I'm glad you posted this reading of Kael's Shining review. I used to have a copy of one of her review anthologies, which contained it, but can't seem to find it. In any case, Kael has some genuinely on point criticisms of The Shining, however, the review is a bit of mess - she's all over the place as though she couldn't quite organize her thinking about it, and I think there's a distinct subtext that she may have felt out her element when trying to come to terms with what Kubrick's intent was. In fact, most of us are still trying to figure that question out, but when she goes on about how little Kubrick seems to care about the film's characters and how the actors depict them, she genuinely failed to understand that Kubrick was not interested in the psychological naturalistic style that informs commercial film acting - a style that allows audiences to readily identify with the characters. Kubrick doesn't make that sort of movie and never has. There has always been a dispassionate element in his treatment of his characters, as though viewing them from a distance. And it's no different in the Shining. There's a reason Kubrick often made actors do endless retakes of scenes, and that was to wean them off their instinctive "actorish" response and find something more primal within. This resulted in Nicholson giving one of his most over-the-top performances while Duval would give one of the greatest female cinematic performances of the twentieth century, enough to rival Renée Jeanne Falconetti in Dreyer's 1928 masterpiece "The Passion of Joan of Arc." And yes, I most sincerely mean that. Way past time Shelly got her due.
@@KaelSalad2024 Kael's praise for her performance is the best part of the review. It's an interesting review, perceptive in many ways and yet blind in others.
In her review Kael was dead wrong about a lot of things. As in many of her observations about this and other films, she often didn't seem to have a lot of imagination, or at least a willingness to think outside the box (her calling 2001 a "monumentally unimaginative movie" is the kind of act that warrants eternal censure). The Shining broke new ground and was ahead of its time in many ways. It was essentially the first "slow burn" horror movie, or at least the best example of it. She (and many other critics) saw this as a flaw and found it boring, yet countless horror movies since then have used this same technique of setting mood and tone, and have received a great deal of praise for it. She wasn't much of a Kubrick fan, and her issues with him stemmed not from flaws on his part but from his always being one step ahead of her. Having said all that... I did listen to this whole review, which I'm sure says something about her astuteness -- or at least the quality of her writing. She does make a lot of smart observations; the problem is she draws the wrong conclusions from them. Still, if I found myself doing a lot of talking back to her review, that is a credit to her.
Unfortunately, she was also wrong about many other films that are now considered classics. Kaels hatred of Kubrick or Eastwood was manic. I honestly don't know why I should still be interested in the opinion of someone who has been wrong so often. She also worked in Hollywood once. Where are the masterpieces she produced?
Overall I think she's too harsh but she makes some very interesting observations there. In a way they seem to mirror Malcolm McDowell's comment about Kubrick that I read recently: "Stanley can never understand the human element. If he could eliminate that, he could make the perfect movie." 😅
Well done! Both your reading and the video with her review printed over this and other film images add to this. I've been a longtime reader of Kael and met her a few times when she came out to San Francisco for appearances, interviews, book signings. I wrote to her at the New Yorker back in 1987 and then in 1995, when she wrote me back a second time. Now to see if I can replace that audio recording of her interview with Sedge Thompson on KQED from 1987(that was pulled off the internet).. She had given me written permission to get copies and asked if I'd like any of her books. She sent me the one you're reading this from, Taking It All In, inscribed to me along with that second letter. She had Parkinson's, but was able to still write somewhat legibly. I look forward to your next reading..
You’ve really encouraged me, Bob. It’s great to be connected with someone who met her-looking forward to hearing that interview. This is the subsequent Kael video I made:ua-cam.com/video/AUvxpXoQFOo/v-deo.htmlsi=44kTTqZq2inUw3G9
I love Pauline Kael when I agree with what she's saying, and with Dino De Laurentiis' KING KONG '76 Kael is Spot On; I even feel Exactly the way I did in 1978 when I read her review just now; I'm IN LOVE with that movie tied with the 1933 KING KONG that Kael calls "a stunt film" in comparison.
Yes. Out of all her reviews that is one of ones where I was most in agreement with her. I hate to use this often abused phrase but in the case of de Laurentiis' 'King Kong' Kael "just got it" where so many critics of that time and this just don't. One of the best balances of tone I've ever seen: satire, absurdist comedy, rat a tat three hander scenes between Lange- Bridges-Grodin, genuine spectacle, and truly surprusing heartbreaking melodrama with the eyes of Rick Baker sustaining the premise. And a truly great John Barry score. It could been a piece of 💩 but it navigated the landmines triumphantly. It reminds me of the US remake of 'The Office'. We were ready to shove into the dustbin of bad ideas but it made fools of us all thankfully.
Pauline Kael never fully understood Kubrick's work. If you read her review of 2001 - A Space Odyssey, that lack of understanding was already apparent. She was partly responsible for the very poor characterization that Kubrick's films are "cold" and detached from the human. Now, for me, if there is one thing that is evident in Kubrick's work, it is that it is profoundly humanist. Nobody would think of making the same criticism of the cinema of Robert Bresson, for example, a filmmaker who used actors as "models", who fulfilled narrative and dramatic functions, just as important as the meticulous positioning of the camera. However, in Bresson's films (and I would argue that just as in Kubrick's films) the main theme is always the human. As for The Shining - perhaps the most influential horror film of the 1980s - I think the brilliance of the cinematography greatly enhances the overall tone. Think of the opening sequence, where the simple juxtaposition of the helicopter shots with Wendy Carlos' soundtrack immediately summons up all the evil to come. A masterpiece.
