Home » film, second glance

Astonish Us

A worthy appreciation of Pauline Kael has to dive right into things: for nearly forty years she was the best film critic in America.

Even an opening such as this seems sluggish and indirect if you’ve been immersed in Kael’s own writing. She bursts into her first sentences as though she’s just walked out of the theater and begun ventilating two-hours of pent-up responses. Each review seems to have been inaugurated by that parking-lot icebreaker, “So, what’d you think?” The delight is fresh, irradiant – I don’t know of another critic who better conveys the afterglow of excitement in a great performance or production, the exultation of having experienced something transcendent. Of course, her outrage is every bit as vivid. When something offended her, she relished delivering the killing blow. Both responses seem born from the ecstasy of the moment, yet her writing is never muddied or breathless, her judgments never reactionary or superficial.

Kael wrote admiringly of film critic James Agee’s “full panoply of loving terms,” and when a movie overjoyed her, she was also profuse and immediate in her praise. Here’s how she begins her review of Robert Altman’s groundbreaking debut:

M*A*S*H is a marvelously unstable comedy, a tough, funny, and sophisticated burlesque of military attitudes that is at the same time a tale of chivalry. It’s a sick joke, but it’s also generous and romantic – an erratic, episodic film, full of the pleasures of the unexpected.

When a movie angered her, her disgust is every bit as unconditional:

Literal-minded in its sex and brutality, Teutonic in its humor, Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange might be the work of a strict and exacting German professor who set out to make a porno-violent sci-fi comedy. Is there anything sadder – and ultimately more repellant – than a clean-minded pornographer?

(Sometimes these opening salvos are so devastating that there’s almost no point in reading on. A brief guillotining of something called The Magic Christian begins, “Unfunny camp is contemptible.”)

There were two stages to Kael’s career, and in the first, between 1953 and 1967, she was an outsider. She lived during most of these years in her hometown of San Francisco, which was close enough to Hollywood but far from the critical establishment in New York. She was raising a daughter alone (the father was the beatnik bisexual film director James Broughton), and had spent much of her thirties working odd jobs as a seamstress, cook, and bookstore clerk, and eventually as the manager of a movie house. Writing criticism began accidently, when the editor of the quarterly City Lights overheard her in a restaurant denouncing Charlie Chaplin’s Limelight.

The fruit of her work as a freelancer is gathered in her first collection I Lost it at the Movies. These are occasional pieces, reviews, retrospectives, transcripts of radio broadcasts, and huge tentacled essays in which Kael tries to touch on everything her lack of a weekly column has prevented her from covering.

You see in these pieces her happy origins as a film lover first and casual critic second. She effortlessly establishes a truth nearly lost in professional reviewing, that for most people movie going is a social experience, very often tied to dating. In her review of West Side Story (“a great musical for people who don’t like musicals”) she discusses the perils of talking about movies with a would-be suitor:

Sex is the great leveler, taste the great divider. I have premonitions of the beginning of the end when a man who seems charming or at least remotely possible starts talking about movies…. Boobs on the make always try to impress with their high level of seriousness (wise guys, with their contempt for all seriousness).

Her famous appraisal of Vittorio De Sica’s Shoeshine is the most extravagant example of a critical judgment springing from an intensely personal and private response (if anything, the following mise-en-scene was varnished to emphasize the singular, subjective nature of the reaction):

When Shoeshine opened in 1947, I went to see it alone after one of those terrible lovers’ quarrels that leave one in a state of incomprehensible despair. I came out of the theater, tears streaming, and overheard the petulant voice of a college girl complaining to her boyfriend, “Well I don’t see what was so special about that movie.” I walked up the street, crying blindly, no longer certain whether my tears were for the tragedy on the screen, the hopelessness I felt for myself, or the alienation I felt from those who could not experience the radiance of Shoeshine. For if people cannot feel Shoeshine, what can they feel?

Kael forged her insights from the moment of viewing, and this naturally set her in opposition to academic and theory-based criticism. The problem with theory, she felt, is that it single-mindedly dictates the right and wrong ways to watch and respond to movies. One school of thought might esteem film for its unique montage quality, another for its trend toward realism – but in either case, adherents of each school are guaranteed to promote mediocre films that fit their theory while dismissing great work that doesn’t. For Kael, for whom the supreme artistic virtues were surprise and eclecticism, “There is only one rule: Astonish us! In all art we look and listen for what we have not experienced quite that way before. We want to see, to feel, to understand, to respond in a new way. Why should pedants be allowed to spoil the game?”

But there was a larger animosity at work in her polemics. Her reviews from this period focus an attention on other reviewers that becomes borderline obsessive. Another piece begins this way (if I seem to be cherry-picking openings, it’s because, like Emily Dickinson, Kael is most quotable in her first lines):

I wouldn’t have thought A View from the Bridge was worth much discussion, but it has gotten such very-important-picture treatment from the press … that I think maybe I should say a few unkind words.

