Pauline Kael

One really funny thing is Macdonald's review of Kael's first book. He starts out by praising her, realizes as he goes along how tough she's been on him in the past, and ends by basically saying, "Oh, hell--maybe I don't like her that much after all."

KJB, you take some of her asides too seriously. I don't expect a critic to always explain why a movie sucks.

Also: she loved Rio Bravo and lots of Hawks' more discursive films. If she disliked Hatari!, I'm not inclined to blame her "rather bourgeois overvaluation of tight narratives," but credit her for thinking this time Hawks went too far.

But at the end of the day, I just wanna see lots and lots of movies! And auteurism and top ten lists, which Kael apparently never did (true?), give me the tools with which to do so (amongst other things, of course).

Kind of ironic that you claim her writing is poorly argued (by pulling out tangents to the argument - and the sarris book you mention came out six years after the essay she's critiquing - but anyway), evidence that she wasn't a "cinephile" and then complain that she didn't make top ten lists. The reason she didn't isn't that she didn't want you to see lots and lots of movies, but because she thought it was a waste of time. Anyone reading her work can find recommendations left and right - announcing a club's criteria like Sarris did and trying to quantify artistic value are just games she didn't enjoy playing. I make lists sometimes because I find them fun, but I know they're not revelatory.

I'll totally admit her anecdotal grabs at populism are goofy, but they're fairly rare.

I'm an obsessive list-maker like Sarris; as much as I would have loved seeing year-ends from Kael, that's just a matter of individual preference. I don't hold it against someone for making Tops 10s, and definitely don't credit someone as being more serious just because they choose not to make them. (Kauffmann participated in a couple of the Sight and Sound polls, but he mostly avoided them too; ditto Simon.)

Here's a parlor game: try to fill out Kael's 2012 Sight and Sound ballot for her. Off the top of my head (no order): Nashville, [i]Godfather II, Fires on the Plain, The Earrings of Madame De, Shoeshine (that's the one she left crying after her break-up, right? or was it a different De Sica or Rossellini?), Weekend, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, a Keaton film, an American comedy from the '30s, and a De Palma, either Casulties of War or Blow Out. I like lists so much, I even want to make them out for Pauline Kael.

Thanx for the kind words, clemenza (strong praise coming from you...for realz). I'm less concerned with Kael's ethnographic rigidity than with how she reads her sample (or "sample" because, right, I doubt she surveyed actual youngsters): even if she talked to a million young moviegoers, that doesn't prove once and for all the entertainment factor (or value?) of Hatari!. (Although I'd say the same of all enthnography bullies.)

And Soto, I don't expect a critic to always explain why a movie sucks either. But in such a supposedly well-argued essay, I do. And again, she repeats the non-arguing over and over again. This was her shot to take Sarris down and well, um...

P.S. Whirlpool rocks.

P.P.S. Did I tell y'all I got the Ford at Fox boxset for $100? And I'ma watch it ALL!!!!!

Her "argument" in the essay wasn't primarily with which movies Sarris thought rocked or sucked, but with the criteria Sarris says allow to the auteurist to deduce which movies rock or suck. But yeah, if you don't like writers who "love writing more than cinema," you might as well stick with the guys who at least try to make mathematical proofs.

an American comedy from the '30s

Or a musical perhaps. She adored Hallelujah, I'm a Bum!

Just got the part of the audio where Simon says that from the point of view of a bird, The Birds might be a great film.

Think that was Dwight Macdonald, not John Simon.

I like your close arguing Kevin, and I agree with you about her overuse of the self-evident, the implicit, and especially anecdotes about children, which seemed part of a reluctance to put her own fallible, subjective self out there more explicitly--ditto her not rewatching or making Top 10s.

That's the norm in criticism, I'm afraid. I also don't think these qualities made Kael a poor arguer. Even without remembering or re-reading the piece you're quoting, I can see and am persuaded by what she's saying short of accepting the particulars: I.e. there's a vast amount of pleasure to be taken in movies that goes unaccounted for in film criticism and theory.

Do you really think she was wedded to "realistic dialogue"? And this might be my Marxist literalism talking, but I don't see a connection between excessively valuing story and character and membership in the business-owning class.