She might not have labeled Bresson as “cold,” but she did write: “Robert Bresson has made several films of such sobriety that while some people find them awesomely beautiful, other people find sitting through them like taking a whipping and watching every stroke coming.” About Bresson’s “Au Hasard, Balthazar,” she says, “Considered a masterpiece by some, but others may find it painstakingly tedious and offensively holy.”
I don’t think Kubrick and Bresson’s films always have the “human” theme, but I do sense more empathy for their characters than Kael accused them of not expressing. I think Kubrick and Bresson used their movies to show humans at their weakest and most ridiculous at times.
@@KaelSalad2024 Yes, I agree. For example, The Shining isn't a humanist movie at all (I even find the thesis that the movie is a study of the descent into madness a bit far-fetched). Rather, it's a powerful exercise in the horror genre - in that sense, of all Kubrick's films, it's the one where it's most evident that cinema itself ends up being a theme. But films like Paths of Glory, Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut are certainly sober and adult reflections on the human condition. There would also be a lot to say about 2001 - A Space Odyssey.
@@KaelSalad2024 No film critic has an entirely clean record. She fiercely defended brilliant films that had been largely ignored, but failed to recognize the importance and depth of the work of directors like Kubrick and Cassavetes (In the case of the latter, it even seemed that her criticism was motivated by personal hatred).
I read this review, and I am still impressed with how she picked this one apart and noted the coldness of Kubrick’s style compared to Nicholson's performance. Thanks for this!
@@hermanhale9258 Maybe because they also happen to agree with what Kael said, and might not have even read her review of it. And she stated her case with the most clarity and eloquence, for the enjoyment of many and the anger of a small minority. But then Siskel and Ebert, et al, didn't receive letters with threats of violence from that small minority., as she did.
@@boborrahood Possibly. Or, even if they did read it, they might not remember that they did, or what she said. They might innocently think it is their own idea.
Oddly enough, Kael had more positive things to say about "The Shining" than most of Kubrick's later movies. She had praise for the sound effects, the opening aerial shot, the steadicam tracking shot of the boy riding around on his tricycle, and the cleverness of the "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" scene. I think she really wanted to like the movie, as she was a fan of both Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall, but was disappointed that it wasn't particularly scary and didn't make much sense.
Thank you for showing this review of Ms. Kael. I would be curious to know what she and Jeremy think of the analysis of Rob Ager and of Malmrose Projects. Most Sincerely, Chris Howley, Wollaston, Massachusetts
I found Pauline Kael's review for KING KONG '76; I love her again. I adore KING KONG '76 having seen it as the two parter when I was 7 "The greatest misfit in movie history makes a comeback in this new version. Monster, pet, misunderstood kid, unrequited lover, all in one grotesquely oversized body, the innocent ape is martyred once again. The movie is a romantic adventure fantasy -- colossal, silly, touching, a marvellous Classics Comics movie (and for the whole family). . . .
I always felt the cold, detached, almost inhuman feeling to the Shining was part of the feeling which Kubrick wanted to elicit with the material. It underscores the alienation which all of the characters feel from one another, their environoment, and most importantly how Jack Torrence becomes aliented from his sanity. There is this weird feeling of 'the uncanny' which The Shinning elicits in me. I'm not frightened so much as mesmerized, bewildered, and then subtly disturbed.
Very well put. I get more than subtly disturbed, so that’s why it’s been a while since I popped it on. Doctor Sleep was also highly disturbing, and I don’t normally subject myself to horror movies. Maybe the most disturbing film I ever got through was Beloved. Don’t think I realized when I walked into cinema that they had me for 173 minutes.
Thanks for this video. I'm surprised she spent so much time on it, since she didn't like the movie. I mostly agree with her, especially on the scenes with Lloyd and Grady. I think the theme of the movie is mostly "War", and that is what the river of blood coming out of the elevator means. She thinks that is banal - so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring.
She makes some interesting points, and her review is fascinating. But she has a very old-world view, which was already retreating into the past as she was writing. And she was wrong, I was frightened. I was very frightened. She was, perhaps, too jaded, too in her own head.
At least she disagreed intelligently. Shes obviously a good writer and extremely knowledgeable. When i don't like a movie i just call it dumb. I guess that's why she was at the new York times and i wasn't.
She had a lot of different ways to describe how dumb she found different movies, yet she showed appreciation for some really “trash” movies, too, which caused some consternation with editors of The New Yorker.
