Pauline Kael on Writer's Workshop
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 лип 2024
- Pauline Kael is the guest on this episode of the Writer's Workshop, filmed at the University of South Carolina on Feb. 11, 1982, and broadcast on PBS. Kael discusses writing with Benjamin Dunlop, William Price Fox, and Fox's and James Dickey's writing class (Dickey is not present). Topics include "Straw Dogs"; Bertrand Blier's "Get Out Your Handkerchiefs"; Sam Peckinpah and women's films; Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Brian DePalma, and Robert Altman; Italian-American filmmakers and Michael Cimino; Jewish filmmakers, including Steven Spielberg and Irvin Kershner; Arlene Croce; movie criticism; the screenwriter; the writing process; the "newness" of good movies; Michael Winner and Jack Smight; advice to students; and screenwriters Diane Johnson and Judith Rascoe. George Plimpton introduces the episode.
This is absolutely fantastic. She's remarkably quick on her feet.
Even when I disagreed with her , she was my favorite film critic. I loved her writing style, lively and analytical.
I know, right? Her style was so . . . what's the right word . . . impressionistic !!! 🙂🙂🙂
First rule for interviewing Pauline Kael: you don't call her impressionistic. Poor Bernie -- she let him have it. Thanks for the upload -- this is my favorite of all the episodes in this superb series.
Where can one access the other episodes?
agreed
@geo mcfet "Involving general feelings or thoughts rather than specific knowledge or facts."
@@jamals.8786 That's a fair definition. Kael's slam of 'academic' critics seems far-fetched to me, considering Rosalind Krauss and the October writers' very positive stance re new figures in visual art. Kael comes across as self-manufactured, in that she presents like a male as to tone and sensibility. I think she was very burdened and reactive. And very smart, also.
@@georgemcfetridge8310Kael was "very burdened and reactive"? What on earth are you talking about?
Finally, a new post on Kael, with hopefully more to follow.
Finally, another clip of Kael!
thanks for the upload
a great find!
thanks for this
She could strip a film, scene by scene, camera angle, an actors face, direction, and break it it down precisely for the audience in which it need be. An amazing critic! One of the best in my viewpoint. I remember her review of "The Shining", in 1980 and it was a brutally honest description of a film the didn't grasp the essence of the novel but marveled in Kubrick's gross interpretation of the novel.
The review Baikal that made the biggest impression on me was Blue velvet look it up if you have it read it
Then again, there's her famous or inFAMOUS review of Robert Altman's Nashville which she wrote before the film was completed. her reason for doing so was that the film was so brilliant she couldn't help but write it. And I agree
an artist never tries to please others. They only speak their truth, and very few are able to digest it.
What a great mind she had. I thoroughly enjoy her.
Erudite, bone-scrapingly honest, disarmingly articulate and refreshingly passionate- a true pioneer in her field. If only we had more in-depth, articulate discussions like this today. Alas, I suspect in our time of Tik-Tok and ever-wiltering attention spans, such dialogue would be subject to three second punchlines and a random online influencer to interpret deep dialogue in the shallowest of ways. Influencers and followers are one and the same, I'm afraid. Todays platforms encourage impatient scrolling and condensed, myopic thinking. We have truly lost the Art of spontaneity, patience and critical self-reflection. Tarantino was right when he said he never intended to make a movie for an at home streaming platform where such consumption is divorced from the collective Cinematic experience. Sadly, we have few directors challenging this trend. Movies that are made via a menu of algorithms and consumed with a twitter-like appetite will simply be commercial vehicles: all car and no engine. As it stands, ifluencers and streaming services are closing the curtain on cinema and opening up an endless sushi train of fast and facile entrees.
I'ts not that I'm greedy; I just want the main course. Long live Cinema.
Kael inspires me as a writer im working on a writing project about film right now talking about my view on film history and intend to turn into a book and publish it online. I want to find my own voice and this very helpful to be open to new ideas and write about themes explored in film and look deep below the surface
Italy (1940-70s) is the greatest country for movies, per capita (per film).. US would be #2, followed by France, Japan, Sweden, Poland, Czechoslovakia.
