Pauline Kael

God--how could I forget White Heat? I think I'd take that over even my favorite Hitchcock or Hawks film, and way before anything by Ray, Sirk, or Preminger.

xpost Yeah I've talked about In a Lonely Place somewhere here before - saw it early in cinephilia and loved it, saw it later and couldn't access what I first saw in it. Maybe in another ten years, it'll hit me again.

Fwiw as much as I love me some auteurism, I've bumped heads with other, perhaps more hardline auteurists for pumping, say, Joan Crawford as an auteurist or for questioning the director as the ultimate/only source for what winds up on screen/in speakers. There's been tons of terrific work taking other personnel as auteurs, e.g., Christina Lane, "Stepping Out From Behind The Grand Silhouette: Joan Harrison's Films of the 1940s" in Authorship and Film, eds. David Gerstner and Janet Staiger (in fact, that entire collection is good for poking holes in the auteur theory). It's not the ONLY lens through which I view the entirety of cinema.

Also, the auteur theory shares a great deal with genre theory so I don't see what the big deal is apart from the fact that genre theory makes some people cranky as well. You approach the oeuvres Ford or Hawks or whoever as if they were genres, figuring out how the oeuvre/genre works (just like those Ford and Hawks communities!), looking for themes and variations, discovering ways to complicate the categories, etc. And genre theory means you get to watch even more movies!

The Roaring Twenties > White Heat

I'm much more inclined to think of "Joan Crawford pictures" than I am arguing whether Curtiz or Walsh are directors who deserve credit for their movies' successes.

haha Joan Crawford as an auteur, that should be

Joan wrote a very systematic analysis of William K Howard films for Modern Screen

I like White Heat, but might actually prefer High Sierra.

Joan wrote a very systematic analysis of William K Howard films for Modern Screen

Actual lolz. Had to look up William K Howard too. Ahead of her time, that Joan.

For the record, Joan thought Johnny Guitar was one of the worst movies she ever did.

She did indeed, most likely because she hated Mercedes McCambridge who received spontaneous on set applause after one of her scenes which sent Crawford into a clothes-ripping rage.

Crawford also hated Rain because it was her first big flop. But it's her greatest performance.

You know who hates <i?Johnny Guitar[/i]? Bogdanovich. When he spoke in Toronto recently, he ridiculed it no fewer than three times in an hour. I like the film, but his digs were actually quite funny.

I don't care for the film either, and I've watched it four times.

Just found out about this:

http://www.amazon.com/Pauline-Kael-Life-Brian-Kellow/dp/0670023124/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1309555150&sr=1-4

It comes out Oct. 27.

Struggling to see how it could be as entertaining as Sontag & Kael.

Also just saw LOA is releasing a Kael collection, and I guess I don't know how it could be that diff from For Keeps.

I liked Sontag & Kael a lot, but if the writer's good, I think this'll be great. It'll fill in lots that I don't know about her life pre-"Circles and Squares" (I know next to nothing), and, I would hope, would dive right into all the Kael/Sarris/Simon/Macdonald sniping through the '60s. I'm counting the days.

would prefer if Brian Fellows wrote a book on Kael

Dwight Garner's too brief reevaluation of Hooked, my second favorite Kael collection.

From the piece above: "wondering what she’d say if she were alive to weigh in on, say, Black Swan or The Social Network. (I suspect she’d have smacked both around, while finding things to enjoy about David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin’s work in the Facebook movie.)"

"What would Kael think?" follows me in and out of every movie theatre. I think the guy's right about The Social Network--my guess is she would have loved Timberlake most of all.

She would've said that Mara Rooney was like the new Roz Russell or something.

Todd McCarthy's review of the new bio (some dish about her early life via the book, and TMc's own).

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/pauline-kael-a-life-dark-243280

The Library of American edition is redundant if you already own For Keeps.

