It would have been a far more interesting landscape in movies today if Pauline Kael was still around. With the amount of truth, passion, and incisive criticism she would have lashed at most of the Hollywood garbage being green-lighted these days, a lot of these directors and writers would be out of a job in a heartbeat.
It would have been a far more interesting landscape in movies today if Pauline Kael was still around. With the amount of truth, passion, and incisive criticism she would have lashed at most of the Hollywood garbage being green-lighted these days, a lot of these directors and writers would be out of a jobs in a heartbeat.
Pauline Kael: hating movies on principle, never re-evaluating her opinion, being dismissive, assuring her fan base that they "need not know something", and sinking her loathsome teeth into any film that proved her half-baked theories wrong. Great critic indeed! No worries, let's just hope she can't muster up a mighty wind to steer critical thinking her way from beyond the grave.......
I liked the interview up until the last part were she confidently states that everyone who doesn't agree with her about films aren't looking. What a remarkably stupid comment.
@doctornoooo the best critics are the one's who can intelligently engage with the work, are more interested in exploring theme, character and other formal concerns then stating an absolute, if subjective, opinion; whether they liked it or not, whether they consider it good or bad, art or entertainment, is almost beside the point.
@doctornoooo I once had an acquaintance who was forced to love some awful Samuel Fuller films in the film department at NYU. And he did love them. He was intimidated into loving them.
@doctornoooo Many people do change their minds on films, and even if they didn't, the point isn't to change their minds but to expand their viewpoints. Many people don't like criticism because they don't really understand what it's about.
kael might have been a cynical writer (and I actually would not see that necessarily as a bad thing). but you must agree with me she was absurdly intelligent.
@MrPato61 I don't think armond white is a retard, and kael is far from cynical. She loathed films she saw as misanthropic or despairing and seemed to harbor a real love for humanity.
I just don't know what she's talking about. It just seems to be some kind of love in where any actual critical analysis is shown the door and seen as utterly irrelevant.
It's the making of money off those subjective opinions that is ridiculous. Also, Kael strikes me as someone who took herself too seriously and revelled in negative criticism.
@dreza4 If you think her writing isn't good, then you simply don't know what good writing is. Her syntax and diction are freewheeling and conversational yet absolutely correct--that's part of her brilliance.
Kael was such a wonderful wordsmith. I generally agree with her taste on pop filmmaking, but disagree when it comes to serious art. She trashed many genius filmmakers, be it John Cassavetes or Paul Morrissey. But petty disagreements in judgment isn't enough to write her off as a wonderful writer.
The following ispart of Kael's review of Spielberg's Sugarland Express in 1974: " The director, Steven Spielberg, is twenty-six; I cant tell if he has any mind, or even a strong personality, but then a lot of good moviemakers have got by without being profound. He isnt saying anything special in The Sugarland Express, but he has a knack for bringing out young actors, and a sense of composition and movement that almost any director might envy.
Composition seems to come naturally to him, as it does to some of the young Italians; Spielberg uses his gift in a very free-and-easy, American way—for humor, and for a physical response to action. He could be that rarity among directors—a born entertainer—perhaps a new generations Howard Hawks. In terms of the pleasure that technical assurance gives and audience, this film is one of the most phenomenal debut films in the history of movies.
... If there is such a thing as a movie sense—and I think there is (I know fruit vendors and cabdrivers who have it and some movie critics who dont)—Spielberg really has it. But he may be so full of it that he doesnt have much else. Theres no sign of the emergence of a new film artist (such as Martin Scorsese) in The Sugarland Express, but it marks the debut of a new-style, new-generation Hollywood hand.
"She was a pissy old gripe who got everything wrong. I can't think of a single review of hers worth reading." What an ill-educated, ignorant comment - especially from someone claiming to be a Spielberg fan. I give you above, as a single example of her knowledge and insight, her description of Spielberg in her 1974 review of Sugerland Express. Remember, this is before he has made Jaws, CE3K, Raiders, ET-everything; when Spielberg was an almost complete unknown.
That last comment could apply to her championing Altman & DePalma, at their worst. She was cross-eyed when it came to sex & violence praising these values in Hill & Peckinpah & decrying them in Kubrick & Coppola. In conversation, her amiable disposition was in contradiction with her colorful & bitchy writing style that made her the Aunty Mame of film critics. However, she was capable of intelligent insights when others found nothing in an experimental work, e.g. Breathless & Zabriskie Point.
That last comment could apply to her championing Altman & DePalma, at their worst. She was cross-eyed when it came to sex & violence praising these values in Hill & Peckinpah & decrying them in Kubrick & Coppola. In conversation, her amiable disposition was in contradiction with her colorful & bitchy writing style that made her the Aunty Mame of film critics. However, she was capable of intelligent insights when others found nothing in an experimental work, e.g. Breathless & Zabriskie Point.
