Someone please put Pauline Kael out of her misery
- Donald Brown
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:21 pm
- Location: a long the riverrun
- skuhn8
- Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:46 pm
- Location: Chico, CA
Let me guess: she slammed one of your favorite flicks, and so as a response you shitcan her entire career as a critic.Donald Brown wrote:Pauline Kael was an idiot and should be read with great skepticism.
Much of the slamming of critics is just envy: they make a living doing what we wish we could do--make money watching and talking/writing about films.
- Donald Brown
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:21 pm
- Location: a long the riverrun
No, she was an inelegant writer who placed more value on gut-feelings than on thought, and stubbornly refused to re-elvauate anything. I've had favorite films slammed by critics I love, and if one is jealous of Kael for being a critic, why is one not similarly envious and dismissive of Sarris, Rosenbaum, et al.? She was a middling writer and an idiot who appeals to people who admire strong personalities more than critical thinkers.
- Alonzo the Armless
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:57 pm
Wasn't Kael one of the few critics who praised LAST TANGO IN PARIS? And I thought I read in EASY RIDERS, RAGING BULLS that her reviews were important to the success of young directors in the 70s like Scorsese and DePalma. She was a fresh voice in film criticism that was dominated by stodgy, out-of-touch critics.
- Lino
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
- Location: Sitting End
- Contact:
- swingo
- Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 10:35 am
- Location: Mexico City
- Contact:
I'm not that familiar with Pauline, but I have a rule to myself that I shall not take sides on a particular critic.
Ebert dissed and prayed some of my favorite movies, and must probably Pauline, and so was Emilio GarcÃa Riera (The best Mexican critic and Mexican film historian), etc.
It serves pretty good to strengthen your criteria, whether a critic may add richness to your view of a particular movie, or a critic may diss it, then you take on the role of defending that particular movie by explaining your thoughts, either way it is good for me.
Axel.
Ebert dissed and prayed some of my favorite movies, and must probably Pauline, and so was Emilio GarcÃa Riera (The best Mexican critic and Mexican film historian), etc.
It serves pretty good to strengthen your criteria, whether a critic may add richness to your view of a particular movie, or a critic may diss it, then you take on the role of defending that particular movie by explaining your thoughts, either way it is good for me.
Axel.
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
- Andre Jurieu
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
- Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)
So let me get this straight. We can criticize dead people and men who are alive, but not women, and definitely not women who are dead, because doing so goes against some stupid notion of critical etiquette?
I find that kind of idea offensive! It's a moronic, distorted notion of equality. Kael should be subject to the same standards as any other critic - dead, alive, male, or female.
Just because someone is dead and is a woman does not make her untouchable from criticism of her work. Donald has every right to criticize Pauline Kael's perspective, tactics, and writing style and I say he should speak his mind without having to deal with people who somehow find opinions offensive just because they go against their own sensibilities and tastes. If someone believes he is wrong in saying Kael is an idiot, they should defend her work by addressing Donald's claims, instead of dismissing his comments as offensive. I can definitely see where Donald is coming from. Kael's writing should be read with skepticism. In fact, you should read every writer's opinionated comments with skepticism.
What did Eastwood once say when he was told about Pauline's death and asked about Kael's incessant attacks upon his films? I believe he simply replied "Well I'm still around and she's not".
I find that kind of idea offensive! It's a moronic, distorted notion of equality. Kael should be subject to the same standards as any other critic - dead, alive, male, or female.
Just because someone is dead and is a woman does not make her untouchable from criticism of her work. Donald has every right to criticize Pauline Kael's perspective, tactics, and writing style and I say he should speak his mind without having to deal with people who somehow find opinions offensive just because they go against their own sensibilities and tastes. If someone believes he is wrong in saying Kael is an idiot, they should defend her work by addressing Donald's claims, instead of dismissing his comments as offensive. I can definitely see where Donald is coming from. Kael's writing should be read with skepticism. In fact, you should read every writer's opinionated comments with skepticism.
What did Eastwood once say when he was told about Pauline's death and asked about Kael's incessant attacks upon his films? I believe he simply replied "Well I'm still around and she's not".
Last edited by Andre Jurieu on Thu Mar 10, 2005 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:09 pm
- Location: here and there
- GringoTex
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am
Because Kael is one of the few reviewers who can make you feel stupid for loving a film. She's pissed me off, too. Hell, Sarris is still pissed off at her 40 years after she gang-banged his auteur theory essay. You have to take her for what she is- a reviewer for the masses, not a critic for the cinephiles. She was also instrumental in selling such filmmakers as Godard to a wide audience and was a champion of the Hollywood genre film when most people were dismissing it out of hand. Yes, she was bullheaded, close-minded, played favorites, and lost almost all relevance in the late seventies. And is she had a clue about a film's formal considerations, she never let you know about it. But she was also exceptionally intelligent and an exceptional writer.Donald Brown wrote: I've had favorite films slammed by critics I love, and if one is jealous of Kael for being a critic, why is one not similarly envious and dismissive of Sarris, Rosenbaum, et al.?