This was her shot to take Sarris down and well, um...

matter of perspective really. think he took that fight to bed with him for a while.

idk, i've mellowed on kael over the years. she was a hell of a writer when on form, and that's kind of all i want from a writer.

I'm definitely to the point where I value control and organization in criticism less than intensity and blatant subjectivity (and I apparently have little use for Hawks unless Jane Russell is involved), so in the battle between Kael and Sarris, it's the former all the way. And Sarris may have gotten better at some point, but have you read him in the last 10 years? Whatever he had is irreparably gone. Even his capacity for taxonomy and hierarchies.

However, the last few times I've gone back to re-read some of Kael's more famous reviews on, specifically, De Palma, I'm sort of surprised how well some of them don't hold up. In the same sense that some movies are never as good as the first time you see them, some of her most enthusiastic writing only seems fresh and shocking when it's new and you haven't had time to turn the movie in question around in your own head.

There I go, using Kaelian second-person.

think a lot of yall will agree that ephemeral film reviewing is a tough racket, and putting it between hard covers is dicey. and her weekly reviews were pretty long. she made a big thing about only watching films once, but that's kind of going to be the reality for most reviewers -- unless you see it at a festival and then later before release. and tbh watching the same film twice in a week is rarely a good idea unless you're 16 and it's 'goodfellas'.

This is probably the opposite of Eric H's point, but as I get older myself, one thing I have come to appreciate about Sarris is his non-combative tone. I think that's why he was so wounded by Kael's piece; just the idea that another film critic would go after him with such intensity. (Which, if you read the Francis Davis book, seems to surprise Kael almost as much--that he would take such an attack personally. How could he not?) If you look at Kael, Sarris, Kauffmann, and Simon during that great period (and I know many people would take Manny Farber over any of them--not me--but in any event, he was writing in a different sphere), Simon was vicious, Kael was cutting, Kauffmann mostly wrote above the fray, and Sarris seemed like the one who least liked to get into personal sniping.

think a lot of yall will agree that ephemeral film reviewing is a tough racket

Would agree.

and putting it between hard covers is dicey

Wouldn't know. Wouldn't dare.

What's wrong with Farber? I hope it's not just differences in taste, because I think Antonioni is one of my favorite filmmakers of the '60s and Farber pretty much ripped him to shreds iirc.

macdonald's part of that era too, and im a big fan of his. capable of being very funny.

xpost

There's nothing wrong with Farber! (Why do I needlessly open up these doors...) All I'm saying is that he doesn't mean as much to me as Kael or Kauffmann.

Macdonald was great too. I think he wrote a little less regularly than the other four, and his political background maybe moved him a little outside the sphere of the other four.

I think that's why he was so wounded by Kael's piece; just the idea that another film critic would go after him with such intensity. (Which, if you read the Francis Davis book, seems to surprise Kael almost as much--that he would take such an attack personally. How could he not?)

this is odd to me. i can't remember the exact timeline, or whether he was that outspoken, but sarris aimed at the big beasts in his early criticism, mainly bosley crowther. he knew it was a blood sport. but i guess that was upstart 'film culture' contributor vs the new york times, and in that fight kael was more of an equal (can't even remember who she wrote for at that point). of course kael should have known it would hurt, though i do sometimes think: book reviewers have to mind their ps and qs a little because it's a small world and people share (or want to share) agents and publishers, and reviewers are writers too; whereas with film reviewing, you never think, will this hurt brett ratner's feelings?

xpost

d-mac was writing for esquire, so monthly i guess? in the 1960s. he'd written very important things about soviet cinema when andrew and pauline were in short trousers though.

I have such reverence for that whole era, I like them all. I even like the punch-line they all shared, Bosley Crowther, whose 50 Great Films was probably the first film book I ever held in my hands back in grade school (realizing now that he undoubtedly did actual harm in making sure a lot of small and/or foreign films never got a decent chance to find an audience).

Think that was Dwight Macdonald, not John Simon.

It was both, but Simon made the joke first. Somebody should make a short film about a movie theater full of birds watching The Birds.

