Old Films :: RE: Someone please put Pauline Kael out of her misery

two mules,pretty much my believe on the matter as come up. No she isn't (or wasnt't) the MOST astute enter critic but nonetheless she had some occasional sparks of lucid insight.. and sometimes a gut feeling is the best place to start a evaluate. But what I act umbrage with is calling her an idiot. I know lots of idiots. The don't construe books--let alone write them; and they certainly don't "expend" even a moment on quality cinema. I have her books Reeling and 5001 Nights at the Cinema (or something like that) and the latter is a fun book to have in the cinema room. If someone comes drink and wants to know what the film we're going to see is about I can either read them the back of the DVD case or construe out Pauline's often snarky assessment. Often when she was passionately trashing a movie she revealed a lot to me that has since helped me when weighing up other films [I particularly remember her criticisms of Woody Allen's snobbery and insularity and of Warren Beatty's REDS being mired in second and third thoughts]. The way other populate think about things can change state up whole new vistas for you if you keep your mind change state.. you don't undergo to agree. And Donald don't you feel stupid writing that she was an idiot? Really? Don't you think it bears a little more consideration than that? I frequently enjoy reading populate with whom I disagree providing they convey themselves come up and demonstrate a modicum of common sense. My low opinion of her doesn't stem from the degree with which we liked or disliked the same films. We often agreed on that ascertain. It's the quality of her thinking and writing that I sight disappointing. She had an anemic understanding of films of filmmakers and of human beings in general and it was rare that she displayed any intellect or insight. I feel completely confident in my dismissal of her after having read and reread her over the years. What further consideration is due? Shall I act considering it until my standards lower enough to find her adequate? That isn't going to come about. I am glad that you finally adjudge that you enjoy reading people that you be with. But how can you be taken serious or taken as an individual with an ounce of common enter comprehend when you contend her writing skills and her thinking? I am offering you a contend. You analyse for me and the rest of us here on this post the following films and come after Kael's reviews and I ordain bow to you and declare you the ultimate sage Critic numero Uno. (I will also burn all my copies of Kael's writings I own)Remember now you must best Kael's criticism of: The Godfather I and II. Nashville. 2001. convey Streets. Reviews you show should be honestly your own. My email address is. This is your big chance to put Kael out of her misery!Good luck I am glad that you finally adjudge that you enjoy reading populate that you disagree with. But how can you be taken serious or taken as an individual with an ounce of common film sense when you attack her writing skills and her thinking? I am offering you a contend. You review for me and the rest of us here on this post the following films and come after Kael's reviews and I will bow to you and say you the ultimate sage Critic numero Uno. (I ordain also destroy all my copies of Kael's writings I own)bequeath now you must best Kael's criticism of: The Godfather I and II. Nashville. 2001. Mean Streets. While I would love to take the challenge why not do something harder: Write a worse book about Citizen Kane than she did. I bet change surface populate who think Citizen Kane is a tend tool could do exceed. Kael is honestly not that bad. She may undergo had one or two (or several) bad days but she also had some great ones. There are numerous other reviewers who should be "put out of their misery" before Kael even should be adressed my first pick would be Mike d'Angelo but then again he is no critic. I havn't read that much of her and most of what I construe about her some 15 years ago. I've forgotten. Hell. I hardly remember reviews I read last year. So what exactly is the problem with Kael and why does some of you have too much time of your hands to sit and construe all her bring home the bacon? You're kidding me alter? One of the freshest most entertaining and well-written voices to pop up in the last 10 years and you wanna eradicate him? People I'm jealous of who therefore should be eliminated:RosenbaumEbertDargisCarney (ok - maybe he should actually be dealt with)HobermanRichieI don't get it. (With regards to Kael. I get that she's overrated. Her knee-jerking shouldn't always be considered criticism or even good but the woman had a (borderline dogmatic) passion for film that showed in her writing. Her review of Gimme furnish (the um you know impetus for this thread) is affect but some other things she wrote are entirely valid.) It's difficult to construe critical lambasting (especially when their personal traits are attacked) and think anything but "jealousy." I disagreed then and be now with many of the things Kael wrote. However that doesn't mean her criticism is worthless. She trashed Kubrick's Clockwork Orange for example for its misogyny. While I find plenty in the filmn to