- Lino
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
- Location: Sitting End
- Contact:
- David
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:05 am
A woman who's a critic is in most people's eyes "a woman critic", the same thing as "woman writer" & "woman filmmaker" etc etc etc...Michael wrote:Is it simply wrong to badmouth Kael because she's a woman? And does that mean it's okay to badmouth a man?
And this is clearly what this is about: a "woman critic", not just a critic.
Most of this discussion is not visible on the board, but I strongly sense it "behind the scenes".
I've never read anything by Pauline Kael, so please specify your (you who so strongly dislike her) criticism against her writing. So far I've understood that she's a woman, an idiot and should be read with great skepticism.
- Lino
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
- Location: Sitting End
- Contact:
- Andre Jurieu
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
- Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)
{|=Annie Mall wrote:I've always known that misogyny ran amock on this forum and it's always a sad day when I see it happen in such a way...
You haven't even backed up your claims against Donald, et al. You just make a blanket statement, drop a loaded word, and then act above it all. What's the difference between you calling Donald (and others) a misogynist and some random person claiming you are a racist without proper reasoning? If they aren't correct in their assumptions against you, how are you justified at attacking forum members?
I'm hoping feminism is attempting to achieve equality, instead of attempting to create superiority.
Last edited by Andre Jurieu on Thu Mar 10, 2005 12:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- GringoTex
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am
So we're supposed to supply specific evidence to demonstrate Pauline Kael's idiocy while you're allowed to use ESP to demonstrate our sexism?David wrote: A woman who's a critic is in most people's eyes "a woman critic", the same thing as "woman writer" & "woman filmmaker" etc etc etc...
And this is clearly what this is about: a "woman critic", not just a critic.
Most of this discussion is not visible on the board, but I strongly sense it "behind the scenes".
I've never read anything by Pauline Kael, so please specify your (you who so strongly dislike her) criticism against her writing. So far I've understood that she's a woman, an idiot and should be read with great skepticism.
- Michael
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:09 pm
- backstreetsbackalright
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 6:49 pm
- Location: 313
Some of the first film criticism I read was Kael's, and so she's responsible for turning me on to a lot of great film. But our tastes diverged quickly and wildly- both tastes in films and tastes in film writing. Anymore I don't read her at all. But close friends of mine do, and her writing matches their tastes pretty well. Those friends' taste in film is all but completely uninteresting to me, but whatever.
Anyways, what I wanted to say is that Philip Lopate wrote an article about Kael that I think is really excellent - both admiring and critical. Its called "The Passion of Pauline Kael," and can be found in the collection Totally, Tenderly, Tragically. I seem to recall a piece by Jonathan Rosenbaum too, but I can't locate where (or if) that is.
Anyways, what I wanted to say is that Philip Lopate wrote an article about Kael that I think is really excellent - both admiring and critical. Its called "The Passion of Pauline Kael," and can be found in the collection Totally, Tenderly, Tragically. I seem to recall a piece by Jonathan Rosenbaum too, but I can't locate where (or if) that is.
- hearthesilence
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
- Location: NYC
I think this nails it for me. That's how it is with most critics, but in the end, EVERYONE's a critic, Kael et al just get published.Because Kael is one of the few reviewers who can make you feel stupid for loving a film. She's pissed me off, too. Hell, Sarris is still pissed off at her 40 years after she gang-banged his auteur theory essay. You have to take her for what she is- a reviewer for the masses, not a critic for the cinephiles. She was also instrumental in selling such filmmakers as Godard to a wide audience and was a champion of the Hollywood genre film when most people were dismissing it out of hand. Yes, she was bullheaded, close-minded, played favorites, and lost almost all relevance in the late seventies. And is she had a clue about a film's formal considerations, she never let you know about it. But she was also exceptionally intelligent and an exceptional writer.
- David
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:05 am
Rightly so...I shall try to explain more in detail my earlier post:Langlois68 wrote:So we're supposed to supply specific evidence to demonstrate Pauline Kael's idiocy while you're allowed to use ESP to demonstrate our sexism?
In my eyes and by my experiences, there's a common tendency to give woman who are controversial more harshen critic than men so and this controversy is also a very common and popular way to place woman in the light. Woman writers not controversial though, "just good writers", are sadly still given less attention than men.
And further, Annie Mall being a woman, saying what she's saying, usual makes a bigger stir, than if "Bennie Mall" would've made the same statement.
If you don't want to see this pattern, of course you won't and instead be deeply offended being a man (and trust me, at every lecture concerning feminism I've attended there is always the typical bunch of men throwing out stupid counterarguments, being deeply offended.)
Unfortunately this kind of discussion always turns in to a "mockery and bashing contest" and so far this thread has led nowhere.
Last edited by David on Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.