Too many criticisms of PK's critique to be made, but I'll focus on this: she intimates that Kubrick's "2001" has a "utopian" ending, with its 'Star-Child' figure. But she seems to be unaware of the fact that that earlier film was titled "2001: a space odyssey" -- and Homer's 'Odyssey' culminates in its erstwhile hero returning home to Ithaca, which had suffered the depredations of the multitudinous suitors for the hand of his supposed 'widow' Penelope; Odysseus, magically disguised by the goddess Athena, is the only man who can successfully string Odysseus's bow and shoot an arrow through a series of aligned hoops -- proving that he is Odysseus, returned from Troy after a 20 year hiatus. Then Odysseus SLAUGHTERS each and every one of those suitors, cleaning house like it's the Second Coming of a vengeful Messiah. The ending of "2001" -- for those who know their 'Odyssey' -- more-than-hints that the outcome following the return of David BOWMAN (remember Odysseus stringing his own bow?) in an exalted deified state will be RETRIBUTION for the wrongs done to the home he had left. Just as the 'divine intervention' of the Monolith had turned the herbivorous 'ape' Moonwatcher into an animal-killing now-carnivorous Man -- who then used his skull-smashing Tool to wreak his revenge upon the rival ape-man who had scared him and his tribe away from that pathetic water-hole, clubbing in his skull with that Bone-Tool -- so, too, will David Bowman do what that 'bow-man' (archer) from Ithaca did to those who had mistreated HIS wife and son and household during his absence. Forget Clarke's excellent sequel novel "2010" -- as well as the mediocre film adaptation of it -- and get a clue as to what KUBRICK was more-than-hinting, for those who 'get' the classical references. There's nothing 'utopian' about the ending of Kubrick's "2001" -- far from it. Kubrick, in naming his film "a space odyssey," surely meant for us to compare it with Homer's source epic. Read what happens to those suitors when the 'bow-man' returns home, and tell me again, Pauline, that Kubrick intended for us to see the returning David Bowman -- now endued with godlike powers -- as portending some kind of wondrous, utopian future. No, it's an implied Apocalypse.
@@KaelSalad2024 Clarke wrote the novel as the film was in pre-production and production. Clarke considered his book to be a Novel -- NOT a Novelization. As I recall, the Bowman-Starchild, seeing the orbiting nuclear weapons platforms, used his power to destroy them, i.e. to 'cleanse' the Earth's orbital space of such things. In other words, he was to use his power to set things right. And, yes, the name 'David Bowman' was in the book, too, and not just the film. Clarke doesn't go into more detail than that depicting the return of Bowman-Starchild to Earth. It's my interpretation that Kubrick modeled 'Bowman' on Odysseus in this "space odyssey" especially as it was Odysseus's use of his Bow near the end of the story that presaged his bloody revenge against the suitors who had been ruining his home during his absence.
That part where she somehow completely missed the obvious mirror with Jack in his Stovington t-shirt in it, is quite telling of how this lady, who seemed to enjoy projecting her own shortcomings onto the silver screen, wasn't all there.
@@KaelSalad2024 15:17 She even calls it a "sweatshirt". Given you're someone who thinks Pauline was a competent film critic, I'm not surprised you don't get it either. I mean, it's only right there on the screen in front of you.
Thanks for pointing out the time stamp-that helped. You can see that I “corrected” Kael in red letters about this little error. She claimed to never go back and view films a second time, so this was disorienting for her.
Kael and Lotte Eisner are the Godmothers of film criticism; Kael is stoic towards The Shining and The Exorcist and called Platoon "soupy" . . . Critics are journalists, the don't seem to allow themselves to be engulfed by the films they're reviewing, Kael doesn't at least. Lotte Eisner in The Haunted Cinema, at least, explores and examines the movies like they're in petri dishes under a microscope. There's an overarching clinical distancing that critics seem to exude. They're not immersed in what they're seeing I feel
But Kael actually reveled in certain movies, taking immense pleasure in being swallowed up. I think that’s why she kept using such sex-tinged book titles like Taking It All In. She revealed how overwhelmed she became watching Casualties of War (another very long piece). When she took pleasure in something, it was visceral. Maybe I need to make a video where she’s revealing her sense of delight!
Kael says "we" a LOT when speaking only for herself. She complains about having no comic relief after calling Jack funny AND saying he isn't meant to be. Says who? This just feels like jealousy, honestly. Kael's observations sometimes reveal the text, sometimes herself. "All Work And No Play", "Redrum", the hedge maze, "Here's Johnny", the startling murder of Halloran, the frozen corpse of Jack, the visceral performance of Winters - all of these things were inventions of Kubrick's that deviate from the text. I would argue all are improvements that make this one of the best book adaptations ever put to screen, and one of the most rewatchable movies ever.
Curious which failed movie you’re referring to? I thought Beatty brought her on mainly as a consultant for filmmakers. I heard she really advocated to get David Lynch to direct Elephant Man.
Screw her, I was frightened; she writes like she's in the Upper Class. People in the Upper Class social stratum are so stoic, I chat with them every so often here in Ithaca and they sound like Pauline Kael's writing.
Kael upsetting the Kubrick fanboys. I saw the movie when it came out and it's about the only scary movie ever that didn't scare me. But the fanboys think it's profound.