Yeah, the timeline was a little different for Macdonald; by the mid-'60s, when Kael and Sarris are in ascension, I think that's when Macdonald started to move away from writing about film.

but sarris aimed at the big beasts in his early criticism, mainly bosley crowther

But I think that may have been part of why Sarris felt so ambushed. They all thought Crowther was a joke; for Sarris (I'm just guessing here), he may have felt an immediate kinship with Kael since they were both outsiders, and therefore was that much more taken aback by "Circles and Squares."

Here's a parlor game: try to fill out Kael's 2012 Sight and Sound ballot for her. Off the top of my head (no order): Nashville, Godfather II, Fires on the Plain, The Earrings of Madame De, Shoeshine (that's the one she left crying after her break-up, right? or was it a different De Sica or Rossellini?), Weekend, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, a Keaton film, an American comedy from the '30s, and a De Palma, either Casulties of War or Blow Out. I like lists so much, I even want to make them out for Pauline Kael.

― clemenza, Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:35 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

i feel like she'd find room for some renoir

with film reviewing, you never think, will this hurt brett ratner's feelings?

I do. Which is why I sent him a Christmas card. And the I found out he was Jewish. Oops.

Also: in keeping with Sarris's civility, it was he who, a few years ago (can't remember where I read it), wrote some nice things about Crowther, and how he regretted reducing him to such a caricature.

Renoir--absolutely, missed that. Rules of the Game, probably. Another obvious one I missed: something from the Apu trilogy.

If Sarris was an exceptionally "civil" guy, was his pissing on Kael's fresh corpse (seriously - "the bells toll for thee, and all that") just crazily out of character?

yeah he aint that civil when he dislikes someone (like most of us). read him on bogdanovich.

Civil, minus anything to do with Kael, obviously.

Bogdanovich? I thought he and Sarris were good friends. Can you point me to a specific piece? He used to write very nice things about Bogdanovich.

actually i can!

voice, 15 may 1978. the voice is on google something-or-other.

I'm going to try to look that up.

Sarris' stunningly bitter obit in full: http://www.observer.com/node/44957

I know full well about the obit; I've linked to it myself. We're arguing in circles now--I'm saying he was basically a civil guy who was deeply wounded by "Circles and Squares," hence his extreme bitterness 40 years later.

Not having any luck finding the old Voice piece. I did learn that May 15, 1978 was the exact publication date of Nixon's memoirs. Now there's somebody who knew how to nurse a grudge!

Is a civil guy; he's still very much alive.

"Movie-going kids are, I think, much more reliable guides to this kind of movie than the auteur critics: every kid I've talked to knows that Henry Hathaway's North to Alaska was a surprisingly funny, entertaining movie and Hatari! (classified as a "masterpiece" by half the Cahiers Conseil des Dix, Peter Bogdanovich, and others) was a terrible bore"

pauldeej kael

Hm, didn't know about the Sarris/Bogdanovich beef either but I googled the names and got something in the first hit, from a book called Picture Shows: the life and films of Peter Bogdanovich by Andrew Yule: "Andrew Sarris, having in the spring of 1963 brought out an entire issue of the magazine Film Culture devoted to American film directors, was building up resentment. He believed that Bogdanovich had absorbed many of his opinions and was regurgitating them as if they had been freshly minted."

yeah that's what it's about, that and eugene archer, whom PB wrongly (sez andrew) credited with co-authoring the 1963 issue of film culture. i can't find it either, now, but i took screenshots ('Peter's insidious besmirching of my professional integrity'). there's a reference to it a few weeks later in a letter.

the article says there's no pretence of friendship now that AS has panned 'at long last love' and 'nickelodeon'.

I never knew about any of that--very interesting. Sarris seemed to have gotten over it for a time, anyway: he gave Targets a good review ("All in all, however, Peter Bogdanovich has joined the ranks of promising directors with his very first feature, a movie to which such adjectives as gripping and compelling are appropriate"), and The Last Picture Show was seventh on his '71 year-end. I'm not sure that panning At Long Last Love is proof of anything. I'll stand by my point that, Kael excepted, Sarris is not all that combative--not nearly as much as Simon or Kael used to be.

