The Age of Movies: Selected Writings of Pauline Kael: A Library of America Special Publication

The Film Writings

by Pauline Kael, Sanford Schwartz (Editor)

"Film criticism is exciting just because there is no formula to apply," Pauline Kael once observed, "just because you must use everything you are and everything you know." Between 1968 and 1991, as regular film reviewer for The New Yorker, Kael used those formidable tools to shape the tastes of a generation, enthralling readers with her gift for capturing, with force and fluency, the essence of an actor's gesture or the full implication of a cinematic image. Kael called movies "the most total and encompassing art form we have," and she made her reviews a platform for considering both film and the worlds it engages, crafting in the process a prose style of extraordinary wit, precision, and improvisatory grace. To read The Age of Movies, the first new selection in more than a generation, is to be swept up into an endlessly revealing and entertaining dialogue with Kael at her witty, exhilarating, and opinionated best. Her ability to evoke the essence of a great artist-an Orson Welles or a Robert Altman-or to celebrate the way even seeming trash could tap deeply into our emotions was matched by her unwavering eye for the scams and self-deceptions of a corrupt movie industry. Here in this career spanning collection are her appraisals of the films that defined an era-among them Breathless, Bonnie and Clyde, The Leopard, The Godfather, Last Tango in Paris, Nashville-along with many others, some awaiting rediscovery, all providing the occasion for masterpieces of observation and insight, alive on every page.

Genres: Film, Nonfiction, Media Tie In, Essays, Art, Criticism, Cultural

864 pages, Paperback

First published December 12, 2011

About the author

Pauline Kael was an American film critic who wrote for The New Yorker magazine from 1968 to 1991. She was known for her "witty, biting, highly opinionated, and sharply focused" movie reviews. She approached movies emotionally, with a strongly colloquial writing style. She is often regarded as the most influential American film critic of her day and made a lasting impression on other major critics including Armond White and Roger Ebert, who has said that Kael "had a more positive influence on the climate for film in America than any other single person over the last three decades."

Reviews

[Greg · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've been on a bit of a Pauline Kael kick lately, seeing the documentary What She Said: The Art of Pauline Kael and then reading Pauline Kael: A Life in the Dark and now this book, which is a collection of reviews and essays covering her entire career, including "Movies, The Desperate Art," which was one of her first pieces on film (though not one of her better-written ones).

Though even a 786-page-book (excluding the acknowledgments page and the index) is missing some of her more outrageous and controversial reviews and essays ["Raising Kane" - excluded "for reasons of space" (Introduction, xxi), 2001, The Sound of Music, Shoah], it includes so much Kael, including her great article on Cary Grant ("The Man From Dream City") and her appreciations of Bonnie and Clyde and (of course) Last Tango in Paris, that if you only read this collection, you'll understand why she was considered the greatest movie critic of her time.
Roger Ebert might've been more famous (and less prone to using superlatives in his reviews, which became a more prominent feature of Kael's writing later in her career), but her reviews and essays are more in-depth, knowledgeable, and encompassing than what Ebert or, indeed, any newspaper reviewer at the time could or did do (she had a luxury -- and a liability -- in having William Shawn as an editor at the New Yorker, since he didn't hinder his writers verbosity by including word limits). In fact, Louise Brookes -- herself an excellent writer -- thought Kael was the best movie critic since James Agee (which is mentioned in Kael's biography).

For not only did she bring her personal experiences to bear on film, she also included her vast knowledge and appreciation of literature, plays, and operas. For example, she includes what Wagner said to the audience after the premier of Gotterdammerung in a review of Pennies from Heaven,, and she offers insight into "Billy Budd" the book when commenting on how the movie version misses the hidden evil of the captain -- an evil far less noticeable than that of Claggart, and all the more dangerous because of it.

If you're a movie lover (or a lover of criticism or a lover of great writing and analysis), I can't tell you which collection(s) of Kael's you should have on your shelf, but you should have at least one. And with her reviews much harder to find online than Ebert's (unless you have a subscription to the New Yorker), book collections like this one are the only way that readers who grew up after her heydey can discover her (she retired in 1991 and passed away in 2001). And yes, some of her views on race and gender and male/female relationships seem dated and even shocking now, but most of her writing has aged better than the majority of movies she reviewed, even when she disagreed with the current critical consensus (such as on Raging Bull, which she didn't like -- and having slogged through that film, I kinda found myself agreeing with her).

One more thing to note: the book mentions that some of the reviews in this collection were part of larger articles in which Kael reviewed several other films. Not including them can be a bit odd when she's referencing them in other parts of the review, but unless the Library of America wanted to come out with a multi-volume book of her work, this was a wise decision. It also highlights films where her critical writing was at its best, removing it from other films which might not have needed her deep critical insight.

[Al Bità · Rating 3 out of 5]

The earliest entry in this compilation of Kael’s work is dated 1955, and the last is dated 19 November 1990 — so we have here a cross-section of her comments, reviews and opinions on Cinema in the United States covering 35 years. The text part of her writings is a rather hefty 788 pages in length, so there’s lots of reading involved!

Historically, the 35 years covered are dealing with many major developments in Cinema internationally. Kael is dealing specifically with the US situation, but is also well aware of what was going on elsewhere in the world of cinema. I suspect that her major aim was to inform her readers on some of the finer points of film appreciation, and to refine their critical evaluations of the movies in general.

There is no doubt that Kael loved the movies, and her exuberance is clearly reflected in her work. To say her knowledge of the movies was encyclopaedic is surely somewhat of an understatement: her analyses of various aspects of the movies will often set her off on a flurry of references and comparisons which are often dazzling in their extent. Whether you actually like what she might be saying, however, will depend on your own knowledge, and whether you liked what she disliked, and vice versa. Her position regarding some aspect of the movies is intensely individualistic, and tightly agued, so if you disagree with her, you will need to be able to back your own view with equal rigour. A master of the acerbic adjective or caustic comment, she can infuriate as well as delight — and therein lies her speciality.

Historically, this collection will be a useful addition to a film buff’s library. Much has changed in the development of cinema during the 35 year of her writing, and she seems to be well aware of the ideas developed at various times during that period. She will place movements within a cinematic context; compare performances by specific actors and actresses; complain about the undue influences of corporate control which might interfere with true artistic freedom; criticise both audiences and critics alike if they simply go along with more popular entertainments, and vice versa praise those films disregarded by many by pointing out what one should be on the lookout for — again, very exciting and even thrilling if you agree with her; but irritating and provocative is you disagree.

If there is one thing in favour of all that Kael stood for, it is that she sets the bar very high indeed when it comes to considering cinema as an Art form. She expects her readers to share her ideals. Since 1990 even more changes have been made in what we normally consider to be the “movies”, and which are stretching the very idea of what it all means, what with so many varying techniques and technologies tugging in so many directions, more or less haphazardly. I would like to say that current and future generations of filmmakers would be able to appreciate where Kael is coming from, but I am a little too cynical at the moment. I suspect most film students today might find her too “old-fashioned” for their taste.

Much of what Kael criticised negatively during her time could apply equally to the present status of the industry, wherein I find too much of an emphasis on brilliant techniques and craftsmanship on just about every level, but not nearly enough on transcending those achievements and achieving something more akin to greatness as Cinematic Art. Perhaps only time will tell.

[Lynn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a huge anthology of movie reviews that were originally printed in The New Yorker and then in other books. The reviews chosen for this book were the nice ones, hey they were all nice and I misread when I was younger. She was known to be caustic and contrary which made her famous. I picked up this book after seeing the documentary, What She Said: The Art of Pauline Kael. Her writing on films and film books are from 1959-1990. The essays are so insightful and so good they made me smile. Her writing in Jaws made me really smile. She recognized Stephen Spielberg’s talent from The Sugarland Expess but saw Jaws as a masterpiece. To me it is. Pauline Kael was a major player in the art industry f film criticism and one of the few who could make it a full time job. https://youtu.be/drVlgGvR6v8

[Antigone · Rating 5 out of 5]

This Library of America volume presents a generous selection of Kael's essays culled from ten collections published during the course of her lifetime. To say they are confined to film review, film history and the state of the film industry is to sell them quite short. She was as much an observer of humanity as were the movies she took aim at. In fact, I think her sharpest skill may have rested in her unique ability to untangle the sinuous threads of juxtaposition that frequently confused the two. Beyond this, Kael was an earnest and manifestly adept writer who would undoubtedly have been celebrated no matter the subject of her discourse. Glad am I to find she'd chosen to concentrate on her passion, which was art and creative communication.

From Alchemy:

No one has aged better on camera than Brando; he gradually takes Don Vito to the close of his life, when he moves into the sunshine world, a sleepy monster, near to innocence again. The character is all echoes and shadings, and no noise; his strength is in that armor of quiet. Brando has lent Don Vito some of his own mysterious, courtly reserve: the character is not explained; we simply assent to him and believe that, yes, he could become a king of the underworld. Brando doesn't dominate the movie, yet he gives the story the legendary presence needed to raise it above gang warfare to archetypal tribal warfare.

From Notes on Evolving Heroes, Morals, Audiences:

In primitive societies, and in this country until quite recently, a man proved his courage by exposing himself to a dangerous test. If there's any equivalent to that now, it's exposing himself to the danger of going crazy - so crazy that he loses the capacity to feel. (And women do it too.)

Historically people have recognized strong individuals as heroes or heroines by their willingness to accept the responsibility for their acts. And in the past if a movie hero broke the law because he felt he had to, we could respect him for it, because we knew - as he did - that there would be consequences, and not only legal and social consequences but moral ones, too. Now we're in a period when we know that most wrongdoing - the worst wrongdoing especially - isn't socially punished. And it's terribly apparent that the wrongdoers face no moral consequences. So it's not surprising that the standard action-movie heroes today aren't men who, after searching their consciences, violate the law; the heroes now are lawbreakers at heart. What appears to separate them from the villains is that they're lawbreakers trying to confirm that they're courageous men.

The films and filmmakers she wrote about run the gamut - from Fellini to Spielberg, Breathless to Yentl. Each essay is substantial, complex, evocative, and demands individual attention. Several were a joy to read, a few well worth remembering. Among the many stars in the firmament of film critique, Pauline Kael shines brightest - and for good reason.

[Chuck · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't know if there's a writer who has influenced my life more than Pauline Kael. I fell in love with her reviews when I stumbled across her first book when I was 12. I used to wait for the NEW YORKER to arrive to read her during her annual six-month stints as its movie critic; part of the reason I moved to Boston was to study film and BE her. (A story for another time.) If she loved a movie, I had to see it. She certainly impacted my taste, and even my writing style, for whatever that's worth.

I've read most of what's she's written at least three times but hadn't tackled a collection in several years, and I was due for a revisit. (Her 100th birthday would have occurred in June.) This selection features pieces from over the span of her entire career.

With some distance—she died in 2001—I can identify the peculiarities of her taste. Some of the movies for which she goes the distance have disappeared. (USED CARS anyone?) This selection doesn't do her any favors by emphasizing films that she praised highly. In the context of a full chronological collection, her praise was rare, or at least doled out measuredly. By reading one rave after another, as you often do here, sometimes for an oddball choice like BLOW-OUT, you begin to think that all Kael did was announce masterpieces.

I'm no longer marching in complete step behind her analyses. For instance, she hated WEST SIDE STORY, finding it grandiose; on a rewatch recently, I thought its style remarkable. Nonetheless, she remains a lively writer. If you've never read her, however, I'd go with one of her early collections, like I LOST IT AT THE MOVIES or KISS KISS BANG BANG or DEEPER INTO MOVIES. But many of those books are out of print, or not available electronically; in that case, this collection would be best enjoyed as bed-table reading, dipped into every once in a while.

[Roy Kenagy]

Excellent essay on the life & work of the late New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael http://nyr.kr/ozllzR Probably prompted by the issue of a compilation of her reviews by Library of America http://bit.ly/pOxFUH

[Duane Dunkerson · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Age of Movies, Selected Writings of Pauline Kael

Pauline Kael and Our Un Peu Culture
Pauline Kael did indeed lose it at the movies. She lost "it" in a sexual sense as implied by her first book's title. Other titles of her movie review collections in book form had a sexual connotation. Certainly movies had become her passion. One can affirm that her loss was akin to losing virginity. She did swoon over some films like the effect on her was sexual. To use Mr. Ebert's term - she was "knocked-up" by those movies.

The lack of virginity was repeated over the years. There were states of immediate gratification, over and over, per movie by movie, if so affected. It was expected to go on and on, more movies, more of the unexpected. But the lack of expectation could not be of reality. There would have been a framework of the expected otherwise the unexpected would have been incomprehensible. Such expectation implies standards. At least those standards could have been acknowledged, implicitly or explicitly. Neither possibility occurred. Her history, writing style, and enthusiasms were not in service to standards.

Her home region was not standard. She self-defined herself as a Westerner and in opposition to New York City. That is, she was from the "out West" part of the United States. This, for her, was a thin and short sliver of the West coast near and in San Francisco, but it could not be and was not representative of the West. Her West wasn't a part of New York City. Historically she had nothing to keep her apart from New York City. The Western family life was dreary. Presumably the Eastern family life was dreary also. So it was no surprise that family entertainment as a category of movie appreciation would be reviled by her. She preferred trash. School ties, meaning high school Eastern or Western, were deplorable. For example, how could anyone have gone through high schools like the one Wiseman showed in Philadelphia and then have a meaningful, useful future, she asked.

She didn't ask, but how could the New York City of the 70's, caught up in cinema-du-zap, go on to other venues? For example, on to other venues that included lewd nuns violated on the altar. Or how did the 50's become the 60s and then how did the 60s get to the New York City of the 70s? Did one decade "cause" the next? For her, whatever came of being alive during the Depression, WW II, the Cold War, and the pain of Vietnam?

She thought those years of the 50's were formed by a classless society characterized by dull jobs, unduly influenced by television (that did not seize our souls) that fed into consumerism and so helped to foster the nihilism of youth. Pascal's concerns about boredom were not considered. The 60's she did not characterize though she thought its violence acceptable if blood and cruelty made for the appearance of a good movie.

Her appearance and manners left something to be desired as did her writing style. She was photographed in atrocious garb; she was short, unattractive, foul-mouthed and gregarious with Wild Turkey and cigarettes at the ready. She was very bossy, always at boil, fluttery, bird-like and bawdy. In her writing style, never much appreciated by the British, she went in for wild subjectivity, aided by a ragged conversional stance, pursuing, jazz-like, a lack of structure and adopting a tone of declarations with certainty and assertions not lacking in surety. She got into extended digressions. Sentences did not necessarily explain, or amplify or limit a preceding one.

Such a style was, perhaps, forgiven because of her enthusiasms. Some of those enthusiasms included Art. She added to the 60's enactment of a lack of separation of parts within culture, within civilization, and between culture and civilization. She admired movies characterized as being garbage. She appreciated Art and wanted commercial ventures, what with the profit motive, to be beside the point. Nevertheless, Art is about valuable experiences. The movies lump elements of books, music, and photography into a heady or toxic mix. Lumping them together creates confusion. But is it Art?

Because Art can turn a profit, then that should not be held against it. Either it is or it is not Art. Veering in and out of the definition of Art endangers the classification of Art. Then what is valuable becomes beside the point. The uncomfortable feeling is that if the movie is a commercial success, it can't be Art. That is, if it is a moneymaker, many people have seen it and Art was never of the many. If Art can be defined, at least implicitly, by what commercial interests had put forward, then the self-styled artists will have only their self-designations as being representations of Art.

Other people, like Kael, defined Art in her reviews, in her appreciation of some movies. Those movies, were like ones involving butter and sodomy, a rape as "one of the few truly erotic sequences on film", "Nashville", and "Bonnie and Clyde" with its politically "brilliant" fusillade. The shooting was in the service to a suggestion of violence which would have been grotesque, but rather it was violence we needed to see for what was cool, untouched by morality. The violence of "Bonnie and Clyde" was, Kael wrote, a sophisticated response to a contemporary society that demanded it.

It may have also "demanded" Véronique of "La Chinoise", characterized by Kael as being so much like girls on college campuses then. Véronique was a terrorist who killed the wrong person and so killed again to get it right. Véronique was said by Kael to be like so many female college students of that anti-war era – not self-conscious, frightened, yet assured. Certainly they were not so prissy as to adopt an accusatory tone and declare, dismissively, "I don't like violence".

Also, beyond the campus, they would know that the anti-war political power of "Bonnie and Clyde" had no reference to prissy Viet Cong. Remember, blood and cruelties by whomever were acceptable if it made for a good movie. They also thought violence was for animals but, we who centuries ago found that animals could not do arithmetic, divided reality into at least two large nonintersecting groups - animal vs. us. In short, animals, without using mathematics, aren't violent, we, using arithmetic, are violent. Animals are as they are, without choice, we have a choice. We can be additive until violence occurs.

Kael could touch on many subjects in a review, from butter and bullets as in the above. Almost anything could be in a review of hers. Those movies were dots. She was one of the lines connecting them. But, once connected, and you got there, then where were you? Nearly all aspects of life could pop up in a review by her. So what? You had arrived, and where were you? No standards there. No tradition there. On tour you went carried along by Kael and it got you nothing of value unless it was for the ride. Was, the ride, at least, placed in a frame of reference? Was it "I have arrived here" and "I came from there"? No, then nothing truly got connected. You could start with the first word of one of her reviews and get to the last one and you were nowhere. You were always being "here", but no one writes in the present.

In the past, circa WWII in England, a book about writing nonfiction as good English noted that faults of writing can reflect faults of character and that good English writing is a moral matter. A review is not an excuse for risk taking. It is rather a dry form and to be inaccurate about achievement or attempt to get at impressions of indescribable feelings puts one into "suggestion and parable". The review writing need not have devices or tricks. An individual’s review, in error, may aspire to a peculiar range of expressions, logical weaknesses, and stylistic extravagancies. Writing down to the many, the inexpert, and we must not have been as expert as Kael, (so she indicated), can lead to mental confusions such as if there was violence in Vietnam, then violence must be on the screen. Attempting to give figure to such nonsense is, in a Puritan's terms, "mere idolatry".

Kael's colloquialisms, slang, contractions and constructions gained what? Lost what? Not a paradise lost, but what was lost was sense and sensibility and what was gained was surly and sick. She acted as if all civilizations have at least a minimal culture. But after the lost culture, there may be a civilization as residue. In any event, we now are tending to a un peu culture, thanks to the likes of Kael. Culturally, we are on the approach to zero like "The Chelsea Girls", as they were once characterized to be representing a godless civilization. In the little space and time we have left there is more than one level within our culture. It is the sum of perhaps many parts. Even so, in its entirety, it is paltry.

With culture is Art. Now is it, pornography or Art? What's the difference? Now is it violence, crudity, and vulgarity or Art? Who cares? Now is it the trivial, animalistic, and stupid or Art? Don't ask. Now is it inhumanity, greed, and a cult of personality as morality or Art? Go away. Now is it incoherence, irrationality, and the intractable or Art? Why continue? Now is it lies, alternate realities, and the global diabolical or Art? No escape.

The questions asked and the answers given are not of parity. The one persisting element, Art, is not an independent variable. It depends on a high order of disciplined reason. With such, it should never disappear but, if it is difficult to know if it is there, then we may be without it. It doesn’t seem to be gone so then we have a un peu culture? Some among us want the culture to disappear. Others, like Everett Ruess, who engineered his own disappearance so well that he could not be found, want more. The Ruessians want the end of culture without the option of return.