Kael loved certain movies and hated others. She used her platform to express personal opinions in unique, challenging ways. I don’t think she had an anti-Hollywood agenda, and I also wouldn’t call The Shining a “Hollywood” example. It was an anomaly. A critic with an anti-everything agenda (minus conservative politics) is Mr. Armond White.
This was one of the most positive reviews Kael ever gave a Kubrick movie. As far as I know her one rave review was for 'Lolita'. Otherwise she was suspicious and often downright hostile to Kubrick's intentions, methods, and pretentions. But here with 'The Shining' there is a subtext of disappointment. You get the impression she WANTS to like it and it seems to me that she bends over backwards to point out all the things she does like about it. In any case Ive always loved her writing whether I agree with her or not.
Kael teaches me how to describe what I'm experiencing in a movie and how to "see" a movie but I can't stand her observations in this review from the Snobbish publication, The New Yorker, she's also writing for a snobbish readership
I don't know what your definition of snob is, but Kael mostly defied the culture of The New Yorker elites and celebrated films deemed "trash" by the upper classes. She wrote "Trash, Art, and the Movies" (a long piece) to explain her position, and she wrote from her gut--refusing to see movies more than once, which also meant she could get a few details wrong.
@@gterrymed my first time was watching some of it on network television so that’s not ideal-especially due to editing out nasty parts. I still haven’t had an immersive cinema experience, so I can’t claim terror.
Call me a consummate contrarian but- I’m pretty much in agreement with Kael here. The Shining, as adapted by Kubrick, has always felt hollow and cold, empty- and maybe that was his intention; but the end result never satisfied.
@@KaelSalad2024 I agree- and I put a lot of that down to their performances, and their being about the only “heart” in the film left to cling to after Jack goes off the deep end.
If what I've been told and read is true, Kael was no fan of horror movies at all, which leaves her in no position whatsoever to fairly judge any movie from the genre. To believe she could hate something and at the same time judge it without bias and on its actual merits, is conflictual to say the least. The fact that the movie is still regarded by many as one of the greatest horror films ever made, almost half a century removed, gives credence to her lack of judgement and impaired valuation of both the genre and film.
I saw “The Shining” in its original release. I didn’t dislike it, but I think it’s been fairly overrated. A good film? Yes. A masterpiece? Others will no doubt disagree, but I’d say no.
The movie is smarter than she was. And its smarter than King's novel. (What a terrible, sloppy, maudlin read that was.) And now that Kubrick's "The Shining" has been analyzed for 40+ years and still no one can give a definitive interpretation of it --- its obviously smarter than ALL of us. Sorry, OP. Neither you or Pauline Kael invented sliced bread here. But thanks for playing. 🥱
If OP means "old people," then some OP failed to show you the difference between "its" and "it's". I think the movie has many brilliant moments, and I'm going to take your word for it about the book (though King's Doctor Sleep sequel was terrific). I can't give you a definitive interpretation of Battlefield: Earth either, I'm sure, but that's not a great measure of my wits nor that movie's depth. Glad you watched the video and made a comment--just the "OP" seemed jerky.
@@KaelSalad2024 OP means "original poster." So it was obviously not meant as an insult. But how you mixed some weird kind of intergenerational warfare in with your grammar nazi insult is really quite remarkable. I've never seen that done before. lol. Anyway, don't worry. You won't hear from me again. But good luck with your channel. Peace out.
I was wrong to assume what you meant by OP was negative, and I shouldn't have singled out the grammar. I need to learn this culture on YT a lot better and not get so easily offended.
So, because the movie is a bit incomprehensible in a few places, that means the "movie is smarter" than anyone who might be unclear about some of Kubrick's use of symbolism? It appears you're at least aware that Stephen King disagreed with Kubrick's approach for Jack Toraance's character and that bothers you as much as the valid points raised in Kael's review.
@@boborrahood The movie "The Shining" is Kubrick's story, not King's. Stanley made that clear with the yellow bug for the Torrance family, and the red bug Halloran saw crashed on the road. So I'm not too concerned what King thinks of the movie. And yes, I've read the book --- but I'm no fan of it. But to each their own.
I'm glad you posted this reading of Kael's Shining review. I used to have a copy of one of her review anthologies, which contained it, but can't seem to find it. In any case, Kael has some genuinely on point criticisms of The Shining, however, the review is a bit of mess - she's all over the place as though she couldn't quite organize her thinking about it, and I think there's a distinct subtext that she may have felt out her element when trying to come to terms with what Kubrick's intent was. In fact, most of us are still trying to figure that question out, but when she goes on about how little Kubrick seems to care about the film's characters and how the actors depict them, she genuinely failed to understand that Kubrick was not interested in the psychological naturalistic style that informs commercial film acting - a style that allows audiences to readily identify with the characters. Kubrick doesn't make that sort of movie and never has. There has always been a dispassionate element in his treatment of his characters, as though viewing them from a distance. And it's no different in the Shining. There's a reason Kubrick often made actors do endless retakes of scenes, and that was to wean them off their instinctive "actorish" response and find something more primal within. This resulted in Nicholson giving one of his most over-the-top performances while Duval would give one of the greatest female cinematic performances of the twentieth century, enough to rival Renée Jeanne Falconetti in Dreyer's 1928 masterpiece "The Passion of Joan of Arc." And yes, I most sincerely mean that. Way past time Shelly got her due.
