Status
Available
Call number
Publication
Library of America (2016), Edition: Reprint, 864 pages
Description
A collection of signature writings by the former "The New Yorker" critic offers insight into her ability to capture cinematic details and includes appraisals of such works as "Bonnie and Clyde", "The Godfather", and "Last Tango in Paris."
Media reviews
Post Script
Kael was surely right to note in her foreword to Going Steady that her writing did indeed encompass an aesthetics, which she hoped would become less ‘elusive’ than one writer had deemed it (“Foreword” 1970, viii). It did so in the sort of theoretical reflection that jutted up explicitly in
Kael’s mixed, carefully-crafted high-low style, despite the mixed style of Shakespeare, would have offended British norms as much as it did William Shawn. Among British columnists only Clive James—with an Australian’s license, and even (at the time) contrarian requirement, to differ—was making the case for such a style. Such a style suggested a tonic subversion of just those divisions of labor, as did the extensive deep awareness of other arts she had accumulated by the time of occupation of her New Yorker berth: something that rendered her so well-qualified to write meaningfully of that arts-amalgam, film.
Show More
shorter passages, in paragraphs (the one on ‘the inverse equivalent of the Don Juan’ in Truffaut’s Story of Adele H. (“All for love” 57), for instance), in pregnant sentences or two here and there, showing that a theory does not require a treatise to be fruitful, and may be even more so when suggestive. Only the lack of spacing hides the extent to which Kael’s work is aphoristic (and this too is Adornian). It is as if at times the dark matter of theory can be transported only in the dark belly of a Trojan horse, disguised as one-liners...Kael’s mixed, carefully-crafted high-low style, despite the mixed style of Shakespeare, would have offended British norms as much as it did William Shawn. Among British columnists only Clive James—with an Australian’s license, and even (at the time) contrarian requirement, to differ—was making the case for such a style. Such a style suggested a tonic subversion of just those divisions of labor, as did the extensive deep awareness of other arts she had accumulated by the time of occupation of her New Yorker berth: something that rendered her so well-qualified to write meaningfully of that arts-amalgam, film.
Show Less
Salon
Browsing through the Library of America’s massive new collection of her writing (called "The Age of Movies"), I was stunned at Kael’s range and power. Her voice, shaped by the American idiom, is still utterly fresh and dynamic. She is a superb role model for young writers. She has a keen eye
What excited me anew about Kael’s work is that, even though she was writing solely about movies, she was constantly inventing fascinating paradigms and templates for talking about the creative process as well as the audience’s imaginative experience of performance. Because most of my career in the classroom has been at art schools (beginning at Bennington in the 1970s), I am hyper-aware of the often grotesque disconnect between commentary on the arts and the actual practice or production of the arts. Kael had phenomenal intuition and gut instinct about so many things—the inner lives of directors and actors, the tangible world of a given film, the energy of film editing.
Show More
for crisp detail and a lust for both attack and celebration. ...What excited me anew about Kael’s work is that, even though she was writing solely about movies, she was constantly inventing fascinating paradigms and templates for talking about the creative process as well as the audience’s imaginative experience of performance. Because most of my career in the classroom has been at art schools (beginning at Bennington in the 1970s), I am hyper-aware of the often grotesque disconnect between commentary on the arts and the actual practice or production of the arts. Kael had phenomenal intuition and gut instinct about so many things—the inner lives of directors and actors, the tangible world of a given film, the energy of film editing.
Show Less
Nobody will ever again reign supreme over the movie world, because the movies don’t now reign supreme over anyone. All their secrets are known. People know so much about the movies that they know when to laugh when they watch Star Wars Uncut, possibly (to borrow her signature verbal device for
Show More
one last time) the most sensational $10 pastiche-homage since Milton’s Garden of Eden. The grammar of the movies got into their heads as if it had been planted there by Noam Chomsky with a long needle. But it was a great age, and now, as part of its aftermath, it has produced a great book. Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member nog
I find it somewhat surprising that so few people have this one in their collections, and that I am the first to review it here. Certainly there are a lot of cinephiles on LT, and they would benefit from reading Kael's writings on individual films. I am loathe to call them reviews, because she went
She famously did not buy into French "auteur" theory and celebrated filmmakers for not repeating themselves. It strikes me that one of the reasons a director fits into that theory is just that: repetition. Of themes, of techniques.
