First off, this is a review of RAISING KANE only. I figure this is fair game on Goodreads to be considered a book (despite its not having a listing of its own) because Wikipedia describes it as ‘book length,’ and the work itself has been published in different collections before.
The writing is gorgeous here. I’ve never read anything in full by Kael, though I’ve appreciated many snippets of hers, and I’m disarmed by the depth of her love for the craft. You can see it in every little breathless aside, every personal anecdote, and every unselfconscious backing of the mass market elements of cinema. This isn’t a ‘film writer’ so much as a writer who happens to love film- an important distinction, as its not necessarily a requirement in most film writers I’ve read to really show their love for movies. Most feel obligated to keep the form at arm’s length, maintaining a healthy amount of irony for anything they like and disdain for anything that goes against the larger community of ‘art appreciation.’
I love how willing Kael is here to actually explore CITIZEN KANE as a film, not treating it like a china doll whose fragility might shatter at any moment (as most critics do), but openly (and at great length) exploring its biggest flaws. She contextualizes the movie in such a way as to explain why it was actually considered a masterpiece in its time, and why most viewers are probably appreciating the elements that aren’t even considered to be its strengths. I’m always of the school that “the art does not belong to the artist,” and that nobody, not even the film’s director (or a critic), can invalidate anyone else’s interpretation of the work. But I also have very little patience for those who appreciate something according to a larger societal ‘company line’ - specifically, those who first hear THAT the film is good, so then must rationalize to themselves WHY the film is good. Kael does not treat the film like something sacred, but rather like any other movie. She appreciates its many virtues as well as its (very real) flaws. And most importantly, knows (as so many of the internet age do not) that flaws do not necessarily make a movie bad, nor are masterpieces without flaws. To limit one’s critiques of masterpieces to only their positive elements, while rationalizing away any potential issues, is to ruin the conversation.
I read this immediately after watching Fincher’s MANK, and this acts as a great companion piece to the movie. It’s clear where pieces of this have shaped the film itself, and I loved hearing even more stories about the man. But what that film can’t necessarily capture is the far-reaching contextual deep-dives that Kael establishes here. She doesn’t just settle for looking into Mankiewicz’s career or accomplishments, but the entire paradigm which created him, as well as the surrounding paradigms that both created its need and felt its creative loss when it was gone.
Anyway, this is really damned good writing. I can’t wait to watch KANE again, and someday hopefully get my hands on that first screenplay draft.