Duvall was pretty great, true.
@@KaelSalad2024 Kael's praise for her performance is the best part of the review. It's an interesting review, perceptive in many ways and yet blind in others.
In my opinion it’s an obvious masterpiece. It’s perfection!
In her review Kael was dead wrong about a lot of things. As in many of her observations about this and other films, she often didn't seem to have a lot of imagination, or at least a willingness to think outside the box (her calling 2001 a "monumentally unimaginative movie" is the kind of act that warrants eternal censure). The Shining broke new ground and was ahead of its time in many ways. It was essentially the first "slow burn" horror movie, or at least the best example of it. She (and many other critics) saw this as a flaw and found it boring, yet countless horror movies since then have used this same technique of setting mood and tone, and have received a great deal of praise for it. She wasn't much of a Kubrick fan, and her issues with him stemmed not from flaws on his part but from his always being one step ahead of her.
Having said all that...
I did listen to this whole review, which I'm sure says something about her astuteness -- or at least the quality of her writing. She does make a lot of smart observations; the problem is she draws the wrong conclusions from them. Still, if I found myself doing a lot of talking back to her review, that is a credit to her.
Unfortunately, she was also wrong about many other films that are now considered classics. Kaels hatred of Kubrick or Eastwood was manic. I honestly don't know why I should still be interested in the opinion of someone who has been wrong so often.
She also worked in Hollywood once. Where are the masterpieces she produced?
Overall I think she's too harsh but she makes some very interesting observations there. In a way they seem to mirror Malcolm McDowell's comment about Kubrick that I read recently: "Stanley can never understand the human element. If he could eliminate that, he could make the perfect movie." 😅
February 7, 2024
Little Alex must have missed Barry Lyndon. The instant retort to this old chestnut about Kubrick's inability to "understand the human element."
Well done! Both your reading and the video with her review printed over this and other film images add to this. I've been a longtime reader of Kael and met her a few times when she came out to San Francisco for appearances, interviews, book signings. I wrote to her at the New Yorker back in 1987 and then in 1995, when she wrote me back a second time. Now to see if I can replace that audio recording of her interview with Sedge Thompson on KQED from 1987(that was pulled off the internet).. She had given me written permission to get copies and asked if I'd like any of her books. She sent me the one you're reading this from, Taking It All In, inscribed to me along with that second letter. She had Parkinson's, but was able to still write somewhat legibly. I look forward to your next reading..
You’ve really encouraged me, Bob. It’s great to be connected with someone who met her-looking forward to hearing that interview. This is the subsequent Kael video I made:ua-cam.com/video/AUvxpXoQFOo/v-deo.htmlsi=44kTTqZq2inUw3G9
I love Pauline Kael when I agree with what she's saying, and with Dino De Laurentiis' KING KONG '76 Kael is Spot On; I even feel Exactly the way I did in 1978 when I read her review just now; I'm IN LOVE with that movie tied with the 1933 KING KONG that Kael calls "a stunt film" in comparison.
Yes. Out of all her reviews that is one of ones where I was most in agreement with her. I hate to use this often abused phrase but in the case of de Laurentiis' 'King Kong' Kael "just got it" where so many critics of that time and this just don't. One of the best balances of tone I've ever seen: satire, absurdist comedy, rat a tat three hander scenes between Lange- Bridges-Grodin, genuine spectacle, and truly surprusing heartbreaking melodrama with the eyes of Rick Baker sustaining the premise. And a truly great John Barry score. It could been a piece of 💩 but it navigated the landmines triumphantly. It reminds me of the US remake of 'The Office'. We were ready to shove into the dustbin of bad ideas but it made fools of us all thankfully.
Pauline Kael never fully understood Kubrick's work. If you read her review of 2001 - A Space Odyssey, that lack of understanding was already apparent. She was partly responsible for the very poor characterization that Kubrick's films are "cold" and detached from the human. Now, for me, if there is one thing that is evident in Kubrick's work, it is that it is profoundly humanist. Nobody would think of making the same criticism of the cinema of Robert Bresson, for example, a filmmaker who used actors as "models", who fulfilled narrative and dramatic functions, just as important as the meticulous positioning of the camera. However, in Bresson's films (and I would argue that just as in Kubrick's films) the main theme is always the human. As for The Shining - perhaps the most influential horror film of the 1980s - I think the brilliance of the cinematography greatly enhances the overall tone. Think of the opening sequence, where the simple juxtaposition of the helicopter shots with Wendy Carlos' soundtrack immediately summons up all the evil to come. A masterpiece.
She might not have labeled Bresson as “cold,” but she did write: “Robert Bresson has made several films of such sobriety that while some people find them awesomely beautiful, other people find sitting through them like taking a whipping and watching every stroke coming.” About Bresson’s “Au Hasard, Balthazar,” she says, “Considered a masterpiece by some, but others may find it painstakingly tedious and offensively holy.”
I don’t think Kubrick and Bresson’s films always have the “human” theme, but I do sense more empathy for their characters than Kael accused them of not expressing. I think Kubrick and Bresson used their movies to show humans at their weakest and most ridiculous at times.