The reviews frequently spend as much time quoting and demolishing the opinions from Time and The New York Times (names such as Saul Bass and Bosley Crowthers may be doomed to live on in these broadsides) as actually commenting on the film. Her combativeness went in all directions – without a secure writing position, her defenses were also up against her own editors, who were naturally inclined to shape her views to their own tastes. To preserve what was most important to her about movies – the intimate and visceral response that they provoked – she was prone to turn against any group that wanted her as a member, even and especially the art-house crowd. “Vulgarity is not as destructive to an artist as snobbery,” she once warned; she made much of her love for musicals and her dislike of movies with an obvious social consciousness. (This would be a lifelong impulse. In one of the last interviews she ever gave, she took a moment to bash Sam Mendes’s Academy Award darling American Beauty: “Can’t educated liberals see that a movie like [that] sucks up to them at every plot turn?”)

Finally, in 1968, after a brief run as the house reviewer at McCall’s (she was fired for panning to many big commercial releases), Kael was hired by The New Yorker. She was not quite fifty, and embarking on what was arguably the most widely-read and influential run of any critic in any artistic medium in the 20th century.

It was also the period of her finest writing. Now Kael had a berth in the establishment. She was a successor to one of her erstwhile foils, Brendan Gill, and she alternated reviewing with another former target, Penelope Gilliatt. As an insider, she couldn’t spend so much time surveying the writing of her peers and caviling about their philistinism. She was responsible for delivering the first word on the movies, and it galvanized her.

The knottiest problem for mainstream film critics regards the preponderance of trash that they have to treat seriously, or at least entertainingly – what can you say about Michael Bay adventures and Adam Sandler comedies week after week? Today’s most quick-witted reviewer, The New Yorker’s Anthony Lane, has never really resolved the dilemma. He seems to write in two completely different registers, depending on whether the film is a noisy Angelina Jolie shoot-‘em-up (in which a fundamental disregard is implied by the vamping plot summaries and Catskill lounge humor) or a small-budget French pastoral drama (in which a fundamental respect is conveyed by subdued backgrounding and delicate scene analysis).

But Kael wrote with the same spontaneity and intelligence about popular entertainment as about the films of Renoir and Antonioni. The key was that her criticism continued to flow from the experience of viewing the film – if it made her feel good, then it was good. In an essay from Going Steady, her first collection of New Yorker pieces, she wrote, “We generally become interested in movies because we enjoy them and what we enjoy them for has little to do with art.” There was, to her, no reason to apologize for being delighted by great car chases or an actor’s style and beauty. She goes on:

Because of the photographic nature of the medium and the cheap admission prices, movies took their impetus not from the desiccated imitation European high culture, but from the peep show, the Wild West show, the music hall, the comic strip – from what was coarse and common.

When we do find art in movies, it’s as an adaptation of those basic elements of entertainment. So Kael was able to genuinely enthuse about trashy movies, without condescension but also without any illusions that such pictures were deep or significant. She adored the 007 franchise (at least, until Roger Moore came on the scene: “his idea of Bond’s imperturbable cool is the same as playing dead”), and here you can see how she negotiates between lauding the action-flick pleasures of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and owning up to its essential silliness:

The latest episode in the super-serial of the sixties … is marvelous fun. It introduces a new Bond, George Lazenby, who’s quite a dull fellow, and the script isn’t much either, but the movie is exciting anyway. The director, Peter Hunt, is a wizard at action sequences, particularly an ethereal ski chase that you know is a classic while you’re goggling at it, and a mean, fast bobsled chase that is shot and edited like nothing I’ve ever seen before. I know that on one level it’s not worth doing, but it sure has been done brilliantly.

She held rigorous standards for these movies, too, of course. If they were boring or formulaic they were worthless. But even worse were those that succeeded in exciting the senses, but in barbarous ways. Dirty Harry – a paean to vigilante police justice – she felt brought out the “fascist potential” in the action genre. The Exorcist attempted an equally loathsome manipulation: it’s “shallowness that asks to be taken seriously.”

Having developed a lexicon and critical apparatus for popular movies, Kael achieved a camaraderie with her readers that few reviewers enjoy. She was closely observant of audience reactions during screenings, often reporting in her pieces if the crowd was thrilled, or agitated, or nonplussed (and therefore tacitly acknowledging that her own experience had been colored by that of the audience). While her early writing had an edgy underdog bravado that could turn quickly to mockery, these reviews contain a strong sense of moviegoer fellowship, in which the enemies are no longer obfuscatory critics but bad, cynical movie makers.