He also had They All Laughed eleventh on his '81 list.

of this bunch, Sarris wrote best about Buster Keaton.

Kauffmann has a great write-up on a Keaton festival in Living Images; I think he also may have written about either The General or Sherlock, Jr. in the "Reviewings" section of Before My Eyes (I don't have a copy, so I'm not sure about that).

yeah, I havent read Kauffmann in eons, can't say.

I also don't think these qualities made Kael a poor arguer. Even without remembering or re-reading the piece you're quoting, I can see and am persuaded by what she's saying short of accepting the particulars

Pete, first off, thanks for your kind words (extra special humbling coming from you). I don't think she was always a poor arguer; I don't agree with her take on The King of Comedy, for instance, but it's so beautifully argued that it gave me a platform from which to understand my own love of the film. But I do think "Circles and Squares" is poorly argued and more cranky than useful.

I.e. there's a vast amount of pleasure to be taken in movies that goes unaccounted for in film criticism and theory.

But see, that's where auteurism is much more useful. There's a lot of damn films in that Ford box! Sarris accounted for waaaay more films than Kael ever did even North to Alaska although he found it Lightly Likable (it's much better than that) and compared Hathaway favorably to Wellman (perhaps his largest blindspot - Track of the Cat damn near matches the best of Ford and Hawks and those early programmers are consistent knockouts).

Do you really think she was wedded to "realistic dialogue"? And this might be my Marxist literalism talking, but I don't see a connection between excessively valuing story and character and membership in the business-owning class.

Eh to be perfectly honest, that long post was an attempt to flush out some recent bourgeois intrusions in my life. Extraordinarily therapeutic in that respect! But really the fact of the matter is that she was wedded to those conventions/ideals when it came to Hollywood. A good Hollywood film to her was one that told a tight story, etc. But, thank gawd, the genius of the system was flexible enough to allow for films that did not rigidly adhere to those conventions. So even though they are undeniably Hollywood films and they do tell stories (sorta...not really...), you need to approach them from a different angle. And call me a snob, a cinephile (quelle horreur!), an anti-populist (ha!), etc., but it does help if you have some sort of affinity for the avant-garde (or at least, the insufferable art film...I'm perfectly cognizant of the fact that Man's Favorite Sport? can be just as difficult to slog through as L'avventura).

Oh it is, it is -- but it's my dad's favorite movie!

Ha! Such a dad movie!

So even though they are undeniably Hollywood films

They = auteurist films she hated like Hatari! or 7 Women (which she got freakishly wrong! it's my all-time fave Ford)

P.S. That Ford box is also ridiculously heavy! I lugged that fucker home on the bus! Cinephilia knows no pain.

I'm not a dad. But I love Paula Prentiss. In the best of all possible worlds, I would have enlisted Paula Prentiss to help me cross the threshhold into dad-dom.

A good Hollywood film to her was one that told a tight story, etc. But, thank gawd, the genius of the system was flexible enough to allow for films that did not rigidly adhere to those conventions. So even though they are undeniably Hollywood films and they do tell stories (sorta...not really...), you need to approach them from a different angle. And call me a snob, a cinephile (quelle horreur!), an anti-populist (ha!), etc., but it does help if you have some sort of affinity for the avant-garde (or at least, the insufferable art film...I'm perfectly cognizant of the fact that Man's Favorite Sport? can be just as difficult to slog through as L'avventura).

i don't see how you can think this and still dig sarris, who had NO IDEA about the avant-garde. but i think you're seeing things in hollywood movies that aren't really there. there wasn't that much space to depart from conventions. man's favourite sport is just a dull, uninspired movie by some guy a somewhere between twenty years and a quarter of a century past his best -- that's why it's a slog. and no i couldn't give you chapter and verse (long-ass time since i slogged through it) and no im not going to rewatch, there just isn't time.

think you're seeing things in hollywood movies that aren't really there.

so you retract your praise for The Fighter then

nope, not at all -- being cute, though, i'd rather overrate a current movie than a 60 y.o. movie