Kael

Pauline Kael has been revered by many and loathed by some for her blatant opinions of movies. In reading Afterglow by Francis Davis and House Critic by Renata Adler two very different perspectives of this American movie critic are presented. Davis praises Kael for her straight-forwardness while Adler chews her to pieces for a, “jarringly, piece by piece, line by line, and without interruption, worthless”, collection of reviews. Adler, though tough, provided enough examples to prove that Kael was no “great”.

Kael, born in 1919 to Jewish Polish immigrant parents, rose to celebrity critic standing after working menial tasks and writing reviews here and there. Kael hit her stride when working for The New Yorker in 1968. She worked as one of two critics until 1979 when she became the sole film critic. Over the course of her career, Kael published five collections of reviews, I Lost it at The Movies, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, When the Lights Go Down, Taking it All In, and Deeper Into the Movies. After living with Parkinson’s disease for ten years, Kael announced her retirement in 1991.

Kael was often praised for her colloquial writing style. She wrote that movies were a “pop” experience and wanted to write in a manner that everyone could understand. Kael spoke negatively about avant-garde, haute couture, and art house films and audiences saying an educated audience uses these films, “in much the same self-indulgent way as the mass audience uses the Hollywood ‘product’, finding wish fulfillment in the form of cheap and easy congratulation on their sensitivities and their liberalism”. Yet Kael’s work often makes the reader feel unintelligent and Kael seem overbearing and pretentious. She often compares work that doesn’t compare to the movie or speaks to the audience like they couldn’t understand what she was saying.

Often, Kael’s reviews were meandering, autobiographical conversations. It took Kael a considerable number of words to actually review the film. When she did begin, as Adler points out, Kael was quick to use many similar phrases such as “whore”, “myth”, “pop”, “pulp”, and “visceral”. Adler, writer for The New Yorker, critiqued Kael on her refusal to acknowledge mistakes she made, incessantly asking open-ended questions, making up endings to words, and selling out by moving to Hollywood. Adler makes many good points and provides numerous examples to support her view on Kael.

Over time Kael gained a following and during her time many critics devoted themselves to writing in her style; these critics were called “Paulettes”. Currently, A.O. Scott, film critic for the New York Times and Roger Ebert, leading film critic, admit to being influenced by Kael. Also, movie directors would send her copies of scripts or advanced copies of their movies for her to review. If Kale gave a director a positive review they were kept in work, if she was negative it could mean a director would stop making movies. David Lean, for example, said he was so traumatized by Kael’s review that he was too afraid to make another movie for 14 years.

Kael has had many fans and many critics over her long life. One thing everyone can agree upon is that her work has changed the way audiences, critics, and directors see movies. She didn’t even like “Star Wars”!