Kael’s most memorable writing came during the Nixon years (I think that Deeper into Movies, which collects the New Yorker pieces between 1969 and 1972, is her best book). These were some of the worst years in America’s history, and Kael wrote with a passionate fervor against the national disillusionment that was saturating the culture. She treats her readers like allies in her fight: others who love and care about good movies. When something was released that seemed to capitalize on despair or disaffection (she hated the Rolling Stones documentary Gimme Shelter as well as, for almost the same reasons, the “glorified vacuum” of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid) she is remorselessly vituperative. When she finds a great picture, like Altman’s Nashville (“a pure emotional high”) or The Godfather (her ultimate example of art flowering from trash), there is a sense of collective triumph, a buoyancy very like the feeling inspired by the great film itself.

As was right and proper, when Kael became established she was attacked in her turn, although these takedowns make for mostly disappointing reading. Many come from academics guarding their weedy intellectual patches. The most notable is Renata Adler’s 1980 hatchet job in The New York Review of Books, which dedicates a tremendous amount of verbiage to criticizing Kael’s demotic prose. Some of Kael’s favorite adjectives for movies were “whorey” and “dopey,” for instance, which to Adler made the writing both crude and ad hominem: “a breakthrough in vulgarity and unfairness.” The complaints seem dour and parti pris, especially when set beside some of Kael’s ecstatic fusillades.

There is a chance, however, that Kael held her post for too long. She left The New Yorker in 1991, and the reviews from her final decade of work are noticeably weaker. The pieces read quite well on their own, but Kael had lost touch with her audience. She’s more likely, during these yuppie-Reagan days, to be irritated with the people in the theater for crying during such “wet kitsch” as Rain Man (“Rain Man is Dustin Hoffman humping one note on a piano for two hours and eleven minutes”).

Still, all these reviews contributed to a catalogue that ran into the thousands by the time Kael retired. Her books are virtually all out of print, and even apart from the injustice of that fact, it seems like a missed opportunity – whatever the future of books, it’s still the case that everyone watches movies: a Kael compendium is a perfect accompaniment to a Netflix subscription.

Her work will hold, in any case – that’s what’s so remarkable about it. Whenever you get around to reading her – though sooner is better than not – you’ll find those afterglows of anger and excitement as bright as when they first appeared.

___
Sam Sacks writes the Fiction Chronicle for The Wall Street Journal and is an editor of Open Letters Monthly.

59 Comments »

  • IA says:

    It’s a no win game with you isn’t it? Every time Kael makes a justification for her judgment or sets a standard, it’s just evidence of her irrationality and lack of standards.

    “You do realize that the pulp bestsellers and penny dreadfuls of previous eras and centuries allowed the victimized, ravished heroines to express outrage at their plight, don’t you?”

    And you do realize that Kael is discussing a scene she found unique in movies, and not literature, right? If she thought this was unique to the medium she was reviewing, she had every right to be interested in it. Bringing in Lillian Gish’s horror in BoN is irrelevant, since her reaction in the scene is dramatically generic.

    “Someone like Kubrick could be constantly berated (with some justification) for soullessness, but DePalma at his most soulless would be given a lifetime free pass by the Almighty Queen of Arbitrariness.”

    Kael praised a good deal of Kubrick’s work up until 2001, and then knocked it afterward. She was notorious in her praise for DePalma, though that didn’t stop her from saying something like The Untouchables was “too banal, too morally comfortable” and “not a great movie.” It was less DePalm’s soulfulness (except in works like Casualties of War) that she replied to as much as his sensousness of his style.

    “if she thought The Accused was exploitative and not a serious examination of the issue of rape, then she DEFINITELY…should have found Billy Jack to be likewise exploitative and NOT “feminist” in any meaningful sense”

    Why? Because Billy Jack is pulpy and thus automatically exploitative trash in your blinkered outlook? Kael didn’t praise Billy Jack as some kind of pioneering feminist film–she said a moment in it allowed a character to express her outrage in “terms of a specific feminine anger.” That didn’t stop her from finding the film “mixed Up” and “primitive” and often “atrocious.”

    Kael obviously had her favorites, but there’s no attempt in your ranting to examine why certain directors captured her attention and what that might say about her standards and expectations. Instead, evidence of a standard of taste becomes absence of one. Kael disdained the Exorcist for its “shallow seriousness,” whereas she praised The Fury by saying “With Spielberg, what happens is so much better than you dared hope that you have to laugh; with DePalma it’s so much worse than you feared that you have to laugh.” She’s hardly praising DePalma for something she damned Friedkin for.

  • Chris says:

    It’s a no win game with you isn’t it? Every time Kael makes a justification for her judgment or sets a standard, it’s just evidence of her irrationality and lack of standards

    MERELY DOGMATICALLY ASSERTING SOMETHING TO BE TRUE does not, in and of itself, make it true. What evidence does she provide? Where’s the analytic component – the exegesis? – as opposed to solely evaluation.

    In other words, simply insisting – like the Pope ex cathedra – that The Fury is a completely different kettle of fish from The Exorcist doesn’t make it so. Arts criticism isn’t, or shouldn’t be, a free-for-all where anything goes. She’s making a counter-intuitive assertion, which means the onus is on her, not her detractors, to back up her claims with some reference to what’s on the screen.