This collection cherrypicks her work from various books she wrote, I think about ten books in all. Some of her most famous pieces are included here, such as "Bonnie and Clyde" and "Last Tango in Paris". By championing these two films in The New Yorker, she provided convincing evidence of their worth and managed to help make them financial successes -- that's how much clout she had.
She could be exasperatingly wrong about some films, such as "2001" and "West Side Story". Although I could see her points, I felt like she was missing the forest for the trees at times. But even those bad reviews are compelling reading. I was prepared to be upset, but that didn't happen. It is one of the qualities of a film that it affects each of us differently; it is what we bring to the film from personal experience, our philosophy of life, our visceral reaction that determines our opinion. So we bound to agree here and disagree there with others. Unfortunately, the editor (Sanford Schwartz) picks almost exclusively the best known films of the various decades; I would have loved to see some obscure films that she praised included here.
I have never really bought into the so-called genius of Godard, Fellini, Antonioni, and neither does Kael. After championing early Godard, she rightly dismisses his later "political" films as polemical drudgery. For her there are no sacred cows, which should be a prerequisite for becoming a critic.
She reviewed primarily from the late 60's, when The New Yorker hired her, until the early 90's. She was pretty opinionated, for sure, about the state of American cinema in the 60's, was excited about it in the 70's, and was disappointed by it in the 80's, which she saw as driven by box office receipts and primarily by the success of Spielberg and Lucas. She finally got fed up (and she had health issues).
There is another Kael collection that is somewhat similar, although it is over 1300 pages and this one is about 800. If you're looking for a Maltin-like film guide, they put out the "5001 Nights" collection of capsule reviews; this is obviously not intended for one seeking out her detailed analysis, but it does includes her snapshot opinions of the pre-60's films.
If you are at all interested in film criticism of the period, you need to read Pauline Kael.
Show More
much deeper into meaning; they are instead essays that place the film within film history and the trends of the day.She famously did not buy into French "auteur" theory and celebrated filmmakers for not repeating themselves. It strikes me that one of the reasons a director fits into that theory is just that: repetition. Of themes, of techniques.
This collection cherrypicks her work from various books she wrote, I think about ten books in all. Some of her most famous pieces are included here, such as "Bonnie and Clyde" and "Last Tango in Paris". By championing these two films in The New Yorker, she provided convincing evidence of their worth and managed to help make them financial successes -- that's how much clout she had.
She could be exasperatingly wrong about some films, such as "2001" and "West Side Story". Although I could see her points, I felt like she was missing the forest for the trees at times. But even those bad reviews are compelling reading. I was prepared to be upset, but that didn't happen. It is one of the qualities of a film that it affects each of us differently; it is what we bring to the film from personal experience, our philosophy of life, our visceral reaction that determines our opinion. So we bound to agree here and disagree there with others. Unfortunately, the editor (Sanford Schwartz) picks almost exclusively the best known films of the various decades; I would have loved to see some obscure films that she praised included here.
I have never really bought into the so-called genius of Godard, Fellini, Antonioni, and neither does Kael. After championing early Godard, she rightly dismisses his later "political" films as polemical drudgery. For her there are no sacred cows, which should be a prerequisite for becoming a critic.
She reviewed primarily from the late 60's, when The New Yorker hired her, until the early 90's. She was pretty opinionated, for sure, about the state of American cinema in the 60's, was excited about it in the 70's, and was disappointed by it in the 80's, which she saw as driven by box office receipts and primarily by the success of Spielberg and Lucas. She finally got fed up (and she had health issues).
There is another Kael collection that is somewhat similar, although it is over 1300 pages and this one is about 800. If you're looking for a Maltin-like film guide, they put out the "5001 Nights" collection of capsule reviews; this is obviously not intended for one seeking out her detailed analysis, but it does includes her snapshot opinions of the pre-60's films.
If you are at all interested in film criticism of the period, you need to read Pauline Kael.
Show Less
Language
Original language
English
Physical description
864 p.; 9.21 inches
ISBN
1598535080 / 9781598535082