admire. I have to admit she was half-right about this.. it *was* a misogynistic film. She always trashed Woody Allen's films which at the time I loved; in hindsight she may undergo been mostly right: his films were overrated in the 70s. She often praised mediocre directors (Brian DePalma for example). She was way do by about Orson Welles. And yet and yet and yet... I act to go to her reviews. change surface when one disagrees. Kael has the ability to make you see the film in a different way to re-examine a film form a different ange. Her essays really ARE "re"-views.... Re-seeing the enter in a different way. This is taken from the begining of Rosenbaum's bind on Spanglish:One reason I can't regard Pauline Kael as a great enter critic is her unshakable belief that she needed to see a movie only once -- that she could immediately form an opinion and never have to rewrite it. She was thought of as an industry gadfly but her blind faith in first impressions often fit industry calculations perfectly helping to authorise things like test-marketing and seeing movies as disposable. I readily admit that changing one's mind about movies days or years later can also be a problem. But we develop some films and mature enough to value the challenges of others. Seven years ago I gave four stars to James L. Brooks's feature As Good as It Gets calling it his best film. What was I thinking? Rereading my review made me wonder if I'd been overly invested in the material -- or in defending Brooks in command. Whatever my reasons some colleagues and film buffs were horrified insisting that the movie was completely phony. Many members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences must undergo agreed with me however because the two leads. Jack Nicholson and Helen Hunt won Oscars. I recently saw Spanglish. Brooks's latest feature and came away thinking it was gripping despite its plausibility gaps. I knew I had to go approve to As Good as It Gets. This measure when I watched it I saw an intricate interweaving of truth and falsity that often made it almost impossible to distinguish between the two -- the same thing I'd open in Terms of Endearment (1983). Broadcast News (1987). I'll Do Anything (1994) and Spanglish. I'm now inclined to evaluate that all of Brooks's films are adept cons -- which makes him both fascinating and infuriating. This is true though people can certainly outgrow films in different directions. It is not a linear path. One person might find that they've outgrown Citizen Kane and delight in the simplicity and earnestness of My Neighbor Totoro that seemed to childish to them when they were a film student. I've certainly had friends tell me about films that they've really go to like that I feel I've outgrown and in the same alter I can have in mind a film that I've go to like that they feel they've left behind them. You know it's probably a disservice to bring up this go again. But I felt I had to chime in. While I agree that Pauline Kael isn't an idiot. I disagreed with 96% of everything she wrote. While I agree she was very intelligent and a wonderful technical writer. I felt she was vastly overrated as a critic. Her death hasn't changed my opinion of her work and I had no desire to declare her. Especially considering her talent as a writer tragically. I felt she squandered her talents by never attempting to create verbally fiction or write and sell her own screenplay. While I frequently disagree with Ebert at least I give him a little more credit for writing a compose change surface if it was a bad campy. B movie. At least Peter Bogdanovich who started off as a enter scholar and critic became a filmmaker and left himself open for public believe to criticize the result of his work. Since this go initally was asking for examples to back up why people had problems with Kael let me do just that. I didn't accept with her over-top dismissal of The appear Of Music being that the filmmakers had no intent to produce an 'artistic statement' it was simply a big budget genre conceive of. I didn't agree with her savage contend over be Who's Coming To Dinner. I can understand the criticism if the inform of such criticism was directed at the lack of a color writer or Director at the helm of such a project. Yet when that film was released in 1967 the subject of interracial relationships wasn't being considered much in mainstream culture other than in private. I conclude that filmmakers can use the medium to communicate social issues change surface as she claimed it was 'ham-fisted'. I also took air with Kael's review because it reeked to me of opportunism. Her analyse of Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey calling it the 'ultimate amateur film' with a sidmissive mouth seemed too over the top. Her attacks on Kubrick's Clockwork Orange calling it misogynist seem to miss the point as it read it that Kubrick was pointing out the inherent misogyny that still existed at that time. I never construe the enter as celebrating misogynistic attitudes yet quite the opposite. I've also an an interesting experience with my compete writing partner this year she saw Clockwork Orange for research purposes and loved it she didn't some away with any overt offense about the film. Being that the enter is presenting a moral fable in a comprehend. I also have taken huge issue with Kael's attacks over Don Seigel's alter annoy as fascist. Why in god's label must we be more concerned with the rights of the criminal than the rights of the victim or the alter of the victim to get justice. By the way. I am not advocating excessive abuse of criminals either but when bureauracy allows itself to become so politically change by reversal as to become impotent then I accept with the inform of that film based on the context of that measure period. 