    Another example: Kael didn’t like Antonioni much, but she did admire one film of his: L’Avventura. However, a couple years later she trashed his movie L’Eclisse and went on to write a long, poorly argued, ill-tempered screed berating the fans of L’Eclisse, implying they were all phonies and pseuds and poseurs if they claimed to love it. YET SHE HERSELF GREATLY ADMIRED L’AVVENTURA, BY THE SAME DIRECTOR (even starring the same actress, Monica Vitti). She chided audiences who DIDN’T get L’Avventura – then a couple years later she berates audiences who DID admire L’Eclisse!

    Why is this so objectionable? Simple: because Antonioni didn’t undergo some major stylistic revolution between the time he made the one movie and the time he made the other. The two films are remarkably similar in their visual style, cinematography, Monica’s acting choices, languid pacing, storyline, character interactions, themes, ideas, symbols, motifs…. it’s not like Antonioni made two radically different pictures. The thematic concerns are the same and the stylistic choices of leading lady and director are remarkably similar. The only difference is that, if anything, the latter movie is an improvement on the former, and probes the same ideas more fully and deeply. It makes no sense whatever to hail L’Avventura as a masterpiece (as Kael did) and then dismiss L’Eclisse as boring garbage (as Kael did…. as well as suggesting that fans of L’Eclisse were idiots to boot).

    Therefore: the only possible conclusion is that Kael was erratic, inconsistent, and plagued by bipolar mood swings. There’s nothing in the latter film to justify her sudden schizoid swerve from hosannahs to vitriolic contempt and loathing of Antonioni’s artistry. We’re not talking the difference between early and late Picasso here, or early and late Henry James. We’re talking about a movie made two years later that undergoes no major stylistic shifts or thematic departures.

    Therefore, Kael’s bipolar reaction – from love to loathing – vis-a-vis Antonioni is unjustified. Now, that would be fine if that was a one-time occurrence, or a handful of times throughout her career. But, in fact, it was a recurring pattern with Kael. She would constantly discern massive moral, ethical and aesthetic divides between two very similar films: like L’Avventura and L’Eclisse, or like Dirty Harry and Billy Jack, or like The Exorcist and The Fury – then proceed to lambast the admirers of movies she disliked. Fair enough: but if you’re going to heap scorn and abuse on someone for liking a particular sort of film, you better not be caught out heaping hosannahs on another title that possesses so many of the very same attributes you just finished berating the first film for having!

  • IA says:

    “MERELY DOGMATICALLY ASSERTING SOMETHING TO BE TRUE does not, in and of itself, make it true. What evidence does she provide?”

    Isn’t this something you should ask yourself each time you insist, with no evidence beyond generalizations, that Dirty Harry and Billy Jack and like The Exorcist and The Fury are so similar? I’ve spent the last couple of posts showing, and quoting–which you did not do–the clearly expressed reasons for Kael’s judgments. Saying that the Exorcist is serious in shallow way but that The Fury is witty in its style is not a counter-intuitive assertion–there’s no onus on her for saying that each movie has differing strengths and flaws.

    Kael broke with Antonioni after L’Avventura, a failure of judgment I think she can rightly be criticized for. I don’t recall Kael dealing with L’Eclisse at length–perhaps you have in mind Kael’s response toward La Notte, found in her essay “The Come-Dressed-as-the-Sick-Soul-of-Europe Parties.” There she said what you just noted–that Antonioni had not made a major stylistic revolution. Instead she believed his style had seeped into the content:

    “In L’Avventura, and in La Notte, Antonioni’s camera work is an extraordinarily evocative mixture of asceticism, lyricism, and a sense of desolation. He is a master of space; he can take bleak landscapes and compose or transform them into visions of elegance or beauty…but in La Notte, the architectural sense, integral to the theme and characters of L’Avventura, begins to dominate the characters, and as the abstract elements take over, the spacial becomes glacial: drama and character and even narrative sense are frozen.”

    One could quote more, but basically speaking Kael continued to see that tendency in L’Eclisse and later Antonioni films. One can dispute her reaction, (I would) but to say that “the only possible conclusion is that Kael was erratic, inconsistent, and plagued by bipolar mood swings” is ridiculous, either as criticism or the most presumptuous armchair psychology.

  • Chris says:

    “in La Notte, the architectural sense, integral to the theme and characters of L’Avventura, begins to dominate the characters, and as the abstract elements take over, the spacial becomes glacial: drama and character and even narrative sense are frozen”

    How exactly do the “abstract elements take over”? How precisely, in terms of visual evidence, does “the spacial become glacial”? Does she demonstrate that this happens or does she merely assert it? Do I even have to ask? The stone-solid FACT of the matter is that she ONLY does the latter. That you continue to think otherwise, continue to pathetically defend this arrogant practice says more about your blindly partisan, hero-worship devotion to the fatuous cult of Kael than anything else.

