http://archive.nytimes.com/2001/09/04/obituaries/04KAEL.html

I always enjoyed her New Yorker stuff. She's perhaps the only movie critic I've read where I enjoyed the writing as writing.

Agreed, Mark. What a role model for anyone who ever writes a review. Can you imagine Pauline worrying about what Usenet or some forum's opinion would be of one of her reviews? LOL! Or worrying that her criticisms were completely against the grain of other reviewers? Of course, when she did write a review that was contrary to the prevailing opinions, she always made it crystal clear why she held the opinion she espoused.

Thanks for the link and the news Bruce.
Her "5001 Nights at the Movies" collection is a bible on how to write incredibly short, yet well-constructed, reviews.

-Andrew

The New Republic put up an archived review of hers:

http://www.thenewrepublic.com/express/redux090401.html

Good lord, she's the most brutal writer I've ever read.

"People seem awfully eager to abandon sense and perspective and humor and put on the newest fashion in hair shirts; New York critics who are just settling into their upper-East Side apartments write as if they're leaving for a monastery in the morning."

Erik, are you pointing that out for praise or ridicule? Because I love it. I hope that doesn't make me gay.

This afternoon on "Fresh Air With Terry Gross" (which I usually dislike) on NPR, there was an interview with Bill Whitworth of the Atlantic Monthly, who once edited Kael at The New Yorker. He read one of Kael's reviews as originally submitted, along with William Shawn's objections and Whitworth's subsequent edits. It was great. Shawn was a genius but it was hilarious to hear how he objected to Kael's "earthiness" and how the subsequent edits actually worked better. And how Whitworth kept track of how many times he got rid of the word "backside."

Also, this was on the Atlantic front page today. I really enjoyed it. Probably just because it made reference to Nazis.

"'Tell Pauline Kael that you enjoyed a movie that she thought was, as she might put it, not ... very ... good, and she will say 'Oh' in a certain tone and look at you�whoever you are, even if you are, say, me�as if you'd said you'd gotten a kick out of Goebbels's speech the other night.' �Roy Blount Jr., in 'Lustily Vigilant,' in the December, 1994, Atlantic."

Kael, best film critic evar. Anyway she knew her stuff and she was funny at the same time. PLus she wasnt really a part of the 60's generation, so her outlook wasnt the same as the thousands of critcs from that generation with an agenda(marxist, feminist, pop culture, etcetcetc).

"She's perhaps the only movie critic I've read where I enjoyed the writing as writing."

Same here, in fact i'd call her the perfect reviewer since she was able to be personal and in depth (knowledgeable) about movies and witty without condescending the reader. hard to do all that and write like a Dorothy Parker at the same time.

etc

"Erik, are you pointing that out for praise or ridicule? Because I love it. I hope that doesn't make me gay."

Sorry. Wasn't clear. It was such a good line, I figured I'd just screw it up by saying anything about it.

But that doesn't necessarily make you not gay.

Maybe it makes you bi, or nutty-weird like Anne Heche. Did anybody see what she said on 20/20? shes a nutball.

etc

Just to start this thread up again, Edelstein's eulogy:

http://slate.msn.com/MovieReview/01-09-06/MovieReview.asp

I dunno, man. Kael didn't do much for me. She had no fucking life, man. Living with her kooky little dogs and making snide, pretentious comments about movies for a living.

I remember reading a lot of her archived reviews on 1996's MS Cinemania CD-ROM (which is still an incredibly useful resource) and I swear to god, she is out there. mtkafka said it best-- she's not of this era. And, for that matter, she's not really of this world. Like Major Tom in his spaceship, wiring in movie reviews to ground control. I can see how some people might appreciate and even enjoy that, but I didn't. I prefer my reviews by fellow human beings.

Wumpus: Sarcasm, or serious? You be the judge!

I think he's just trolling, which is unfortunate.

That's my opinion. I don't consider stating one's opinion, "trolling".

its her writing... she might not be the most "objective" reviewer, but she was a reviewer at a time when most were either populist or academic, she was personal about movies.. particularly sometimes anti male .. read her review of a movie like Road Warrior... both axing and praising the movie.

Pick up For Keeps its the best movie book i have... and its not even academc or anything... just some good personal insight into movies.

etc

I think someone "out there" adds something to the discussion of any art form. Kael didn't necessarily hold mainstream views, but who cares? She wrote incredibly passionate and brilliant articles; even if you disagreed with them, they made you stop and think, and more importantly they entertained. Which is more than you can say for most movies.

"I think someone "out there" adds something to the discussion of any art form...."

Exactly. Even if you disagreed with her views, she enriched movie criticism greatly.

"That's my opinion. I don't consider stating one's opinion, "trolling".