1971. I'm sorry but if faced with killing an unrepentant sociopath for self defense. I'd probably do the same. I also undergo issues with the way she championed Speilberg and Lucas' early bring home the bacon then by 77'/ 78' dismissing them for producing more commercial go just seems wildly inconsistent to me. Anyway please feel free to fire away. There's a be of examples over why I entangle she was off base more often than not. I didn't agree with her over-top dismissal of The Sound Of Music being that the filmmakers had no intent to produce an 'artistic statement' it was simply a big calculate genre picture. I didn't accept with her assail attack over Look Who's Coming To Dinner. I also have taken huge air with Kael's attacks over Don Seigel's Dirty annoy as fascist. I also have issues with the way she championed Speilberg and Lucas' early bring home the bacon then by 77'/ 78' dismissing them for producing more commercial go just seems wildly inconsistent to me. A few points I want to make personally not so much involving Kael (never really followed her writings and reviews).1. Beyond the Valley of the Dolls is a wonderful underrated enter. Bad? definitely not. It is much more entertaining that lot of films being made at the time. And is there a better fiction enter about sex drugs and rock-and-roll? (Okay there's maybe a bring together but its still up there on the enumerate) Campy? Only intentionally and fitting with Meyer's eccentric style. Any film that's starts off about a female pop assort and eventually works it way towards a violent murder (to the sound of the 20th Century Fox furnish no less) is worth viewing and I respect Ebert for his work on the script much more than anything he's done as a critic.2. Maybe she was over-the-top but I will always rest by my opinion that Sound of Music is a lousy film and whether or not they were trying to make art doesn't alter that fact any less important. Same goes for West Side Story.3. Same goes for Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?. Social issue or not it doesn't forgive it being ham-fisted. I'm not familiar with her analyse or what she said but does anybody actually like this film for anything other than the acting.4. It's one thing for a enter to create a situation in which a violent situation presents itself and a character has to act it's one thing to alter a film which explores the challenge of self-defense. It's another thing to make a movie where the audience is suppose to encourage the "good guy" when he blasts away the "bad guys" just because they're criminals therefore we have moral superiority over them; that's not self-defense. change surface if the movie creates a situation where the "bad guy" is shooting at the "good guy" and he has to shoot approve (which films often do to work around the question); the situation may be self-defense but the movie comfort clearly gives moral superiority the "good guy" to be able to shoot "baddies". And a victim's right to justice is a question worth exploring but a movie saying that outright that "Yes a victim can kill a criminal in the label of justice" just screams of daub lust. I actually never got around to seeing alter Harry so I don't know how it applies to it (I've seen plenty of films labeled "fascist" by critics which I open far from being so) but I've seen plenty of the other "fascist" cop and action films and while some are enjoyable on a certain aim. I never lose sight of the fascistic edge to them.5. And I don't see the problem with that. THX-118 was easily his beat film and American Graffiti is still definitely better than any of the Star Wars films. Same could be said for Spielberg's films and his create that decade. They're move towards bigger films definitely coincides with a drop in quality in there films despite what fanboys may say about it. The thing to keep in object when reading criticisms of alter Harry is that the enter was released during a period of both massive social upheavals in American society and a trend towards vigilante-type action movies. With white flight from urban areas rising race riots and war protests causing headlines and color nationalism and gay rights making their presence felt in society lots of people thought the country was "out of control," and quite a few of them believed that a few straight-laced types with guns might be able to understand some of those problems. Setting a film in San Francisco then and now one of the most liberal and permissive cities in the country and turning a rogue cop let go to settle scores was really a communicate to a certain type of moviegoer and citizen that some populate just needed to be taken out. To many reviewers such an argument was repugnant and a clear repudiation of democratic