    (For there are countless critics and analysts of film and the other arts who back up their evaluations with close ANALYSIS and INTERPRETATION. That, in and of itself, makes them more valuable and better critics than Kael, regardless of whether you share their rating of this-or-that particular movie. I happen to dislike the movie Barry Lyndon – Kael also disliked it – but her review made no effort to understood what Kubrick was trying to do – and was completely clueless about his methods, whereas an admirer of Lyndon named Jim Emerson wrote a piece that “got” exactly what Kubrick’s methods and motives were. So I would rank Emerson’s piece on Lyndon as far better than Kael’s, EVEN THOUGH KAEL AND I BOTH DISLIKE THE FILM AND EMERSON LIKES IT. It’s the quality of the analysis that matters, not how much energy the critic expends trying to bludgeon the reader into submission.)

    Does Kael provide a shred of concrete evidence for this averred radical shift in style? No she doesn’t. Of course, L’Eclisse (and no, I was not referring to La Notte, but L’Eclisse, which she specially dismissed in addition to all A’s other titles after L’Avventura) is not the same movie as L’Avventura, but Antonioni does not make some massive change, nor is the experience of watching the movie strikingly different, nor are the storylines or characters even radically different. Remember, I’m not criticizing her for not liking L’Eclisse so much as her lambasting of fans of Antonioni, and her clear implication that they’re a bunch of pseuds and poseurs, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THESE MOVIES SHE DISPARAGED ARE NOT ENORMOUSLY DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE ANTONIONI SHE HERSELF LIKED.

    Even if she THOUGHT there was a stylistic shift, it’s simply delusional, and monumentally arrogant, to think and to declare that OTHER VIEWERS couldn’t possibly have valid reasons for liking the latter two films in the trilogy. How seriously would you take a critic who loved Hitchcock’s Saboteur, for example, but then proceeded to excoriate and defame fans of North by Northwest? It’s fine if you don’t like NBN, and it’s fine to dislike both movies, but it’s the height of absurdity (and psychosis) to believe that a viewer must be STUPID to like Saboteur and Northwest alike, given the enormous similarity in the plots, pacing, cutting, atmosphere…. and given that the latter film is, if anything, a deepening and enhancement of the former…. exactly as Antonioni continued to deepen, clarify, enhance, and improve on the L’Avventura template.

    And this is NOT just “i say this, you say that,” but very demonstrable.

    Read this brilliant piece of in-depth analysis – responsible, rich criticism of the sort Pauline couldn’t, or couldn’t be bothered to, produce – and then tell me with a straight face Antonioni lost his mojo after L’Avventura, and “the spacial” simply became “glacial”:

    http://www.davidsaulrosenfeld.com/index.html

  • IA says:

    Chris, if you would like to keep going around in circles, please feel free to keep doing so, but I’ve reached the point of diminishing returns with you. In parting, if you would like evidence for Kael’s reasoning, try reading the essay I mentioned, because I’m not going to quote the whole thing, especially when you find it beneath yourself to use direct evidence or remember much of what you claim to attack. Rosenfield’s piece is very good, but it’s also on a much longer and bigger scale beyond the review format Kael used, and a critics rarely write epic-length analyses of single films that they don’t find worthwhile. The latter part of your response claims that you were upset less by Kael thinking there was a stylistic shift (which she didn’t, she thought Antonioni’s technique hadn’t changed but had overtaken his grasp of storytelling and character) than by her vituperative attitude toward those who liked it. But neither in “Sick Soul of Europe” or “Zeitgeist or Poltergeist” does Kael engage in the sort of venom you seem to recall (and which you mysteriously cannot quote or discuss beyond generalizations)–re-read them for yourself. The supposed cult of Kael is fed as much by the devotion of her detractors and their own blindly partisan, endless zeal for distortion and invective, usually at the expense of what Kael actually wrote. Her reputation will have truly died when people look upon her with indifference. Judging by your string of posts, that day is thankfully far off.

  • Chris says:

    Blah blah blah…. you have nothing to say, IA: how do you expect me to engage with Kael’s “arguments” when she HAS no argument to speak of? Unless a critic provides a sophisticated analysis of the movie under scrutiny, as Rosenfeld has done, how is the reader supposed to respond to the critic’s argument? The critic has to PROVIDE a lucid argument first – Kael does not (at least not here).

    Kael most certainly did engage in venom and vituperation, on a regular basis (it was her calling card), and she certainly does so in her “Sick Soul of Europe” bullshit essay, which is one straw man and false dichotomy after another.

    I have already pointed out to you an example of an essay, Rosenfeld’s, that DOES come to grips with what Antonioni was doing in L’Eclisse. Did you read it, or try coming to terms with its arguments? Doesn’t the very existence of such in-depth essays undermine the best-case argument one could make for Kael? To some degree, Kael was just plain “wrong” in her estimate of certain films. And L’Eclisse is one of them – and the very existence of Rosenfeld’s excellent essay proves it.