Hollywood could not stand Kubrick for ONE reason: He made his films in London. Semi-proof of this comes in a one-off line by Kael in a review of Barry Lyndon : "I wish Stanley Kubrick would come home to this country to make movies again." I wonder what this 70's woman would have wrote about Eyes Wide Shut.
She was so wrong about Kubrick. If she choose to review movies twice and change her opinions, who knows what she would have thought about Kubrick. Regarding what she woue have thought about Eyes Wide Shut, I read something where she said something along the lines of "it was over from the word go".
Posterity will barely remember Ms. Kael; but Kubrick and his films will be pondered and appreciated as long as cinema exists.
"They tell us how women SHOULD feel. " Her insight into guilt. Her ideas THEN are so meaningful now. We are living in an age of rage and I wish she was here to shine a light. Most people not just artists are just trying to get through the day. To try and survive in order to learn from our errors is a seriously threatened option in PC cancel culture. I want comedians, writers, and all artists - and those becoming the next generation of those things - to be free to pursue their excellence. "The alternative is simply advertising." And a culture that just follows the money? Wow.
She talks about Eyes Wide Shut in an interview near the end of her life. She hated it, calling it lousy and every scene “a howl”
@@1qwasz12 Exactly!
This was great. Do you have access to any of the other episodes in this series? As a writer I would love to watch all of them.
Great. Watched it months ago, glad I came across it again. Do you have the Tom Wolfe or Vonnegut ones?
I love her voice
Here before this blows up because of Tarantino's final movie.
28 minutes gone already? That flew by ... A consistently engaging woman!
Pauline Kael (19 de junio de 1919 - 3 de septiembre de 2001) fue una crítica de cine estadounidense, que escribió para la revista The New Yorker entre 1968 y 1991. Era conocida por sus reseñas "ingeniosas, mordaces, muy obstinadas y fuertemente enfocadas";[1] sus opiniones a menudo eran contrarias a las de sus contemporáneos. Fue una de las críticas de cine más influyentes de su época.
Got here thanks to Tarantino's upcoming movie 👍
She wrote in a fever and she made me laugh. Example (About Ida Lupino in "The Light That Failed") : "It was her big entry in the Bette Davis slut sweepstakes"....LOL
She almost made that man cry 😂
Programmatic! Yes, this is still the case.
Roger Ebert? Better than PK? That's like picking Captain Kangaroo over Kafka. He's a nice guy who really loved films, but he has no guts. And I don't mean just argumentative.
Just listen to the clear wisdom here - be true to your impressions, don't write for any other reason than that you have a passion for it, don't fear studios, advertisers, etc. Embrace new things, or at least be open to them. She's so unconventional yet solid. When I disagree with Ebert, I just think he's a wanker. If I disagree with Kael, I know I have to go back and re think, because she's tough, and has integrity.
I'd love to read her writing. I wonder if any of it is available online.
Yes, look her up on the Internet Archive. You can read what you find there for free. But what you find will be mostly criticism by her, obviously.
Don't waste your time. Pretentious drivel.
You can find her reviews from the 70s through 90 easily online
You can find just about everything she did for The New Yorker. The other things are hard to come by
@@milart12 Yours is certainly a minority opinion. Plus your sweeping condemnation is wholly unsupported. Surprising.
props to the light guy for putting a hitler moustache on her - seriously, love or hate her, she's spouting wisdom here.
Right from the get go she's like a prophet
What a blessing that this interview is available on UA-cam Pauline kael wasn't original that's what every Rider should be.
The opening presenter was in good Will Hunting
That's George Plimpton, co-founder of the Paris Review. One of the greatest journalists and interviewers we've ever had.
Kael could justify what she likes and what she doesn't. That's her own little "Kaelian" world that she was always in, and it means only as much as you are Kaelian in your thinking. I've always found her limited, tho good within her limits. What else did she do in life? I don't know much about her even after reading her for x-number of years.
There are now excellent biographies and documentaries that make readers and viewers privy to the details of her life. She lived a fascinating one.
it is not whether a work is good or bad, is it something
The comment on British directors being weak visually threw me a bit. So Michael Powell, Alfred Hitchcock, David Lean, Carol Reed, Lindsay Anderson, Nicolas Roeg, Charles Laughton, Ken Russell, John Boorman and lets squeeze Ridley Scott in there as this was 82? Had all by that point made visually weak movies according to Pauline.