@@KaelSalad2024 Yes, I agree. For example, The Shining isn't a humanist movie at all (I even find the thesis that the movie is a study of the descent into madness a bit far-fetched). Rather, it's a powerful exercise in the horror genre - in that sense, of all Kubrick's films, it's the one where it's most evident that cinema itself ends up being a theme. But films like Paths of Glory, Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut are certainly sober and adult reflections on the human condition. There would also be a lot to say about 2001 - A Space Odyssey.
@@KaelSalad2024 No film critic has an entirely clean record. She fiercely defended brilliant films that had been largely ignored, but failed to recognize the importance and depth of the work of directors like Kubrick and Cassavetes (In the case of the latter, it even seemed that her criticism was motivated by personal hatred).
Kael is cold and detached herself. Lol😅
I read this review, and I am still impressed with how she picked this one apart and noted the coldness of Kubrick’s style compared to Nicholson's performance.
Thanks for this!
Many people repeat things she said about The Shining here on UA-cam, as if they were new ideas.
February 7, 2024
@@hermanhale9258 Maybe because they also happen to agree with what Kael said, and might not have even read her review of it. And she stated her case with the most clarity and eloquence, for the enjoyment of many and the anger of a small minority. But then Siskel and Ebert, et al, didn't receive letters with threats of violence from that small minority., as she did.
@@boborrahood Possibly. Or, even if they did read it, they might not remember that they did, or what she said. They might innocently think it is their own idea.
Oddly enough, Kael had more positive things to say about "The Shining" than most of Kubrick's later movies. She had praise for the sound effects, the opening aerial shot, the steadicam tracking shot of the boy riding around on his tricycle, and the cleverness of the "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" scene.
I think she really wanted to like the movie, as she was a fan of both Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall, but was disappointed that it wasn't particularly scary and didn't make much sense.
Thank you for showing this review of Ms. Kael. I would be curious to know what she and Jeremy think of the analysis of Rob Ager and of Malmrose Projects. Most Sincerely, Chris Howley, Wollaston, Massachusetts
February 7, 2024
Man, I wonder what she would've made of David Fincher or Robert Eggars. I already have an idea of what she'd think of Nolan or Villaneuve.
I found Pauline Kael's review for KING KONG '76; I love her again. I adore KING KONG '76 having seen it as the two parter when I was 7 "The greatest misfit in movie history makes a comeback in this new version. Monster, pet, misunderstood kid, unrequited lover, all in one grotesquely oversized body, the innocent ape is martyred once again. The movie is a romantic adventure fantasy -- colossal, silly, touching, a marvellous Classics Comics movie (and for the whole family). . . .
king kong was a bigger deal than star wars to me and my friends back then.
I always felt the cold, detached, almost inhuman feeling to the Shining was part of the feeling which Kubrick wanted to elicit with the material. It underscores the alienation which all of the characters feel from one another, their environoment, and most importantly how Jack Torrence becomes aliented from his sanity. There is this weird feeling of 'the uncanny' which The Shinning elicits in me. I'm not frightened so much as mesmerized, bewildered, and then subtly disturbed.
Very well put. I get more than subtly disturbed, so that’s why it’s been a while since I popped it on. Doctor Sleep was also highly disturbing, and I don’t normally subject myself to horror movies. Maybe the most disturbing film I ever got through was Beloved. Don’t think I realized when I walked into cinema that they had me for 173 minutes.
Thanks for this video. I'm surprised she spent so much time on it, since she didn't like the movie. I mostly agree with her, especially on the scenes with Lloyd and Grady. I think the theme of the movie is mostly "War", and that is what the river of blood coming out of the elevator means. She thinks that is banal - so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring.
She makes some interesting points, and her review is fascinating. But she has a very old-world view, which was already retreating into the past as she was writing. And she was wrong, I was frightened. I was very frightened. She was, perhaps, too jaded, too in her own head.
At least she disagreed intelligently. Shes obviously a good writer and extremely knowledgeable. When i don't like a movie i just call it dumb. I guess that's why she was at the new York times and i wasn't.
She had a lot of different ways to describe how dumb she found different movies, yet she showed appreciation for some really “trash” movies, too, which caused some consternation with editors of The New Yorker.
Wow. Genius review.
Too many criticisms of PK's critique to be made, but I'll focus on this: she intimates that Kubrick's "2001" has a "utopian" ending, with its 'Star-Child' figure. But she seems to be unaware of the fact that that earlier film was titled "2001: a space odyssey" -- and Homer's 'Odyssey' culminates in its erstwhile hero returning home to Ithaca, which had suffered the depredations of the multitudinous suitors for the hand of his supposed 'widow' Penelope; Odysseus, magically disguised by the goddess Athena, is the only man who can successfully string Odysseus's bow and shoot an arrow through a series of aligned hoops -- proving that he is Odysseus, returned from Troy after a 20 year hiatus. Then Odysseus SLAUGHTERS each and every one of those suitors, cleaning house like it's the Second Coming of a vengeful Messiah.
