Dopey, dumb, grungy, horny, and stinky just a few of the words that Pauline Kael used in her reviews that made her unique. Pauline was a special movie critic; she wrote for the middle class viewer, unlike most publications in the New York Times that wrote for the upper class. Kael’s approach to movie criticism pioneered criticism as it is known today. The way she was able to have such a large impact on movie criticism was in her love for movies. She had a deep passion and that is what made her special. This love sometimes lead to a sense of, “I am better than you,” and a deeper knowledge of movies than the average movie viewer has.
Pauline’s use of descriptive language such as trashy, stinky or soft made her reviews special. This style was different from many movie critics and all of the publications in the New York times. This is why Pauline was so criticized for her work, it was not the normal style for the New York times; but this is what made Pauline special and different as a movie critic. One of the people who disliked Kael’s style was Renata Adler. In her essay Canaries in the Mineshaft she mocks Kael’s writing style. She feels that Kael’s writing is a threat to prose, she wrote, “What is really at stake is not movies at all, but prose and the relation between writers and readers, and of course art.” It is true that Kael’s writing may not follow all of the guidelines but, it is fun to read, that could be why many readers have said they enjoy her reviews better than the movies.
Pauline Kael’s passion for movies allowed her to become one of the greatest critics of all time. This passion, however, leads to a sense of superiority and assumptions that are inaccurate. Renata Adler made mention of her feeling of superiority by saying, “seemed more hectoringly to claim, she certainly does know about movies.” This is true however she has earned the right to feel this way because she has seen so many movies. Where it hurts Pauline is where she makes references to movies assuming everyone has seen all the movies she has. Interestingly Adler makes fun of Kael for this even though she used hectoringly. Adler said, “Ms. Kael wants us to know, for instance, that she knows that Renais is related to Malraux, and that Malraux is dead.” Most people will have no idea what is going on here. Pauline has such a passion for movies and loves writing reviews she just forgets that everyone doesn’t share that same desire.
Pauline Kael made great advancements in movie criticism. Her use of common language widened the audience of New York Times readers and allowed for a new form of movie reviewing. She wrote for the middle class reader. Kael’s only downfall was her dire passion for movies that lead to a sense of superiority and unreasonable expectations on the part of the viewer. Kael is a perfect example of how passion can lead to greatness but also be ones downfall.
No comments:
Post a Comment