|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 2, 2018 21:35:50 GMT
I’m not exactly sure where to put these comments, or really what their point is, but someone else may be interested in the links, and I’d like to get the thoughts off my chest, to mix metaphors badly. There seems to be something about film critics and style—at least, there seemed, as we have precious few film critics really remaining any more (an argument I’ve made here). I’m not sure whence it derives; at the risk of making a complete guess, perhaps it was how the intelligentsia rarely viewed film as an art form, so critics felt the need to prove their literary bona fides? Yet there’s something very literary and very stylistic (even stylized) about the great film critics—Pauline Kael, Andrew Sarris, Manny Farber, even Roger Ebert and Armond White—such that I can identify each critic by reading just a few words. Anyway, going on to my main point: I was recently reading Sarris’s criticisms of Pauline Kael’s now-debunked argument in “ Raising Kane” when I stumbled on a piece I had read before but forgotten—Renata Adler’s acerbic-but-excellent “House Critic,” which was published under the title “ The Perils of Pauline” in The New York Review of Books (1980). It’s a caustic examination more of Kael’s writing than of her criticism, and it’s (this is perhaps perverse) actually fun to read. Now, that sort of hatchet-job is never amusing when you’re the one being hatcheted, and I like Pauline Kael, but somehow I thought the takedown intriguing and, in many ways, accurate. I’d be interested in reading what you think as well, but what particularly interested me was this. It’s another hatchet-job, this time not by Adler but of her. And, as I read it, it really got me thinking. Kael criticizes directors, writers, actors, et al., and fellow journalists, with very strident and sometimes amusingly incongruous or untoward language. This is exactly the same thing, in much the same way, as Adler does to Kael. Some of Adler’s wittiest phrases and metaphors—“compulsive and joyful naughtiness,” “increasingly strident knowingness,” “authoritarian party line,” “physical sadism,” “the hack carom”—seem particularly Kaelian. None of this, I should note, is to suggest that Adler is only, even if unintentionally, pastiching the writer she’s criticizing; Adler has her own style, and a good one at that. I am saying, however, that Kaelianism and Adlerism are closer than they may appear; perhaps Adler’s reaction is a case of familiarity breeding contempt, or like repelling like. (In no way, of course, does that invalidate her critiques.) Why that observation, why now? Because the third piece, by former Slate editor Judith Shulevitz, is as similar to Adler as Adler is to Kael. Shulevitz calls out Adler for the same reasons that Adler criticized, and in much the same way. She even mounts an attack on Adler’s attack of Kael, and it’s rather amusing to read when Shulevitz’s own writing seems to have been inspired by Kael-via-Adler. In fact, even some of the specific criticisms are the same—and the phrases! “Wrongheaded to the point of obtuseness,” “oddball onomatopoetics,” “”querulous aggrandizement,” “impossible to tell where truth ends and ressentiment begins,” and that allusive finale. Remarkably close. Perhaps I’m the only loony interested in that phenomenon, but—wow. I’m not sure what that means, as I said, except that it goes to show that those of us who are the most similar make, perhaps, the most out of our slight differences. Kael and Sarris could not be more different—I disagree with just about everything in Kael’s “ Circles and Squares,” but what a joy to read—yet they ended up more-or-less adopting the same theory of cinematic interpretation, film as art and directors as artists (though Kael would never admit it). Either way, something that interested me, at least, and I’d love to know your thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Mar 3, 2018 2:12:57 GMT
After Roger Ebert passed away, his then partner was a hack named Richard Roeper. Roeper has taken over Ebert's job of critiquing films for several newspapers.
What I hate about Roeper is that he gives everything 3&1/2 to 4 stars which are the highest marks for the papers that Ebert used to write before his death. I no longer read any film critics work. I never always agreed with Ebert, but at least his work was more believable.
Leonard Maltin was also pretty good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Mar 3, 2018 2:41:49 GMT
After Roger Ebert passed away, his then partner was a hack named Richard Roeper. Roeper has taken over Ebert's job of critiquing films for several newspapers. What I hate about Roeper is that he gives everything 3&1/2 to 4 stars which are the highest marks for the papers that Ebert used to write before his death. I no longer read any film critics work. I never always agreed with Ebert, but at least his work was more believable. Leonard Maltin was also pretty good. agreed. I miss reading Eberts articles as well and now his site rarely has that same (if any) impact on me. This is one of my favourite reviews of his: www.rogerebert.com/reviews/punch-drunk-love-2002 |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Mar 3, 2018 4:43:11 GMT
With a quicky late perusal, these caught my attention , Nalkarj: “compulsive and joyful naughtiness” reminds me of a certain group of squid (squids ?)