Some great insight but I cant stand it when critics have a theory then just shoehorn their explanation whilst throwing out all the facts that go against it holding any weight.
Point well made Patrick. My reaction at the time wasn't really taking what was said into full context, as you do so eloquently in your reply. I felt the need to jump to defence of the visual abilities of some British Directors forgetting that as you say she is referring more to the general output of a certain era in British cinema. Which to be fair and totally contradict myself does still tend to focus on visual tendencies towards kitchen sink drabness and ordinary everyday qualities. Not to say that visuals which take on that form can't be considered beautiful, but I see your point that she is referring to a particular type of visual expression and invention which for the most part British film lacked in comparison to other films industries. Point also taken when you mention about making a broad statement and that she is not ignoring the facts as I fairly naively put it. Thanks for the reply whilst your here what would you consider to be one of your favourite works of visual expression by a British director? Doesn't need to be outputted by the British film industry as you mention with Night of the Hunter but one Directed by a British director. Not that I think it matters too much if a film is claimed as being the work of a particular country of origin, but the cultural heritage and perspectives a director can bring to a film are interesting. Especially when they work outside of that culture and within another as with Laughton.
I think we all immediately thought of A Taste Of Honey and Saturday Night And Sunday Morning. Indeed very british films that look completely sorrounded by concrete and grey skies, probably would work better in a stage. But you do have a point, The Red Shoes was absolutely colorful and glamorous.
She said a lot of stupid shit for sure
@@jsjsbsv1924 Or you just don't get cinema.
@@ambskater97 ive watched all fellinis, Murnau,antonioni that woman is clever but can be as much stupid as you with ur comment. Loser
Comparing Ebert to Kael is like comparing vaudeville to Dostoyevsky. Ebert was a film reviewer; Kael was the critic as artist.
So true. Never once did reading an Ebert review stimulate my mind as much as a Kael review.
totally agree with you on that. This woman saw things and commented on things that would send the average critic like Ebert back to the drawing board. They just simply never got on that level because they were not artists.
This is an old post... but, you're somewhat wrong. You want to see Ebert--the reviewer as an artiste'? Read his reviews on the Chicago Sun-Time page. They're even better written than Kael's. Read the reviews he wrote. You can tell why he was the first to win the Pulitzer Prize way back in 1975, the first film appraiser ever to receive such a fellowship.
Completely over rated-Most of her reviews are unintelligible nonsense. www.nybooks.com/articles/1980/08/14/the-perils-of-pauline/
or in the musical medium:
an analogy of Morrissey to George Michael
nice
*Did a US citizen actually say what the whole world knows **3:27**. Remarkable. She is convincing me that she really does have an Objective opinion on Life*
5:06...
Her opinions are just as valid as anyone else, and everyone has one
Everyone has an opinion, but surely not every opinion is equally valid. There are opinions based on erudition and experience, as were Kael's, and there are opinions based on neither of those qualities. Which of the two would most readers find more valid?
@Miro101 it's all subjective and according to people's personal views and judgment. Yes some people are more practiced, have spent a lot of their life conveying their thoughts in eloquent and thorough ways, but it is still personal view at the end of the day.
@@anthonymartensen3164 Of course the act of criticism is subjective. I'm not arguing that. I'm merely saying that not everyone's opinion is valid. There's a difference.
Why is no one mentioning Meryl Streep? Kael hated Streep.
Or, rather, hated the way she acted.
And also hated Clint Eastwood, and he knew it. That's why In the Dead Pool, a film critic that looks like her gets strangled.
@@mauricio8778 I have no sympathy for Clint Eastwood, a guy who refers to women as "pussy." And has 8 children with 6 different women. What a great Republican role model.
Kael’s offhand dismissal of The Sting made me gasp out loud.
George Roy Hill’s The Sting is a masterpiece. Newman had wit, charm, and the mature wisdom at that point in his career to underplay his leading role, and let the ensemble plot do its magic. Redford is earnest in an appealing way, playing a small-time con man as a kind of male ingenue. And there’s a host of great character actors, each of which is necessary to the complex plot machinery.