Even to close friends, Pauline revealed little about her early family life. Many did not even know she was Jewish

find this hard to believe!

doesnt sound like there's much new info in that bio

The comment by one "Terry" has made me curious about Penelope Gilliatt's crit; she wrote the Sunday Bloody Sunday screenplay.

okay well this i want to read more about: ... Penelope Gilliatt, whose drunken excesses are startlingly detailed.

I remember reading Gilliatt's reviews just as regularly as Kael's back then, but no idea what I'd think of them now.

Didn't know Pauline chased gay boys as a young woman.

curious to read more about her pre-NYer career (i've heard a few of her radio broadcasts)

xpost With a bat?

An interview with All About All About Eve wag Sam Stagg from '82:

http://books.google.com/books?id=olNSliMdOHYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=kael+conversations&hl=en&ei=3iCOTsuhO9GztwesxMimDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

* Staggs

She confronts the homophobe slur.

i have that book + was reading it on the can last week. she always had a minor blind spot re: this stuff - she was very sensitive about how jews were portrayed in movies, but tended to wave it off a bit whenever blacks or gays found something distasteful

the Staggs int'vw is not on GoogleBooks btw

It is. Click on "Bisset, Jacqueline" in the index.

books.google.com/books?id=olNSliMdOHYC&pg=PA91

I know. I think Kael abused gays no more severely than she did any other group.

for which I'm grateful

well except for the "ambiguous" Archie Leach

Never got through that specific article (little interest in the subject), but didn't she gush about how he was too, um, straight for anyone to accept "I just went gay all the sudden" as anything other than ludicrous?

She almost went postal watching I Was a Male War Bride.

The thing I remember most about Gilliatt's reviews (there was a collection I would look through at the library) was that they weren't even remotely like Kael's. That, and the plagiarism incident.

gilliatt's review of '2001' is readily google-able. it's excellent, and certainly engages with the film more interestingly than kael did.

Andrew O'Hehir discusses PK w/ Matt Zoller Seitz:

I appreciate what she represents and her influence on the craft and form of film criticism, mine very much included, is almost oxygen-like. But I’m not really on her wavelength. Even when I agree with her about certain movies or directors I often don’t see them the same way, and don’t really get what she’s talking about. I’ve honestly never known what she means by “humanist” movies, and I don’t understand her passion for, say, Brian De Palma or James Toback. Such weird and ultimately minor choices! And the way she uses the first-person plural or the second-person plural, to implicitly include the reader in her highly eccentric emotional response — that drives me nuts. It’s manipulative and a little creepy, like she’s saying all right-thinking people will have the same opinion about a motion picture....

As we’ve discussed, her definition (of film) excludes all kinds of things, from European art cinema to horror movies to a lot of crime films and other genre movies. What troubles me about her legacy is the anti-intellectual component you have mentioned, the idea that Kael provides cover for the persistent critical devaluation of movies that challenge her definition of “movies” because they do not set out to please or entertain millions of people, and may be unsettling or incomplete or unfriendly on purpose.

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/27/pauline_kael_hero_or_hack/singleton/

I really wish guys like him could appreciate her just as a writer. Who cares whether they share tastes?

Hero or Hack?

impossible choice let me think about it

i agree. i always read her for the writing. agreeing with her was beside the point for me. i don't agree with most critics about a lot of things.

but, you know, its fair game to criticise her for being blind to stuff or intellectually sloppy or whatever. but when people basically say: "she was too opinionated!" that seems silly. then again, by pointing out stuff that she didn't write about...i dunno, what's the point of that? maybe she thought she wouldn't write about them well or in an interesting way.

a lot of it is sexism too. if she had been a dude she would have been hunter thompson or something. posters of her in brainy dorm rooms. (i actually had a picture of her on my wall when i was like 19 lol nerd)

and that dude above saying that he didn't see things the same way when he watched a movie...that's kinda the point to me. how could you see things the same way? seeing things in different ways is the fun of critical debate, no? sorry, i'm being obvious. i mean, she bugs me too.