“Wrongheaded to the point of obtuseness”  Further exploration of your interesting essay awaits (with links and footnotes !)  |
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Mar 3, 2018 8:14:47 GMT
I’m not exactly sure where to put these comments, or really what their point is, but someone else may be interested in the links, and I’d like to get the thoughts off my chest, to mix metaphors badly. There seems to be something about film critics and style—at least, there seemed, as we have precious few film critics really remaining any more (an argument I’ve made here). I’m not sure whence it derives; at the risk of making a complete guess, perhaps it was how the intelligentsia rarely viewed film as an art form, so critics felt the need to prove their literary bona fides? Yet there’s something very literary and very stylistic (even stylized) about the great film critics—Pauline Kael, Andrew Sarris, Manny Farber, even Roger Ebert and Armond White—such that I can identify each critic by reading just a few words. Anyway, going on to my main point: I was recently reading Sarris’s criticisms of Pauline Kael’s now-debunked argument in “ Raising Kane” when I stumbled on a piece I had read before but forgotten—Renata Adler’s acerbic-but-excellent “House Critic,” which was published under the title “ The Perils of Pauline” in The New York Review of Books (1980). It’s a caustic examination more of Kael’s writing than of her criticism, and it’s (this is perhaps perverse) actually fun to read. Now, that sort of hatchet-job is never amusing when you’re the one being hatcheted, and I like Pauline Kael, but somehow I thought the takedown intriguing and, in many ways, accurate. I’d be interested in reading what you think as well, but what particularly interested me was this. It’s another hatchet-job, this time not by Adler but of her. And, as I read it, it really got me thinking. Kael criticizes directors, writers, actors, et al., and fellow journalists, with very strident and sometimes amusingly incongruous or untoward language. This is exactly the same thing, in much the same way, as Adler does to Kael. Some of Adler’s wittiest phrases and metaphors—“compulsive and joyful naughtiness,” “increasingly strident knowingness,” “authoritarian party line,” “physical sadism,” “the hack carom”—seem particularly Kaelian. None of this, I should note, is to suggest that Adler is only, even if unintentionally, pastiching the writer she’s criticizing; Adler has her own style, and a good one at that. I am saying, however, that Kaelianism and Adlerism are closer than they may appear; perhaps Adler’s reaction is a case of familiarity breeding contempt, or like repelling like. (In no way, of course, does that invalidate her critiques.) Why that observation, why now? Because the third piece, by former Slate editor Judith Shulevitz, is as similar to Adler as Adler is to Kael. Shulevitz calls out Adler for the same reasons that Adler criticized, and in much the same way. She even mounts an attack on Adler’s attack of Kael, and it’s rather amusing to read when Shulevitz’s own writing seems to have been inspired by Kael-via-Adler. In fact, even some of the specific criticisms are the same—and the phrases! “Wrongheaded to the point of obtuseness,” “oddball onomatopoetics,” “”querulous aggrandizement,” “impossible to tell where truth ends and ressentiment begins,” and that allusive finale. Remarkably close. Perhaps I’m the only loony interested in that phenomenon, but—wow. I’m not sure what that means, as I said, except that it goes to show that those of us who are the most similar make, perhaps, the most out of our slight differences. Kael and Sarris could not be more different—I disagree with just about everything in Kael’s “ Circles and Squares,” but what a joy to read—yet they ended up more-or-less adopting the same theory of cinematic interpretation, film as art and directors as artists (though Kael would never admit it). Either way, something that interested me, at least, and I’d love to know your thoughts. I read Renata Adler's piece a couple of times. I always thought it was very mean-spirited. And even though some people would likely say that Pauline Kael could be mean, I really don't think that was the case. You could almost count on Kael to be blunt, that was her charm sometimes; and possibly, maybe she could be seen as rude at times. But I do not think there was a mean streak in Kael at all. She was more like a stand up comic in that way, and everybody is fair game, including herself. I have seen many interviews she gave, and honestly she always came across as warm and pleasant. On the other hand, I believe that Adler was very calculating in what she wrote. Undoubtedly, Kael made some enemies in her time, but I think that might be chalked up to jealousy. I do believe there were people who wanted to take Kael down a peg, including that narcissistic super creep, Warren Beatty. Reasons: jealousy and bruised egos I'm not going to say that I disagreed with everything that Adler had to say. And I do think that Kael's writing was at a low ebb during the late 70s, when Adler's attack came through. Adler made some okay points in her piece; I'd always felt that the quality in Kael's writing, and maybe her criticism as