    Why is it so hard for Paulettes to grasp that a responsible critic does more than just throw out one groundless charge after another? Kael could claim all she wanted that Antonioni’s technique had “overtaken” his grasp of “storytelling” and “character” – she could reiterate that till the cows come home – but OTHER critics, like Rosenfeld, provide EXTREMELY strong evidence to the contrary. I don’t care if she never read Rosenfeld’s essay – the point is, such counter-arguments – which are OBJECTIVELY vastly stronger pieces of writing than what Kael produced – existed then and continue to exist now.

    Yet who’s ever claim Rosenfeld as one of the greatest film critics? Why is it that it’s always Kael? Or if not Kael, maybe someone like John Simon might get trotted out, if your tastes run more to Ingmar Bergman and less to Hollywood? Why, pray tell, is it always some preening narcissist who gets trotted out as “the greatest film critic” and NEVER a rigorous close analyst, a scrupulous exegete, like Rosenfeld, or his ilk? It’s simple really: people aren’t interested in actually THINKING about film, they just want to read entertaining, acerbic, witty stylists: they don’t care WHAT the critics say, only HOW they say it: hence the cult of Kael, or if not Kael, maybe Simon or even Anthony Lane (invariably praised for his witty one-liners, not his actual THOUGHTS and IDEAS – since in fact Lane HAS no ideas of any importance.)

    You don’t see this as an enormous problem. I do. And the problem extends far beyond Kael, but since she’s the name that gets trotted out most frequently as the “greatest of all film critics,” she’s the one who needs to be taken down a peg, or three, as Renata Adler, amongst others, so remarkably did. The real crux here is this: are critics to be celebrated primarily for their tossed off one-liners, or are they to be celebrated primarily for their capacity to apprehend, and extrapolate, the truth? For me, what matters most is this ability to “parse” – to see and to say what is OBJECTIVELY there in a film, to make the implicit finely explicit (to borrow a phrase from Harold Bloom). For you and for most Kael admirers, evidently, all that matters is a wallowing in subjectivity, so long as this wallowing is wittily, cleverly, engagingly articulated.

    I’m with Goethe on this one: “The classical the healthy, the romantic is the sick.” Insofar as our time worships the frenzied romanticism Kael liked to worship, it’s a very sick era indeed.

  • Chris says:

    By the way, if you’re so enamored of Kael’s essays, you might try acquainting yourselves with the following:

    http://benefitofthedoubt.miksimum.com/2010/10/searching-out-sick-soul-la-dolce-vita.html

    (one would have to be tone-deaf not to catch the snideness, hypocrisy, and condescension running through the quotes from Kael’s “Sick Soul of Europe” essay contained in this entirely successful and correct rebuttal of said dim-witted essay.)

    and this as well:

    http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2008/02/are_movies_going_to_pieces.html

    Analyzed with a cold (non-fanboy) eye, both Kael essays referenced in these links stand clearly exposed as little else but a tissue of critical fallacies, straw man arguments, misrepresentations, and false dichotonomies.

    Just how long are Kael’s uncritical admirers going to carry on excusing such shoddy writing?

  • Ralph Benner says:

    Who these days would argue that Antonioni’s “L’Avventura” and “La Notte” are really anything more than emblems from the arty farty era? If the directors were compelled to re-examine their highfalutin class-structured essaying — all that heavy treading of alienation, boredom and self-absorption — they’d be (and should be) embarrassed by the ease with which we see how they’ve camouflaged via cinematic self-consciousness what are commonplace and often false emotions and sexual tensions. When the ending of “L’Avventura” comes, many of us find it patently ridiculous that Monica Vitti (suggesting Melina Mercouri) should give one damn when she discovers her three-day lover Gabriele Ferzetti is an unrepentant womanizer. After all, if amorally seduced into letting him pump her so quickly after the sudden yet apparently not very disturbing disappearance of his girlfriend, whose whereabouts still remain a Chandra Levy mystery, how could Vitti affect betrayal when finding him bagging yet another bimbo?

    As for bringing Kael down a peg or two ten years after her departure, well, you sound like Susie Linfield, who wanted to write an “intellectual biography” about her, code for challenging Kael’s opinions and telling her what was wrong with them. Three months after announcing plans for the book Kael died, and apparently so did the bio. Her publisher understood that there’s no use in writing an erudite debate if the subject isn’t around to answer back.

  • Chris says:

    “Who these days would argue that Antonioni’s “L’Avventura” and “La Notte” are really anything more than emblems from the arty farty era?”

    With all due respect, I think you’re missing a rather important point. Obviously at least one person, Rosenfeld, has argued recently that these movies are something more than “emblems from the arty farty era.” If that’s truly all they were, then why do they continue to provoked such rich, interesting, thought-provoking analysis?