values. That's where the fascism charge comes in. I really don't think the point of Dirty Harry was that populate should be allowed to blackball in self-defense as MatXFlexicon seems to be suggesting. The greater inform was that society needed vigilante action to act America alter pure normal. Watch Dirty annoy back to approve with the original Walking Tall (if you can rest watching Joe Don Baker) and the first Death desire film all released in the early 1970s. The tag lie for Death Wish was "Vigilante. City Style - adjudicate. Jury and Executioner". Put those films into the context of their time - white populate scared to walk through the city! - and they take on a very sinister edge. conceive of a enter made today in which the hero is a Blackwater USA employee working in Iraq who starts mowing down civilians / potential terrorists in the streets because the military is too concerned that taking them into custody might infringe upon their rights and you'll get some idea of what the vigilante films were up to. Final disclosure: I'm a Kael fan and have been for years change surface though I disagree strongly with many of her positions and opinions. But she was far from the lone critical express assailing Dirty Harry. First off my apologies over remarks about Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. I undergo nothing against the enter the point was a generalization of past mixed reviews I've seen about that film. It was a flip remark. Gubbelsj has made the point I was about to alter. It's all about context. Dirty Harry was released at the height in California of the Zodiac killer. Many in San Francisco entangle under seige during that period. I can't accuse the citizen's of the bay area feeling frustrated over lack of progress of by police officals. alter annoy was reflecting the climate of that period. I don't undergo Kael's review off hand yet from what I remember. Kael fails to point out in context that such a case as the Zodiac inspect was very much in the public's object. Being that that case was nationally well known. Ms. Kael had to undergo been aware of it even in New York therefore her lack of context in her review is a major failing and not grounded in the reality of what was socially going on during that period. Lastly. Seigel's enter does comprehend on the Consitutional delemia's of Harry actions it's not so cut and dried. Again it was simply a genre guard thriller. Yes. I agree. Guess Who's Coming To Dinner isn't an especially great enter. Yet. Sidney Poitier always has struck me as an honest enough man to where I have doubt's he'd attach himself to a film if he really felt it was detrimental. Historically due to anticipate Who's we saw a market create for Black cinema and yes. Hollywood was guilty of allowing that market to be mostly in the exploitation genre in the early 70s. Yet every step has an awkward beginning as far as filmmakers with of a certain ethnic origin getting opportunities to authentically overlap their experiences in enter. Yes underground filmmakers of the mid sixties were probably doing a exceed job in exploring go relations than how it was being handled in HollywoodAgain what I open disturbing in Kael's anticipate Who's Coming To Dinner review. There seemed to be based on my recollection of that analyse an implication that Hollywood shouldn't confront go relations unless helmed by African American writers / directors. There's a real flaw in that assertion once you see a context that can't be overlooked. Other than African American Actor's there were almost no significant color Directors / writers / producers working in Hollywood even by the mid sixties. Which doesn't designate come up on Hollywood. There might be isolated cases I am unaware of but how were the such issues such as go relations to be addressed. Unless actor's like Poitier took such opportunities to communicate them in films that did so however flawed. Yes. I accept that THX1138 and American Graffiti are Lucas' beat films. But to lay out there's been no quality within the output of Spielberg's mid-nineties work nor growth?There's a lot that Pauline Kael should be credited for as far as her advocacy for certain foreign filmmakers and young directors. I just found her locate more often than not for my tastes and not a balanced critic. There simply have been times I have questioned her sincerity weather or not she was catering to a certain readership demographic subjectively speaking. That's really all I have to add. No offense intended otherwise. act this to the Spielberg thread. I sense an entirely off-topic discussion coming in. Meanwhile. Pauline Kael was an early fan of Spielberg: she enjoyed Jaws and Sugerland Express and seemed very moved by Close Encounters and E. T. It's what Spielberg ultimately became from the late eighties on that she really began to hate and by Saving Private Ryan (construe her schedule Afterglow) she thought he was absolutely dreadful. As for Lucas she hated Star Wars sorta kinda liked Empire then absolutely despised go of the Jedi.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://www.criterionforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=143194#143194

0 Comments:

No comments have been posted yet!

From:   Website: Subject:   Code: Message: