviewer Pauline Kael has resurfaced in the media the last few weeks.
For anyone as nauseous as I over her zombie-like reemergence, you owe it to yourself to read Renata Adler's legendary smack down of Kael and her self-parodistic writing, from The New York Review of Books in 1980:
