"I Lost It at the Movies", Pauline Kael
Pauline Kael (1919-2001) was an American film critic for The New Yorker. A personality of great influence in American cinema, she became known for her persuasive writing style and keen opinions, often in countercurrent with those of her contemporaries [such as her negative reviews of La Notte (1961) and West Side Story (1961)], using a personal style unable to fit into any dogma. She was one of the most striking opponents of the auteur theory as defended by Andrew Sarris, having written the article Circles and Squares that exposes, in a severe way, the frailties and the risks of this concept. This opposition also led to the creation of Raising Kane, a book where Kael defended Herman J. Mankiewicz as the sole author of the screenplay of Citizen Kane (1941). She was also a strong impulse for New Hollywood, through her long essay defending Bonnie and Clyde (1967).
Over the years she created compilations of her film reviews and essays, where one can notice a constant sociological concern in the historical context in which the film arises. I Lost it at the Movies, published in 1965, is the first of her books. Looking at her writing, it is possible to observe that she evaluates essentially the literary aspects of a film, citing critics with opinions contrary to hers to deconstruct their arguments, using also her own personal experiences for that effect.
Corrosive, controversial, Kael's writing style became influent on American criticism over the years, to the point of calling the male critics who imitated her writing as "Paulettes". Filmmakers as Quentin Tarantino and Wes Anderson have already shown admiration for her work and how she helped them to develop their style. Paul Schrader began his career as a film critic thanks to her recommendation. Warren Beatty even hired her as a consultant at Paramount, a short experience that ran in a negative way. It's easy to make a list of filmmakers, actors and even producers that truly changed film history. More difficult is to make one with film critics (and if we exclude the Cahiers du Cinéma group of the '50s, it becomes almost herculean). But in this list, surely the name of Kael is assured.
Excerpts:
"The gangster films in the thirties expressed a fundamental hostility to society and authority; the gangsters made their own way, even if they paid for it by prison or death. But in the thirties the gangsters were not the only rebels, there was a large active body of political rebellion, given partial expression in films by the dispossessed heroes who asked for a job, a home, and a life. In the fifties there is no American political rebellion, there is not even enough political theory to give us a feasible explanation of delinquency itself-the new dissidents who say that a job, a home, and the life that goes with them aren't worth the trouble. One thing seems evident: when the delinquent becomes the hero in our films, it is because the image of instinctive rebellion expresses something in many people that they don't dare express. These kids seem to be the only ones who are angry about apathy: they seem to be the only ones with guts enough, or perhaps they are the only ones irresponsible enough, to act out a no to the whole system of authority, morality and prosperity." in The Glamour of Delinquency: On the Waterfront, East of Eden, Blackboard Jungle...
"When Shoeshine opened in 1947, I went to see it alone after one of those terrible lovers' quarrels that leave one in a state of incomprehensible despair. I came out of the theater, tears streaming, and overheard the petulant voice of a college girl complaining to her boyfriend, 'Well I don't see what was so special about that movie.' I walked up the street, crying blindly, no longer certain whether my tears were for the tragedy on the screen, the hopelessness I felt for myself, or the alienation I felt from those who could not experience the radiance of Shoeshine. For if people cannot feel Shoeshine, what can they feel?" on Shoeshine
"Criticism is an art, not a science, and a critic who follows rules will fail in one of his most important functions: perceiving what is original and important in new work and helping others to see." in Circles and Squares
Link to the complete book in PDF:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zZdUqDOHdDMcXPCLBs_IzHROh7jSWjBo/view?usp=sharing |
| Pauline Kael |
Comments
Post a Comment