In fact, the intricate plot is one of the most ingenious in cinema history, which could have been confusing but for Hill’s masterful direction and the absolute perfection of the screenplay.
The Sting manages to keep you in suspense right up to the end as to just who is conning who, yet in a way that’s never annoying or even confusing. Plus a great period look (Chicago in the 30s) and a score that was 100% authentic Scott Joplin ragtime material.
I saw it again recently after 45 years (!) and it was just as great as I thought the first time. Better, in fact. This time I could marvel at how all the pieces come together, yet without losing the magic of the whole.
For Kael to just dismiss The Sting and its director out of hand, is a critical blunder for which there is no excuse, except Kael’s own limited sensibility as a human being.
If you can’t get interested in the ingenuity of a charming, skillful, and highly disciplined team of men, who use the character flaws of an egomaniac against him, to relieve him of his ill-gotten gains, I feel sorry for you.
Maybe a film which is a kind of extended chess game played between men, with no real place for women or naturalistic relationships, held no interest for her, IDK. Maybe plot itself meant little to her. But it should have. Excellence is excellence.
Being 1000% certain of your opinions, as Kael always was, (and which created her notoriety), is no virtue, if the verdict of history is that (some of) your most famous opinions were 1000% WRONG.
Siskel hates Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid, also by George Roy Hill, so there may some objective comments in their subjective opinion.
@@mauricio8778 You just ruined Siskel for me. I’m actually not usually as dogmatic on these things as I sound here, but these 2 movies, by this time, have the verdict of film history on their side as much as any movie ever made. It’s like Siskel saying everyone’s wrong about The Godfather or Casablanca.
@@CasperLCat I agree with Kael. As a kid, I saw "The Sting" in its first theatrical run and very much liked it. I recently revisited the film, though, and found it as claustrophobic and condescending as Kael did.
@@DeanLeonard1 That’s interesting, really.
Siskel thought Butch was too cute, which it is at times, and the chase is too long and drags down the center of the film, which it does. But he didn't hate it, neither did Roger. It just wasn't as good as it could have been, which it isn't.
One can’t deny how sharp she was but I’ve always been a little turned off by how thin-skinned she could be with even relatively criticism of her work. Even in this interview she’s ready to pounce on the questioner for his slightly infelicitous phrasing of one question rather than giving him the benefit of the doubt. The incongruity between some of the rather brilliant venom in her writing and the frequent brittleness/defensiveness of her responses to her critics has always been disappointing to me.
'The Deer Hunter' characters "not shaped"? That might just be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. A movie critic should be able to read between the lines. The dialogue is sparse, but their bodily/facial expressions and emotions say it all.
In essence, that movie is one of the best examples of character build-up in the modern filmmaking era.
My and my wife, whom I loved so much and still do, just talked about me wanting her to watch "The Godfather" on our wedding night, which we did. She fell asleep. She was bored. That was 24 years ago. She just told me tonight: "That was a man's film. " I looked it up. She was right.
They were all gay.
I agree. She was right about the visual aspect of the film, but missed the boat, to me, on character development. The acting by, De Niro, Walken, Streep, Cazale, Savage et al, was so incredible, so real, they were able to convey so much, without too much dialogue. A glance, a gesture, an aversion of the eyes, etc. That look De Niro and Streep exchange at the wedding.
I think The Deer Hunter is a perfect film. Everything about it works so well.
@@waynej2608 The men in the film come through as stereotypically "manly" men, but that's about all. The central figure played by DeNiro never makes much sense (something that I, as a teenage boy, was bothered by when I first saw the film in the theater). As Kael says in her review, never does the viewer identify in any profound way with the character--never do we think, "I know that man; I am that man." That's partly due to another fault in the screenplay, which was shaped to demonize the Viet Cong rather than elucidate the complexities of that terrible conflict and America's role in it.
These critics- and there's a few art critics that also do it- just pile a bunch of hypotheses on top of each other. They're a combination of speculation, received opinion and provocation. And they're designed to make the critic the centre of attention.
If you want real film criticism, an actual film maker like Peter Bogdanovich will give you the best insight. Plus he'll be funny and do some great impressions.