Then why do you write stuff like this?

"Kael didn't do much for me. She had no fucking life, man. Living with her kooky little dogs...."

That's simply designed to provoke a reaction. It does nothing to foment discussion. Besides the fact that neither you nor I really know anything of her personal life, none of it has anything to do with her movie criticism anyway.

"It does nothing to foment discussion."

Then what exactly are we doing right now?

"Besides the fact that neither you nor I really know anything of her personal life, none of it has anything to do with her movie criticism anyway."

Sure it does. She's a public figure, and it's a part of who she is. Married and divorced three times? Further evidence, beyond her writing, that she's out of touch with the average moviegoer.

http://x-stream.fortunecity.com/fleetst/71/blood1.htm

Read and compare. Ebert speaks to me far more than Kael does. She's dry, academic, and argumentative without ever having the guts to draw real blood-- the fuhrer of sophisticated Manhattan opinion. I'm sure she was absolutely appalled by monster truck racing.

Look. All I'm saying is, Kael didn't work for me. Those are the reasons.

1998 interview with Kael

http://www.aarp.org/mmaturity/march_april98/kael.html

Although I respect her humor and her considerable skills as a writer, she's not relevant to me as a critic. She's just too much of a contrarian for me to take her seriously. And she's so adamant about it, too. "Jim Carrey has practically kept movies alive the past few years"? Does anyone here believe that? Did anyone here actually think that in 1998?

I did laugh at the Medved question, though. A lot.

""It does nothing to foment discussion."

Then what exactly are we doing right now?"

If discussing whether you're trolling or not is worthy of discussion.

I guess I'm the only person who finds it ironic (in an Alanis Morrisette sort of way) that my original comments are analogous to a Pauline Kael review-- Designed to provoke a response. If you believe otherwise, read some of her movie reviews.

So I guess Kael is the original Troll. Maybe one of those trolls with the crazy neon hair and the little fake gem in her belly button. You know, the lovable, cute kind.

>>Married and divorced three times? Further evidence, beyond her writing, that she's out of touch with the average moviegoer.

She wrote for the New Yorker, and last I checked, the average moviegoer isn't really into highbrow New York-centric writing. But maybe in your world, people in Des Moines are reading the New Yorker and the Village Voice as opposed to, say, Country Music Weekly.

Roger Ebert writes for a daily newspaper, hence his audience is a wee-bit different and more broad. Even if he were so inclined, a newspaper wouldn't accept his work if it were like Kael's.

And Ebert said some nice things about her for Salon, so there.

"Writing and speaking, Pauline Kael commanded the American idiom. ... Like George Bernard Shaw, she wrote reviews that will be read for their style, humor and energy long after some of their subjects have been forgotten. ... She loved the movies so much that bad ones were a personal affront. And when she loved one, her ecstasy came racing through her prose."

I always saved this quote of hers:

"Writing about movies, you don't have to treat them all respectfully. Your job is to sort out the rare great from the adequate and the frequent appalling. In the process you can pep up what you're doing by letting go with a little savagery. You can treat bum work as a hanging offense. You can even crack a joke about it now and then. Even mediocre pop art is a lot more fun than failed high art, and it's more fun to write about."

She's a fantastic writer. No doubt about that. But Kael was frequently a troll, too. I'm not saying that I'm not, at times, just that I know it when I see it.. even if it is dressed up in high-falutin' syntax.

I now make peace with my inner Troll.

I really don't think Kael was a troll in any sense of the word. She didn't have dissenting opinions on movies for the sake of getting attention, or even provoking a reaction... she simply had dissenting opinions that were true to her passion. Since they happened to also be informed, entertaining, and often insightful opinions (and no, I didn't always agree with her) that makes her an excellent critic. A troll is someone who simply likes to fuck around, play devil's advocate, and gain attention. I don't think that's what Kael was about.

I love a well written and insightful review that I disagree with. Of what real "value" is the kind that hews closely to my own opinion?

-Andrew

"Sure it does. She's a public figure, and it's a part of who she is. Married and divorced three times? Further evidence, beyond her writing, that she's out of touch with the average moviegoer."

Just to twist the knife, with the divorce rate nearing 50%, her marriage history probably isn't all that far from average. Assume a) everyone gets married and b) that the 50% number holds for all marriages and you have c) that 50% of the public stays in their first marriage, 25% in their second, 12.5% in their third, and 12.5% go beyond that.

So, if half the population has been divorced, she's not even an outlier. Not that this has anything to do with anything, of course; people don't read movie reviews based on the lifestyle of the writer.

Well, that's assuming that everyone who gets divorced remarries, which I doubt to be true...