The ending of "2001" -- for those who know their 'Odyssey' -- more-than-hints that the outcome following the return of David BOWMAN (remember Odysseus stringing his own bow?) in an exalted deified state will be RETRIBUTION for the wrongs done to the home he had left. Just as the 'divine intervention' of the Monolith had turned the herbivorous 'ape' Moonwatcher into an animal-killing now-carnivorous Man -- who then used his skull-smashing Tool to wreak his revenge upon the rival ape-man who had scared him and his tribe away from that pathetic water-hole, clubbing in his skull with that Bone-Tool -- so, too, will David Bowman do what that 'bow-man' (archer) from Ithaca did to those who had mistreated HIS wife and son and household during his absence.
Forget Clarke's excellent sequel novel "2010" -- as well as the mediocre film adaptation of it -- and get a clue as to what KUBRICK was more-than-hinting, for those who 'get' the classical references. There's nothing 'utopian' about the ending of Kubrick's "2001" -- far from it. Kubrick, in naming his film "a space odyssey," surely meant for us to compare it with Homer's source epic. Read what happens to those suitors when the 'bow-man' returns home, and tell me again, Pauline, that Kubrick intended for us to see the returning David Bowman -- now endued with godlike powers -- as portending some kind of wondrous, utopian future. No, it's an implied Apocalypse.
Does the Bowman name match Clarke’s novel? In the book, does David come back ready for vengeance?
That baby looked pretty nice to me! Maybe he was really a bad baby!
@@KaelSalad2024 Clarke wrote the novel as the film was in pre-production and production. Clarke considered his book to be a Novel -- NOT a Novelization. As I recall, the Bowman-Starchild, seeing the orbiting nuclear weapons platforms, used his power to destroy them, i.e. to 'cleanse' the Earth's orbital space of such things. In other words, he was to use his power to set things right. And, yes, the name 'David Bowman' was in the book, too, and not just the film. Clarke doesn't go into more detail than that depicting the return of Bowman-Starchild to Earth. It's my interpretation that Kubrick modeled 'Bowman' on Odysseus in this "space odyssey" especially as it was Odysseus's use of his Bow near the end of the story that presaged his bloody revenge against the suitors who had been ruining his home during his absence.
Kael was fantastic film critic however how does one critique a Kubrick film especially one as iconic as this one???
I believe she showed us how-in 11-12 extraordinary pages!
That part where she somehow completely missed the obvious mirror with Jack in his Stovington t-shirt in it, is quite telling of how this lady, who seemed to enjoy projecting her own shortcomings onto the silver screen, wasn't all there.
Kael had shortcomings-don’t we all! I confess I have no idea what you’re talking about with the t shirt
@@KaelSalad2024 15:17 She even calls it a "sweatshirt". Given you're someone who thinks Pauline was a competent film critic, I'm not surprised you don't get it either. I mean, it's only right there on the screen in front of you.
Thanks for pointing out the time stamp-that helped. You can see that I “corrected” Kael in red letters about this little error. She claimed to never go back and view films a second time, so this was disorienting for her.
Kael and Lotte Eisner are the Godmothers of film criticism; Kael is stoic towards The Shining and The Exorcist and called Platoon "soupy" . . . Critics are journalists, the don't seem to allow themselves to be engulfed by the films they're reviewing, Kael doesn't at least. Lotte Eisner in The Haunted Cinema, at least, explores and examines the movies like they're in petri dishes under a microscope. There's an overarching clinical distancing that critics seem to exude. They're not immersed in what they're seeing I feel
But Kael actually reveled in certain movies, taking immense pleasure in being swallowed up. I think that’s why she kept using such sex-tinged book titles like Taking It All In. She revealed how overwhelmed she became watching Casualties of War (another very long piece). When she took pleasure in something, it was visceral. Maybe I need to make a video where she’s revealing her sense of delight!
@KaelSalad2024 and she LOVED 😍 KING KONG '76 as do I. If you could read her review for KING KONG '76 I'd be grateful 🙏 its hard to find online.
Kael says "we" a LOT when speaking only for herself. She complains about having no comic relief after calling Jack funny AND saying he isn't meant to be. Says who? This just feels like jealousy, honestly. Kael's observations sometimes reveal the text, sometimes herself. "All Work And No Play", "Redrum", the hedge maze, "Here's Johnny", the startling murder of Halloran, the frozen corpse of Jack, the visceral performance of Winters - all of these things were inventions of Kubrick's that deviate from the text. I would argue all are improvements that make this one of the best book adaptations ever put to screen, and one of the most rewatchable movies ever.
Curious which failed movie you’re referring to? I thought Beatty brought her on mainly as a consultant for filmmakers. I heard she really advocated to get David Lynch to direct Elephant Man.
Screw her, I was frightened; she writes like she's in the Upper Class. People in the Upper Class social stratum are so stoic, I chat with them every so often here in Ithaca and they sound like Pauline Kael's writing.
Kael upsetting the Kubrick fanboys. I saw the movie when it came out and it's about the only scary movie ever that didn't scare me. But the fanboys think it's profound.
She hated Kubrick, all she did was criticize him.