One can’t deny how sharp she was but I’ve always been a little turned off by how thin-skinned she could be with even relatively criticism of her work.
To show what kind of "free thinker" or "outsider" she really was : In one of her books that lists alphabetical reviews -- the "J" section lists Fellini's 1966 masterpiece "Juliet of the Spirits" . She gives this movie a trite SWIPE " A woman whose husband is cheating on her-- has fantasies that look like they take place on the sets of old MGM musicals". The end ! LOL. What? And on the opposite page the 1980 BOMB "comedy" "Just Tell me What You Want" w/ Alan King and Natalie Wood -- Ms. Kael goes ON and ON and ON with like 200 words or more ; digging DEEP into this movie that A) Looks AWFUL and B) Siskel & Ebert just tore apart on their TV show!. LOL Hilarious . If you've never seen "Juliet of the Spirits" give it a Netflix look if you can. Also you can see the Sneak Previews review of "Just Tell Me What You Want" here on UA-cam to see how horrible it looks ! Kael's reviews are uneven but wildly engrossing - and watch out when she HATES a movie ( see her review of Diana Ross' 1976 "Mahogany". LOL)
Nice Jewish lady, says Jerry Lewis.
Tipping her hand expressing that there are many directors she doesn't like. Hard to approach the film - as a critic - with this bias.
joiganja false
Pauline Kael, was there a great movie she didn't shit on?
“The Rules of the Game,” “Shoeshine,” “Weekend,” “The Navigator,” “Smiles of a Summer Night,” “L'Avventura.”
@@clivebrook+ Damn, haven't seen any of those. Thanks for the list! :)
BonzoDog67 Lizardking She loved Batman
Batman? Bullshit!
9:20 she's offended at being called impressionistic, then at 20:18 she says she would rather write about her total impression...
Then in the next segment, she names filmmakers she refuses to see. Such a phony and inconsistent intellectual...
She committed many Writing 101 SINS, you should never assume what the creator/filmmaker thought..
Her Clockwork Orange review is comparable to playground insult
She got a lot of things wrong particularly; 2001, Blade Runner, Leone films and Eastwood 's.
I agreed with her on 2001 and Blade Runner (The Shining too). I disagreed with her on most Leone (and also Bonnie And Clyde, The Fury etc.) but not OUATITW. But never once was I shallow enough to consider her "wrong" for not enjoying/appreciating a film. We disagreed at times and yet I still valued her opinion.
Spooky Ben She didn't appreciate science fiction at all. Calling Blade Runner 'science fiction porn' is just as fascist as my essential statement. 2001 is a masterpiece to me, but I understand why people who don't like science fiction don't like it. I love Kubrick, but I just couldn't get through 'Barry Lyndon' as it's just not a era/genre/subject that I particularly like. Still I don't regard the film as a whole on the basis of that. Kael often did that, and not on;y with genres but also with directors/actors. that's the problem I have with her.
Lewis Cranston I love science fiction, I LOVED The Sentinel (The original story). Fine and dandy you have problems with her opinions, I did too. But calling her "wrong" is ridiculous.
Spooky Ben In my opinion and probably a majority of the publics.
Totally. Once Upon A Time In The West is great for repeated viewings. Its in my top ten of all time.
For those who thought Siskel & Ebert were elitist snobs, welcome to Pauline Kael.
Pauline Kael started losing it in the late '60's, when she named Barbra Streisand the Best Actress of the Year for "Hello, Dolly!" Jesus!
She praised Barbra Streisand in the role despite hating the movie itself. She never called her the "best actress of the year." Learn the facts, please.
This woman is a hypocrite, telling orson welles didn't wrote a single letter on kane but she stole howard suber's research. A pretentious and hateful critic
That woman is really CRAZY!!!
One can’t deny how sharp she was but I’ve always been a little turned off by how thin-skinned she could be with even relatively criticism of her work. Even in this interview she’s ready to pounce on the questioner for his slightly infelicitous phrasing of one question rather than giving him the benefit of the doubt. The incongruity between some of the rather brilliant venom in her writing and the frequent brittleness/defensiveness of her responses to her critics has always been disappointing to me.