Forget possibly the greatest film director of the modern era, listen to some critic who had it in for most great films. She was a pissy old gripe who got everything wrong. I can't think of a single review of hers worth reading.
what's wrong with that guy's face/
closetome 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It would have been a far more interesting landscape in movies today if Pauline Kael was still around. With the amount of truth, passion, and incisive criticism she would have lashed at most of the Hollywood garbage being green-lighted these days, a lot of these directors and writers would be out of a job in a heartbeat.
JimmBailey 2 months ago
It would have been a far more interesting landscape in movies today if Pauline Kael was still around. With the amount of truth, passion, and incisive criticism she would have lashed at most of the Hollywood garbage being green-lighted these days, a lot of these directors and writers would be out of a jobs in a heartbeat.
JimmBailey 2 months ago
the host is gay hence his love of feminism.
knightschwartz 4 months ago
What's with the death metal intro?
ixat00 4 months ago
@ixat00 We love death metal at NSI.
nsicanada 4 months ago
Does anyone have recordings of Ms. Kael's appearances on either the Dick Cavett or Tom Snyder shows? If so, please post!
mrwinkie8 4 months ago
look at how awesome CTV was in the seventies! Go Canada
heftybefty2 6 months ago
@heftybefty2 you could say that about pretty much every damn networks in North America
skinwalkerxxx 5 months ago
@skinwalkerxxx TRUE
heftybefty2 5 months ago
Pauline Kael: hating movies on principle, never re-evaluating her opinion, being dismissive, assuring her fan base that they "need not know something", and sinking her loathsome teeth into any film that proved her half-baked theories wrong. Great critic indeed! No worries, let's just hope she can't muster up a mighty wind to steer critical thinking her way from beyond the grave.......
JackieBrown101 6 months ago
i love this woman
gracer99 7 months ago
Wow, she pointed out that Sugarland Express was stylistically traditional, what a Nostradamus.
okterrific2005 9 months ago
she looks like the Wicked Witch of the West (from "Wizard of Oz"), I think that explains her acerbic wit
TheSunmanho 10 months ago
Sorry Pauline, but Never say never again is a pile of shite...
puccini007 1 year ago
I liked the interview up until the last part were she confidently states that everyone who doesn't agree with her about films aren't looking. What a remarkably stupid comment.
Crinderman 1 year ago 3
@Crinderman - I agree - personally, I think that anybody who calls 2001 a "monumentally unimaginative movie" isn't really looking....
thistleinfotech 1 year ago
Where is the Kael when we need her today?
seethevolcane 1 year ago
fellin once said, i never had much use for critics, if you like the movie
nothing anyone says is going to make you change your mind, and if
you didn't like it, no amount of praise is going to either.
doctornoooo 1 year ago
Comment removed
dirtycelinefrenchman 1 year ago
Comment removed
dirtycelinefrenchman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@doctornoooo the best critics are the one's who can intelligently engage with the work, are more interested in exploring theme, character and other formal concerns then stating an absolute, if subjective, opinion; whether they liked it or not, whether they consider it good or bad, art or entertainment, is almost beside the point.
dirtycelinefrenchman 1 year ago
@doctornoooo I once had an acquaintance who was forced to love some awful Samuel Fuller films in the film department at NYU. And he did love them. He was intimidated into loving them.
goback3spaces 1 year ago
@goback3spaces Sam Fuller doesn't make awful films.
McNugget06 1 year ago
@goback3spaces Rather, didn't make awful films.
McNugget06 1 year ago
@McNugget06 NAKED KISS is horrendous. Nice title, though. He had a knack with titles.
goback3spaces 1 year ago
@doctornoooo Many people do change their minds on films, and even if they didn't, the point isn't to change their minds but to expand their viewpoints. Many people don't like criticism because they don't really understand what it's about.
TheDsnitz 4 months ago
She had that gift of alchemy that turned an audiences feelings into thought.
edbingey 1 year ago
Stunning critic.
edbingey 1 year ago
Kael was a real bastard in film criticism. She's the Armond White of her day, lol.
thejobloshow 1 year ago
@thejobloshow
kael might have been a cynical writer (and I actually would not see that necessarily as a bad thing). but you must agree with me she was absurdly intelligent.
armond white is just a retard.
MrPato61 1 year ago
@MrPato61 I don't think armond white is a retard, and kael is far from cynical. She loathed films she saw as misanthropic or despairing and seemed to harbor a real love for humanity.
TheDsnitz 4 months ago
i heard she was abused as a child
ericscarface 1 year ago
@ericscarface
It shows, too.
JackKlompus13 1 year ago
Give a Roger Ebert review any day.