The bright white settings are EXACTLY what makes it terrifying. Seeking revenge on Hollywood for her failure is a poor excuse to be a critic.
Kael loved certain movies and hated others. She used her platform to express personal opinions in unique, challenging ways. I don’t think she had an anti-Hollywood agenda, and I also wouldn’t call The Shining a “Hollywood” example. It was an anomaly. A critic with an anti-everything agenda (minus conservative politics) is Mr. Armond White.
It's odd that a critic as pretentious as Kael would miss what Kubrick was doing with The Shining.
Kael pretentious? Hmm. Well tell me then a film critic who is unpretentious, please.
A11 work and nobly makes Jack a dull boy.
A11 = Apollo 11
Charles and Delbert Grady aren't the same name watch Corn Pone Flicks if you wanna know the real meaning of this film
Who is the guy in the middle of the photo at the end of the film?
The black slab is the Devil, not God. Kubrick said everyone thinks it is God, but it is not God.
February 7, 2024
This was one of the most positive reviews Kael ever gave a Kubrick movie. As far as I know her one rave review was for 'Lolita'. Otherwise she was suspicious and often downright hostile to Kubrick's intentions, methods, and pretentions. But here with 'The Shining' there is a subtext of disappointment. You get the impression she WANTS to like it and it seems to me that she bends over backwards to point out all the things she does like about it. In any case Ive always loved her writing whether I agree with her or not.
Kael teaches me how to describe what I'm experiencing in a movie and how to "see" a movie but I can't stand her observations in this review from the Snobbish publication, The New Yorker, she's also writing for a snobbish readership
I don't know what your definition of snob is, but Kael mostly defied the culture of The New Yorker elites and celebrated films deemed "trash" by the upper classes. She wrote "Trash, Art, and the Movies" (a long piece) to explain her position, and she wrote from her gut--refusing to see movies more than once, which also meant she could get a few details wrong.
@@KaelSalad2024 did THE SHINING freak you out when you first saw it?
@@gterrymed my first time was watching some of it on network television so that’s not ideal-especially due to editing out nasty parts. I still haven’t had an immersive cinema experience, so I can’t claim terror.
Shining, zzzzz.
Call me a consummate contrarian but- I’m pretty much in agreement with Kael here. The Shining, as adapted by Kubrick, has always felt hollow and cold, empty- and maybe that was his intention; but the end result never satisfied.
I disagree in at least one way with her-I did really care about what might happen to Danny and his mom. The boy wasn’t just Kubrick’s puppet.
@@KaelSalad2024 I agree- and I put a lot of that down to their performances, and their being about the only “heart” in the film left to cling to after Jack goes off the deep end.
"Twin Mount Fuji's", brilliant! I appreciate Kael because I think the primary responsibility of a critic is to be entertaining.
If what I've been told and read is true, Kael was no fan of horror movies at all, which leaves her in no position whatsoever to fairly judge any movie from the genre. To believe she could hate something and at the same time judge it without bias and on its actual merits, is conflictual to say the least. The fact that the movie is still regarded by many as one of the greatest horror films ever made, almost half a century removed, gives credence to her lack of judgement and impaired valuation of both the genre and film.
I saw “The Shining” in its original release. I didn’t dislike it, but I think it’s been fairly overrated. A good film? Yes. A masterpiece? Others will no doubt disagree, but I’d say no.
A worst critic than Gene Siskel, if that's possible.
The movie is smarter than she was. And its smarter than King's novel. (What a terrible, sloppy, maudlin read that was.) And now that Kubrick's "The Shining" has been analyzed for 40+ years and still no one can give a definitive interpretation of it --- its obviously smarter than ALL of us. Sorry, OP. Neither you or Pauline Kael invented sliced bread here. But thanks for playing. 🥱
If OP means "old people," then some OP failed to show you the difference between "its" and "it's". I think the movie has many brilliant moments, and I'm going to take your word for it about the book (though King's Doctor Sleep sequel was terrific). I can't give you a definitive interpretation of Battlefield: Earth either, I'm sure, but that's not a great measure of my wits nor that movie's depth. Glad you watched the video and made a comment--just the "OP" seemed jerky.
@@KaelSalad2024 OP means "original poster." So it was obviously not meant as an insult. But how you mixed some weird kind of intergenerational warfare in with your grammar nazi insult is really quite remarkable. I've never seen that done before. lol. Anyway, don't worry. You won't hear from me again. But good luck with your channel. Peace out.
I was wrong to assume what you meant by OP was negative, and I shouldn't have singled out the grammar. I need to learn this culture on YT a lot better and not get so easily offended.
So, because the movie is a bit incomprehensible in a few places, that means the "movie is smarter" than anyone who might be unclear about some of Kubrick's use of symbolism? It appears you're at least aware that Stephen King disagreed with Kubrick's approach for Jack Toraance's character and that bothers you as much as the valid points raised in Kael's review.
@@boborrahood The movie "The Shining" is Kubrick's story, not King's. Stanley made that clear with the yellow bug for the Torrance family, and the red bug Halloran saw crashed on the road. So I'm not too concerned what King thinks of the movie. And yes, I've read the book --- but I'm no fan of it. But to each their own.