well, suffered a sharp decline right around the time she reviewed "Last Tango in Paris" in 1973. I loved absolutely everything she wrote in the 60s. She was a wonderful, gifted writer (like many people, I have no doubt, Kael was likely a better writer than she was a critic; but criticism is subjective, anyway); she was entertaining and witty and super sharp. My favorite collection of hers was "Going Steady", and my favorite essay was "Trash, Art and the Movies", which I read about once every three or four years. I didn't always agree with her, but that's totally beside the point. Who agrees with somebody all the time? I did respect and admire her point of view. And her writing was exhilarating. The collection that Adler reviewed, "When the Lights Go Down", happens to be my least favorite of Kael's collection. It was 1976-1980; Kael had so much power, she was influential, extremely popular. I am sure all that fame and glory were a heady thing. She probably took it all a bit too much to heart, and maybe she got a little bit of a swollen head. Her writing got kind of crowded and sloppy for a while there. But I think there is no doubt that Adler deliberately set out to publicly humiliate Kael, which no matter how you slice it, is a shitty thing to do. Not to mention totally unprofessional. Whatever Adler had to say, and however astute she may have been about some things, this one jab at Kael makes her out to be - in my eyes - a nasty, jealous, blood-thirsty bitch. I have a collection of printed interviews with Kael, and I remember from one of them (maybe 1982? can't remember when exactly), the person who interviewed her brought up Adler's review and Kael seemed very open in talking about it, but the timing of the publication of Adler's review coincided with Kael's return to The New Yorker, after her regular 6 month hiatus. And as Kael said (about the review)... "It greeted me." If you think about it, that's an incredibly vicious thing to do to a person. And Kael wasn't above it all, either. Because when I would read "Taking It All In" (which followed "When the Lights Go Down"), I absolutely remember thinking that her writing had sort of "recovered", if you will. And it makes me think that she was able to pay attention to some of Adler's criticisms. So good for Pauline! Not everybody is able to do that! Her review of "Mommie Dearest" being one of the better written pieces of film analysis in "Taking it All In", not to mention the smart nuggets that came right out of that review, like how hair-raising it could be Miss Dunaway had trouble shaking off the gorgon Joan. And damned if Kael did not turn out to be right!!! "Pauline Kael, prophet" Also, Pauline Kael was by far the FUNNIEST film critic that I ever read. I could cite 20 reviews right now on the spot. At the moment, I am thinking of her laugh out loud review for the 1974 MAME. She was also perhaps the first major film critic to uncover a fundamental flaw in Meryl Streep's acting. I'll never forget the first time I read her review of "Sophie's Choice" and very quickly she got me to pretty much come around to her way of seeing things. I remember thinking that PK was definitely onto something. Kael was always ahead of the curve and she always thought for herself. And she also seemed to play politics very badly, a quality I very much admire, and this might have rankled the likes of Adler, who (I have no idea) was likely an astute game player. Yawn. By the way, Andrew Sarris is the only film critic I've ever read just for fun, besides Kael. The whole auteur theory I really couldn't be less interested in; and Kael's "Circles and Squares" was some pretty over baked stuff as well. Though, yeah, like you said, entertaining to read, nevertheless. My favorite thing that I can pull up regarding Sarris is when he commented on "Whatever Happened To Baby Jane?", saying that the movie is less about anything that happens on the screen than it is about Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. And well, that was probsbly the sharpest, most perceptive and most resonant thing that any film critic had said that whole year about movies. And Adler did not do herself any favors when she wrote that piece back in 1980 and had it published. Did Adler really think that her attack made Kael look any worse than it made herself look? If nothing else, the intensity and the vitriol and the overall manner made it clear that Adler wanted total character assassination. Adler came off looking fifty times worse than Kael. I would have welcomed dumping a plate of spaghetti on top of her head. (re: Sylvia Miles vs. John Simon) Btw, I didn't read the piece about the female film critic who came along and gave Adler some of what Adler gave Kael. But if made Adler look bad, then I would probably like it!  But, thank you, for a fun and original topic that popped up as a total surprise. I hadn't thought about it in many years. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 6, 2018 2:58:14 GMT
Thanks, everyone! dirtypillows, I very much appreciate your response, and I’m happy that you enjoy the topic. I…I admit to rather liking Adler’s piece, as I wrote; while I do like Kael, I do suppose I’m a bit more on Sarris’s side. Such is that. Either way, many thanks.  |
|