[Nog · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am loathe to call them reviews, because she went 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.

[Thomas Radigan · Rating 4 out of 5]

And you probably weren't meant to, unless you saw all the movies listed in this volume. I did read the ones for the movies I had seen, as well as some I did not but were regarded as classics. Agree with her opinions or not, she manages to raise interesting points when she writes at length.

My favorite review was one of the modern western "Hud", a movie I did not see but was made interesting by her contrasting her own childhood on a California cattle ranch with the movie story of the Texas cattle ranch. But she made observations about "E. T." and "Tootsie", which I and my family liked which I did agree with, as well as observations about other movies I did not necessarily agree with.

But she also talked about the movie industry and how it changed over time from the studio system to independents and how it affected how movies were made and why they were made as they were in what era. She also wrote an interesting biography of Cary Grant, the man as well as the performer. Much of it may be dated (the articles were written mainly in the 1970's) but still you learn how the movie industry used to be and how and why it changed over time. You don't have to agree with Pauline Kael's reviews to appreciate the articles in the book that are about movies overall.

[Will Lennon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Full disclosure: I read about a third of this, mostly focusing on the portions where she talks about movies that I've actually seen.

Kael was obviously brilliant and did a lot for film criticism. She has a way of cleverly working her thoughts on the politics, art and business of film into everything she writes. Some of these pieces have aged better than others. "Why Are Movies So Bad? -Or, The Numbers" is evergreen. Everyone should read it. Add to that her reviews of Magnum Force, West Side Story and Yojimbo. Her review of Laurence Olivier's Othello is... Well, it was written in the sixties. It's interesting as a historical document, but it's pretty embarrassing.

Overall, this is very much worth keeping on your shelf to thumb through here and there as you work through the film canon. I wouldn't recommend trying to muscle your way straight through all 800+ pages though. Sounds like punishment.

[Simon · Rating 4 out of 5]

This collection of Kael reviews on some of the key markers in the history of cinema is an indispensable read for the avid film enthuasiast. Kael finds a nuance where she is incredibly smart but not academic and arcane in her writing style, who is neither too cynical nor hyperbolic in her praise for certain films.

Most of all, whether you agree or disagree with her takes on specific films, the ability to 'read' the film in her own idiosyncratic manner, frequently challenges your pre-conceptions on a specific film, and acts as a catalyst for revision and reinterpretation.

Starter examples: The Leopard, Taxi Driver, The Conformist, La Chinoise, Bonnie and Clyde, The Godfather Part I and II, Network, Breathless, Yojimbo, Blow-Up, Simon of the Desert, Blue Velvet, Woman on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown and The Deer Hunter.

[Mike Mikulski · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed reading this collection. At first I was distracted by the many references to films, directors and actors I've never seen or heard of. But after settling in, I enjoyed Kael's insights into movies. Kael was frustrated by movies that did not show or create true emotion and by Hollywood's focus on box office and its influence on film more than any other art. She loved Truffault, Brando, Olivier, Grant and Astaire. A similar admiration for great actresses was missing from this collection. I would love to get Kael's opinion on the state of the movie industry today and the shortage of original ideas in the face of countless re-makes, sequels and comic book make-overs.

[Joel Werley · Rating 4 out of 5]

A collection of selected writings from several releases spanning three decades of film criticism, this is a fine sampler for someone wanting to take a dive into the oeuvre of the most respected/revered/despised film critic in America. (Yes, the evil general in Willow was named for her.) Simply put, Kael amazingly, intelligently reviews individual movies, but I'd say there was no one better at writing about THE movies and the experience of cinema. She loved the art, and she loved the trash. Ebert will always be my favorite for his humanism, writing, and wondrous takedowns of the films that deserved it, but Kael is the obvious doyenne.

