"Pauline Kael said it was 'meditative', but I fell asleep."

Even a broken clock, etc. *ducks*

Been trying to put my finger on my problem with PK for a while, think it comes down to something like this. She clearly had a talent for communicating her enthusiasm that is almost, um, seductive, and a way with words, an ability to write well-constructed, memorable sentences in idiomatic English that could run rings, not to mention circles and squares, around most of her contemporaries. But in the end there is some unforgivable flaw in her critical thinking. Perhaps it is because there is some ideal of a well-functioning critical mind, or maybe of any mind, that one has to learn to trust one's instincts but at the same time monitor them with one's analytic mind, to make corrections and provide explanations, to name a few of the many functions involved in this balancing act. Her general approach as I understand it, to watch everything only once, then run home to type out a fever dream to bowl the readers over with an ever more garrulous outpouring of Paulinist Prose (okay maybe there was some editing or revising of the words but not of the opinion), is not really a system, it can't be tinkered with or fixed once it starts misfiring and veering astray. The end result becomes a Cult of Personality of The Gatekeeper, requiring a few well-chosen favorites, old and new, to bestow praise on while others are vilified and not permitted to enter the city walls. As a case in point, maybe if she had anything like a modicum of self-reflection and correction, at least as a critic, she might have recovered from the trauma she experienced when she Went Hollywood and discovered that the Studio Bosses Had No Clothes.

― I Don't Zing Like Nobody (James Redd and the Blecchs), Thursday, July 24, 2014 5:00 AM (2 months ago)

this is a great post, and pretty much otm.

tho i think kael's early work -- the stuff collected in "i lost it at the movies," and i think her second collection as well -- is still really great and mostly avoids the pitfalls you describe.

I don't disagree with anything in James' (yes, excellent) post, and to count her as a major, or even your biggest, influence does not mean you're oblivious to his reservations. She had a way of doing things, and you take that into account. To me, the sainted Manny Farber had his own kind of breathlessness too.

i think i'd need some examples of other critics showing off this analytic self-monitoring system in their later years before i buy that this is what negatively distinguishes her from her peers

As a case in point, maybe if she had anything like a modicum of self-reflection and correction, at least as a critic, she might have recovered from the trauma she experienced when she Went Hollywood and discovered that the Studio Bosses Had No Clothes.

what makes you think she suffered from a trauma the rest of her life? I've said this already but her writing shows no loss of verve in the eighties.

Besides, the first essay in her first book is this Didion-esque account of California phonies. I don't think it's an inhuman reaction when she got a chance to work in Hollywood it was worse than she expected.

she abused the second person for sure, but when guys talk about her like this whirling dervish who lacked their critical distance and intellectual restraint it just sounds like a chickenshit, self-flattering way to disqualify her prose despite its relative memorability and influence. "yes, i can't compete with her language and passion, but i'm smarter, trust me."

"after all, she liked that DePalma movie"

Plus, critics are artists too and thus lack the Olympian detachment and capacity for self-analysis that no one has.

it feels like her willingness to be direct, to express her enthusiasms without intellectual hedges, without trying to fit everything into a system, is what lets people who've in no way proven their intellectual superiority, talk about her like an idiot savant. "what does she know, she only sees movies once" - as if watching a movie multiple times means you know anything more than what's on the screen.

again, i do think she was a presumptuous bully - while you only need to see a movie once to convey to the reader what it was like to see the movie for the first time, you might want to employ diligent fact-checking - but nobody who says something was broken in her critical mind has any right to claim THIS is what made her stand apart.

Plus, critics are artists too and thus lack the Olympian detachment and capacity for self-analysis that no one has.

disqualify her prose despite its relative memorability and influence. "yes, i can't compete with her language and passion, but i'm /smarter/, trust me."

so she had a flaw in her critical mind because she didn't change the b+ to an a- when she compiled 5001 nights at the movies?

Of course she saw movies more than once. In one of her earliest essays she makes a casual remark about how certain movies with average visuals like All About Eve look great on TV.