Anyway, point made...Carry on.

I remember Scorpio? from CGW, she reminded me alot of a Kael version for pc games (mostly Adventure and crpg). And Chick seems to be of Kael mold. Same with some alot of the newer reviewers. Kael influence game reviews? yeoww!

and some of her comments, not to completely agree with Wumpus, are troll like in the internet sense... i remember reading her reviews of Clint Eastwood movies... not even calling him an actor because what he does isnt even remotely acting, or calling Road Warrior a geek-fest prebuscent male teen fantasy, or Platoon a badly written preppy morality movie from Oliver Stone. But even if you consider her a troll she was goddamn fun to read!

oh this article wumpus linked to has some "troll" like quotes...

MM: What's your opinion of TV critics?
Kael: If you trust them, you have a hole in your head.

MM: How about Michael Medved, who judges movies using family values as a yardstick?
Kael: I try not to think about Michael Medved.

MM: You dislike humane little lessons?
Kael: Lessons are for television movies about homosexuality or somebody's sickness; that's why they're so boring.

GREAT INTERVIEW

She really says what she wants... it was interesting to hear her talk about Chasing Amy and Flirting with Disaster having some of the better female roles of recent movies... wow Chasing Amy... never though shed see a Kevin Smith movie!

http://www.aarp.org/mmaturity/march_april98/kael.html

etc

Oh and this quote is funny --

MM: You have no foreign actors on your list. What about a strong guy like Gerald Depardieux?
Kael: In his earlier roles he was unusually sensitive, but now he just proves a man can be shaped like a beer barrel and still play a leading role.

shaped like a beer barrel... thats goddarn funny! How can you not like a reviewer who puts up images that are dead on?!?

etc

"A troll is someone who simply likes to fuck around, play devil's advocate, and gain attention. I don't think that's what Kael was about."

Well, I disagree. I think that's exactly what Kael did. And she did it brilliantly, with a true love of film. But speaking as a guy who has the same tendencies, I'm not sure being a troll is good for the purposes of criticism. It's a fine line.

No, I don't think so Jeff. Fucking around lacks integrity. Playing devil's advocate assumes she didn't write from the context of her own, honest, opinion (that she instead wrote against the grain of purpose). And I meant "gaining attention" for the meaningless sake of itself. Kael had integrity, she was able to logically defend and support her conclusions and insights, I highly doubt she cast about for popular opinion and then adapted her opinion to counter them, and she was always honest.

The line between critic and troll isn't fine at all. And, no offense meant here (honestly), I don't think the troll-like tendencies that motivate you on these message boards are in any way akin to those that drove Pauline Kael.

-Andrew

"(that she instead wrote against the grain of purpose)"

That should be "...grain on purpose"
I have no truck with the fabled Grain of Purpose.

-Andrew

'and some of her comments, not to completely agree with Wumpus, are troll like in the internet sense... i remember reading her reviews of Clint Eastwood movies... not even calling him an actor because what he does isnt even remotely acting, or calling Road Warrior a geek-fest prebuscent male teen fantasy, or Platoon a badly written preppy morality movie from Oliver Stone.'

This, of course, is Fucking Dead On. Wasn't she the only person saying this sort of stuff back in the day?

"This, of course, is Fucking Dead On"

And when she said, and I quote, "Jim Carrey has practically kept movies alive the past few years"? Was that Fucking Dead On as well? Was Last Tango In Paris the best movie ever released, as Kael said at the time?

"are in any way akin to those that drove Pauline Kael."

If you don't think Kael was trying to push some buttons with her movie reviews, you weren't really reading them.

Since she didn't explain the Jim Carrey thing, I'm not going to even attempt analysis.

It's not like Kael pushed buttons for the sake of pushing them, which is the definition of a troll. She actually had those opinions, or at least said she did.

"If you don't think Kael was trying to push some buttons with her movie reviews, you weren't really reading them."

I absolutely think Kael was pushing buttons, that's what a provocative critic, especially one that writes for an erudite and snobby magazine (like the New Yorker) does, after all.

"It's not like Kael pushed buttons for the sake of pushing them, which is the definition of a troll. She actually had those opinions, or at least said she did."

Right Jason, she isn't a troll.

Now, Jeff, why are you assuming the Carrey quote meant she was a fan of his? How do you know the statement wasn't meant ironically? Or perhaps simply referring to the enormous box office he brought in at that time? I mean... whether I like his flicks or not, Adam Sandler has been damn good for Hollywood('s pocketbooks).

I haven't seen Last Tango, so I can't remark on that. If Last Tango came out after The Godfather (and it's sequel) then I have to say that I disagree with her. But I don't think she said it to, you know, piss me off.

-Andrew