|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 14, 2019 2:05:18 GMT
Yes, it figures! What a depressing lump of lard the eyeball would've been to be around. Everything would have been contradicted.
With critics, it is not so much their opinion, because it is all subjective, but the manner of delivery and quality of writing that sells their opinion. Kael was good at looking at why she felt things did or didn't work. Peary was honest and passionate and came across as a genuine, open and nice guy.
Yes, for sure. A rare quality in a critic. He does seem like a nice guy. Very relaxed and upbeat as well. Almost the opposite of cynical. Pauline Kael was such a good, exciting writer. I could recommend her 1968 essay "Trash, Art and the Movies" to anybody. There is a new doco out called What She Said: The Art Of Pauline Kael. A friend of mine saw it in July at a film festival. She loved it! She didn't know who PK was and I had to talk her into going.
|
|