"grrr, she hasn't admitted that nashville ain't all that in the final edit? something is broken in her brain!!!"

unlike ebert, with that fine system that allowed him to truly know what were The Great Movies

Plus, assuming she didn't rewatch stuff, if you're a critic reviewing at the pace she does, you don't often rewatch old stuff! And in the pre-VHS/cable days it was hard. Why waste time watching a B-list John Farrow film to see if it deserves reevaluation when you can watch Bertolucci?

because is how you prove you are king dick of the auteur theory

As much as I wish she had revisited and (when necessary) revised opinions, the one thing I'll say, based on my own writing, is that it's the ultimate rabbit-hole. I do it way too much when it comes to music, and I often think "What difference does it make that in 2014 I'm sick of this song that I once loved? Am I really accomplishing anything in pointing this out?"

Exactly. "I don't rewatch movies!" was to provoke poor Andrew Sarris.

I think there's a way to do that without overdoing it. Kauffmann was excellent in that regard.

in her mind to rewatch Hurry Sundown for the sake of proving Preminger was a Great Director was less fun than poking the Sarris tiger.

while most would pray sarris submitted his obituary of pauline before 9/11 (she died on september 3rd, the observer street date was the 17th), i kinda hope he was describing the bruises she inflicted on him that week.

without trying to fit everything into a /system/,

is what lets people who've in no way proven their intellectual superiority, talk about her like an idiot savant.

"what does she know, she only sees movies once" - as if watching a movie multiple times means you know anything more than what's on the screen.

In what other art form is okay to write about something after experiencing it only once?

James, seriouslY?

I don't think Hurry Sundown had a future with her nohow. I guess the kind of film I would have most liked to see her to back to were her oddball enthusiasms, something like Shoot the Moon. When she reviews Mississippi Burning a few years later, a brief mention of whether or not the film held up for her. She was so different than most critics there, I think that's of value.

"go back to"

Last post was xpost. So the argument is now: she really did rewatch stuff, she was just trying to tick Andy off and have the last laugh, and if she didn't it was okay because there was another raft of masterpieces waiting to be watched and time waits for no one?

Beyond the number of critics who do the same with books and music, you answered your own question: she saw and wrote so well about that so-called first viewing (which you can believe if you want) that it looks like a fourth.

Okay, I fell into your trap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPxxG31JOCg

with music i prefer critics who listen deeply because if a song is good i plan to hear it more than once, and want to know it holds up over many listens. most movies i'll only see once and therefore i'm cool with critics doing likewise, assuming they've got a good memory or fact-checker

yeah I get that. A song is three minutes, listened to wherever. You gotta make time for movies.

I'll betray my rock-critic heritage here, but investing deeper attention and more repeat visits to a three-minute song than a three-hour film doesn't quite compute for me (realizing that you will, as a practical matter, inevitably do the latter)...Anyway, going to watch The Candidate for the 29th time right now, so proceed apace.

2X speed on the PS3 for DVDs/Blu-Ray is a life-changing w/r/t slow cinema.

Search: George Washington
Destroy: In the Mood

Just remembered something of hers that I did really like: her piece on Satyajit Ray's Devi.

shit, she is still this interesting to you ppl, huh

You were the reviver!

well that was more for Mlle Duras' torture of clemenza

Couldn't you have found something to torture da croupier as well?

I don't see why you'd need to watch or even listen to a song more than once, even if you like the song. Its about getting the moments you need from the thing to make your argument?

I don't see why you'd need to read a Pauline Kael review more than once

But she writes with such language and passion!

Don't subsequent viewings of a great film deepen your engagement with it? I almost always notice new stuff the second, third, and forth time around--usually small stuff, but sometimes my whole perception of the film will shift. Admittedly, I take revisiting favorites to a ridiculous extreme, and obviously that's a separate issue if your job is to review new films as they come out.

Forth and long. Positively Forth Street.

Sure it does. I was mostly talking tackling the qn from the standpoint of giving a considered reaction, which you can do from one viewing.

I like watching films I've enjoyed a few years after my first viewing of them.

Let's see how meditative Norte, The End of History feels.

Not the word I'd use!

It's good tho imo. To pointlessly compare it with another long film from this year, the descent into abjection doesn't feel cheap, idiotic and insulting the way it does in nymphomaniac

The funny thing about this thread title (which I realize is just meant to make a point, and isn't based on a direct quote...I don't think) is that I wonder if Kael ever called a film meditative and intended that as praise. Or if it's a word she ever used at all.

yeah i've always hated this thread title, b/c pauline kael was just about the last critic to call something "meditative," let alone as a word of praise. in fact one thing that makes her writing so exasperating is how little patience she has for films that take their time.