    You seem to have been suckered by Kael’s most lamentable characteristic: her belief thay you can simply steamroll over interpretations and exegeses you don’t like, without addressing the arguments they make. But that’s not how responsible arts criticism works or ever has worked. Rosenfeld’s essay exists. Rosenfeld’s essay is not just a series of categorical assertions (as Kael’s reviews generally are) but a first-rate piece of exegesis.

    Arts critics who pompously try to “de-canonize” works they just don’t like, only end up making fools of themselves. For instance, the now nearly forgotten (for good reason) literary critic Yvor Winters (born in 1900) tried to throw a whole bunch of great writers out of the canon, including for example William Blake. But brilliant, in-depth commentaries on Blake’s poems and prose exist, whether Winters liked it or not: the fact that Winters insisted on attributing the stupidest conceivable “meanings” and “parsings” to Blake’s poems doesn’t change a thing. Brilliant readings of Blake, such as Northrop Frye’s in his great book Fearful Symmetry, don’t vanish in the face of Winters’ shallow misreadings. And there’s nothing Winters could do to change that fact: Frye demonstrated just how much substance was there in Blake, so Winters could stamp his foot and insist all he liked that Blake was stupid: the deeper, richer, more penetrating readings of Frye existed then, exist now, and will go on existing – and their very existence counts as a stone-solid refutation of Winters’ weak interpretation.

    Well, the same goes for Kael vis-a-vis all the great filmmakers she dismissed. She dismissed them in vain, because neither she nor you can simply wave your magic wand and wish away the more penetrating, intelligent close readings of these films that have been written. Yours and Kael’s objections are built on sand. Were Antonioni’s films mere pointless relics from a bygone era, and nothing else besides, with nothing more to say to us, as you assert, then how do you account for both the continued influence of his “style” on fresh generations of filmmakers, and more to the point, how do you account for the fact – and it is a fact – that the critical corpus on his films is so much richer, smarter, and deeper – with so much more relevance to The Way We Live Now – than what Kael ever wrote about her favorite filmmakers?

    Simply glossing over what Rosenfeld and others have written – simply pretending that what they have to say isn’t relevant anymore – doesn’t cut it, I’m afraid. Rosenfeld’s essay proves Kael wrong, whether you like it or not.

  • Chris says:

    By the way, Ralph, you seem to be confused about which “artsy fartsy” movie Kael panned and which she praised. You’re ridiculing L’Avventura, but L’Avventura is the one Kael really, really liked. The subsequent pictures were the ones she derisively panned. What you cite as a ridiculous scene has no analogue in L’Eclisse, which I would compare to The Merchant of Venice in its insight into the relationship between economics and the rest of life. It might not be as great as the Shakespeare, but it comes closer to matching The Merchant of Venice than any other movie I can think of.

  • Ford says:

    So, basically, Kael was the Ayn rand of film reviews?

  • Ralph Benner says:

    Unless it’s a dispute over facts, there’s zilch necessity to “prove” the wrong of another’s opinion. Subjectivity is an entitlement; the fun of it is in the debate. Chris doesn’t debate, he harangues, scolds, chastises; because he seems ready to slap those who dare disagree with him, he’s more “bipolar” Ayn Rand than Kael could ever be. What’s much more objectionable is the intentional misreading of the views of others and then insult them by pompously lecturing about what they missed. As if any of us here missed what Kael said about “L’Avventura.”

    I’m baffled by her review—she always taught us what to spot as phony, in this case the gross nincompoopery of Michelangelo’s women—but I don’t challenge her absolute right to comment. (I did when she committed a rare breach of ethics, in reviewing “Reds,” for example.) Don’t object to David’s respectable thesis on “L’Eclisse,” either, though I must say he expends many thousands of words about a movie Kael summarized in just 30. The disparity in critical analysis is the alarm—Pauline apparently woke up and smelled the director’s portentous brew.

  • Chris says:

    I’m content to let my argument stand or fall on its own merits and am not going to waste another breath on the immature, incoherent, mealy-mouthed silliness and frivolousness of Mr. Benner here. If you want to have an honest, in-depth, specific-detail-based debate about the merits or shortcomings of L’Avventura, L’Eclisse, or any other movie, be my guest. Otherwise: no: this discussion is as at end. Blithely dismissing a movie as a “portentous brew” rather than honestly and directly confronting and attempting to rebut arguments to the contrary is mere arrogance and solipsism. I see you’re quite content to follow in your idol Kael’s wake, as this was her modus operandi as well.

    Let the record show what kind of mindset Kael and the Paulettes attract: those who will not honestly debate, those who will not discuss, those who refuse to get into the actual nitty-gritty of an analysis i.e. those who do not understand what arts criticism even IS. Nothing I have said about, or against, Kael, would even be considered controversial if we were talking about literary criticsm as opposed to film criticism.