[Jdetrick · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is widely loved and respected, as was Pauline Kael. Unfortunately, while I was very excited to read it, I left feeling very disappointed. My problem with Kael is my problem with many critics...she seems to be a huge snob who feels most film is beneath her and if she scolds people who don't agree with her point of view. She doesn't write from a vantage point of making film accessible to most people. Instead, if you don't understand what she's saying or what she's getting from film, it feels like she doesn't believe you deserve good movies.

[Michael Medlen · Rating 2 out of 5]

Film criticism has its place; my issue is that writer Pauline Kael is a magazine author and a little full of herself. These articles presented within are meant to be skimmed more than read for word by word, despite how much the author's intention may lead one to believe.

Much of magazine literature, just as cinema itself, is trash and disposable, meant to be consumed while sitting on the toilet and avoiding work. Kael has a verbiose punch, but she lacks the perfunctory succinctness of a newspaper writer such as Roger Ebert.

That is the difference between the two...

[Patrick Howard · Rating 5 out of 5]

I aspire to have half the intuitive understanding that Pauline Kael had of herself & of movies. Her ability to seamlessly synthesize critiques of a film’s creation, cultural context, direction, cinematography, & performances is just sublime. I’m almost embarrassed, in comparison, by the paltry little literary blurbs I pump out here. Witty, nuanced, consistent, compelling. This is about 800 pages & now I wish I’d gone for one of the bigger volumes of her work.

[Ashley Jane · Rating 3 out of 5]

Even when I disagreed, I always found it interesting to read her thoughts.
My favourite review was her one of E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial. It was actually really quite touching and I wasn't expecting it. Besides my friends, I do not follow the writings of any living film critics. But I'm always curious to know Pauline Kael's opinion.

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Even when I’m not agreeing with her takes, Kael is a thoughtful, wonderful read. Having been too young to read her in context, it was great to get this chance to encounter so much of her work in one place.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5 stars

[John Kussner]

B

[Parker · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Too many people—including some movie reviewers—want the law to take over the job of movie criticism; perhaps what they really want is for their own criticisms to have the force of law."

[Tom Durwood · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent collection from one of America's greatest film critics!

[DeadWeight · Rating 5 out of 5]

Richard Brody wishes he could write like this.

[Kenneth · Rating 4 out of 5]

I skipped around in this - but really sharp writing that makes me want to revisit some films (or visit some for the first time)

[Joe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bow before the queen. (of film revewing.)

[John Scardamaglia · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5...but if you're picking this up you're likely already a fan of her writing...

[bird · Rating 4 out of 5]

do we need to agree with criticism? is it not enough to see a brilliant woman with a huge bat, swinging?

[Sid · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yes, now I truly know how to hate a movie.

[Andy Mascola · Rating 4 out of 5]

A greatest hits collection of Kael reviews & essays from 1955-90. Good stuff!‬

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cavils: it doesn't recuperate unreprinted published material (like her first review, of Limelight), of which there's not so much as to forbid it, nor does it well-judge a much-needed selection from her big effort, the book-length analysis of the Welles-Mankewicz collaboration on Citizen Kane that got her into trouble with academics when she filched a few ideas she didn't scrupulously credit, and which she apparently would have spun quite differently, were the publication of the scholarly source anything that actually ever occurred. Reviews of the Paul Coates theoretical book, and of Claude Lanzmann, not here. Review of The Sound of Music that got her fired from McCalls not here. Important arguments, career-long, like the one critical of Eastwood, or on behalf of Altman, are only dimly noted by this selection. Spielberg is left out of the collection. Old people -- they just keep getting older -- love her essay on Cary Grant, included here, which I tried to reread -- I'm sorry, it is just too long.

That said, I use this in class, and I'm delighted by the type-face, the layout, the feel of the book. Lovely to have this gorgeous stylist, and wit, this way. A favorite sentence, or two? Okay, from her review of Mailer's Marilyn: "[Mailer's] theory that men impart their substance and qualities into women along with their semen is a typical macho Mailerism; he sees it as a one-way process, of course. Has no woman slipped a little something onto his privates?"