ElTuco84 1 year ago
I just don't know what she's talking about. It just seems to be some kind of love in where any actual critical analysis is shown the door and seen as utterly irrelevant.
dreza4 2 years ago
People who comfortably make their way through life by having opinions on things are of little value to me.
GordonMorrice 2 years ago
Yes--how dare this woman have an opinion!
DeanLeonard1 2 years ago
It's the making of money off those subjective opinions that is ridiculous. Also, Kael strikes me as someone who took herself too seriously and revelled in negative criticism.
GordonMorrice 2 years ago
You don't know what you are talking about. Good criticism is an art in itself. Anyone can have an opinion, but Kael's writing is more than a rant.
marcolopolis55 2 years ago
Kael's "writing" is appalling. Grammar/Sentences be damned!
dreza4 2 years ago
@dreza4
I take it you don't like her writing?
JackKlompus13 1 year ago
@dreza4 If you think her writing isn't good, then you simply don't know what good writing is. Her syntax and diction are freewheeling and conversational yet absolutely correct--that's part of her brilliance.
DeanLeonard1 9 months ago
your assessment of criticism is... laughable
sethisawesome 2 years ago
Kael was such a wonderful wordsmith. I generally agree with her taste on pop filmmaking, but disagree when it comes to serious art. She trashed many genius filmmakers, be it John Cassavetes or Paul Morrissey. But petty disagreements in judgment isn't enough to write her off as a wonderful writer.
alainsoir 2 years ago 2
The following ispart of Kael's review of Spielberg's Sugarland Express in 1974: " The director, Steven Spielberg, is twenty-six; I cant tell if he has any mind, or even a strong personality, but then a lot of good moviemakers have got by without being profound. He isnt saying anything special in The Sugarland Express, but he has a knack for bringing out young actors, and a sense of composition and movement that almost any director might envy.
hansjugger 2 years ago 2
Composition seems to come naturally to him, as it does to some of the young Italians; Spielberg uses his gift in a very free-and-easy, American way—for humor, and for a physical response to action. He could be that rarity among directors—a born entertainer—perhaps a new generations Howard Hawks. In terms of the pleasure that technical assurance gives and audience, this film is one of the most phenomenal debut films in the history of movies.
hansjugger 2 years ago
... If there is such a thing as a movie sense—and I think there is (I know fruit vendors and cabdrivers who have it and some movie critics who dont)—Spielberg really has it. But he may be so full of it that he doesnt have much else. Theres no sign of the emergence of a new film artist (such as Martin Scorsese) in The Sugarland Express, but it marks the debut of a new-style, new-generation Hollywood hand.
hansjugger 2 years ago 5
"She was a pissy old gripe who got everything wrong. I can't think of a single review of hers worth reading." What an ill-educated, ignorant comment - especially from someone claiming to be a Spielberg fan. I give you above, as a single example of her knowledge and insight, her description of Spielberg in her 1974 review of Sugerland Express. Remember, this is before he has made Jaws, CE3K, Raiders, ET-everything; when Spielberg was an almost complete unknown.
hansjugger 2 years ago 5
she hated 2001 but praised The Warriors.Moron !!
yellowwasp09 2 years ago
A brilliant woman but full of hate and malice. Just listen to her voice.
sallygal7 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That last comment could apply to her championing Altman & DePalma, at their worst. She was cross-eyed when it came to sex & violence praising these values in Hill & Peckinpah & decrying them in Kubrick & Coppola. In conversation, her amiable disposition was in contradiction with her colorful & bitchy writing style that made her the Aunty Mame of film critics. However, she was capable of intelligent insights when others found nothing in an experimental work, e.g. Breathless & Zabriskie Point.
bondurango 2 years ago
That last comment could apply to her championing Altman & DePalma, at their worst. She was cross-eyed when it came to sex & violence praising these values in Hill & Peckinpah & decrying them in Kubrick & Coppola. In conversation, her amiable disposition was in contradiction with her colorful & bitchy writing style that made her the Aunty Mame of film critics. However, she was capable of intelligent insights when others found nothing in an experimental work, e.g. Breathless & Zabriskie Point.
bondurango 2 years ago 3
She was the greatest film critic of all time. Forget studying Spielberg, just read Kael.
jkfromcincty 2 years ago
jkfromcincty: You have got to be kidding.
Forget possibly the greatest film director of the modern era, listen to some critic who had it in for most great films. She was a pissy old gripe who got everything wrong. I can't think of a single review of hers worth reading.
BunchofMovieVideos 2 years ago
You can't think. That's all.
2046idaevolta 2 years ago
2046idaevolta: Another nonsensical and stupid comment from out of the ether on YouTube. I am so surprised.
BunchofMovieVideos 2 years ago
So? Are parts 2--4 coming up shortly?
weikko79 3 years ago