    This is because the history of literary criticism is full of detailed, in-depth analysts and interpreters i.e. writers who do not, like Kael, merely pontificate, but rigorously ANALYZE the works they turn their attention to, and offer bona fide INSIGHTS INTO THE HUMAN CONDITION. They’re writers like Northrop Frye, who managed to produce a book called Fearful Symmetry, about William Blake’s poetry, that’s very nearly as good – very nearly as valuable as a book of wisdom – as Blake’s poetry. In other words, GENUINELY great critics (as opposed to a blabbermouthed B.S.-er like Kael) are actually comparable in intelligence and imagination to the great artists they discuss! That’s what arts criticism ideally should be, and that’s what many literary critics throughout history have been but almost no film critics have been. The bar for film criticism is set so low that someone, like Kael, who would be considered just average – or below average – in literary studies – is considered “the best ever!!!” among moviegoers. That Kael is held in such high esteem merely demonstrates how low the bar has been set in film criticism.

    Read Frye on Blake, or Hazlitt on Shakespeare, and Kael barely even qualifies as a critic at all in the time-honored sense of the word.

    “So, basically, Kael was the Ayn rand of film reviews?”

    Yup, pretty much.

  • Jason Horsley says:

    I think the reason Kael pushes so many people’s buttons has to do with what an amazing WRITER she was, and not simply a great critic. Anyone who cares about writing (as separate from movies) will recognize Kael’s love of the form and her remarkable mastery of language (even some the earliest pieces, which are transcripts of her radio show, are astonishingly well “written”!). There’s nothing debatable about that, good writing is good writing.

    What’s debatable, endlessly, is her taste in movies, which is subjective to an indeterminate degree. (The question of whether objectivity is possible takes film theory into the realm of quantum mechanics.) Kael panned some good and even great movies, IMO (and praised a few stinkers), but she also panned movies that I thought were great once, but which, partly on reading her reviews, & partly with my own maturation, I had to admit weren’t that great after all. There were times when Kael “ruined” a movie for me by exposing its weaknesses and flaws and making me feel like a sap for ever having fallen for it… She could write so damn well that she could make you doubt your own opinions. That pissed a lot of people off, the many misguided (IMO!) Kubrick fans foremost among them.

    The fact Chris and others are taking the time and space to try and shoot Kael down only proves how formidable she was. How many other film critics does anyone care enough about to try and debunk? Really.

    Kael was in a class of her own IMO because she was one of the great writers of the 20th century, and only happened to be choose to write about movies. She was a literary genius disguised as a film critic. That puts her in league with G.B. Shaw and very few others, among critics.

    It’s ironic that the hardcore film theorists argue that she debased the art form by making it so subjective. The truth is she actually took it to another level, one they were too stuck in their dead theories to follow her to.

    There’s a clue to this in something Kael once said: “I’m frequently asked why I don’t write my memoirs. I think I have.”

    Kael was writing about life, not just hers but everyone’s, using movies to do so.

  • Chris says:

    “The fact Chris and others are taking the time and space to try and shoot Kael down only proves how formidable she was. How many other film critics does anyone care enough about to try and debunk? Really.”

    This doesn’t follow at all. It’s a total logical fallacy, one that Kael’s admirers repeatedly resort to.

    As pointed out above, Kael was basically the Ayn Rand of film critics in terms of the cult of personality built up around her (though even I’ll concede she wasn’t nearly as repulsive a human being as the sociopathic Rand, nor was her taste in art nearly as terrible as Rand’s).

    Rand is widely read to this day, and continues to have millions of fans, especially in America. Yet her philosophy is a farce, she was a shallow thinker, an out-and-out sociopath, and her novels are poorly written: and yes, Kael herself would agree with that, since she dismissed Rand’s writing herself.

    Writers can be overrated for generations after their deaths: it can take a long time for these things to be sorted out. (Let’s see if Kael is still popular 50 years from now.) This is especially true of writers who generate a cult of personality. Rand, a worse and more repellent writer than Kael, continues to be far more popular and influential than Kael, as the sales of her books are still very robust. For that matter, Star Wars is as popular and beloved as ever, a movie Kael disliked: following your logic, Kael would have to be “wrong” about the merits of George Lucas and Ayn Rand since she disliked them both, yet they are still enormously popular and influential.

  • william folchi says:

    Regarding the alleged decline of Pauline Kael’s writing in her last decade, I suggest reading her review of Luchino Visconti’s The Leopard. I have not read a better appreciation of this masterwork, and she notes the power of Lancaster’s acting in the simple scene where he explains the passing of the era, and how the jackals will replace the leopards that ruled. No fancy camerawork, no dramatics, but a memorable scene, and only Kael noticed it and wrote about it.

  • Jim says:

    The reference to Saul Bass is puzzling. Is he being mistaken for a movie critic?

2 Pingbacks »

Leave a comment!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also Comments Feed via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.