Several folks in the theater cheered when one of the interviewees said, "F@#K! Pauline Kael!"
For those who don't know who Kael was, she was a critic for The New Yorker who, while she could write, was also the kind of pompous self-important critic that many find unreadable. She was, in many ways, the opposite of the intelligent populist that many of us saw in Roger Ebert.
F#$K! Pauline Kael!, indeed......
The line indeed gets a laugh...but I think the man who uses it(an old buddy of Ebert's) was basically saying, "Look, Pauline Kael got all the write-ups, but Roger Ebert made zillions off his TV show and ended up the most famous movie critic of all time."
Its sort of like saying Kael's Roberto Rossellini and Ebert's Alfred Hitchcock. Money and fame will out.
Siskel got rich along with Ebert, but Ebert had a sideline going in books and eventually Siskel died and Ebert was a solo act for over a decade(interesting, I read in Ebert's autobio that after Siskel died, Jay Leno didn't book Ebert much as a "single" -- and then stopped booking him at all. Without Siskel, Ebert wasn't a "novelty act" anymore.)
Its funny...because of his bravery in the face of a long and hideous death, Ebert's a bit of a saint now. But he used to be rather "besmirched" in the critical community. I mean, his show had the "Dog of the Week" lousy movie segment
Meanwhile, the biography of Pauline Kael from a few years ago notes that she was quite low-paid for most of her life, certainly by the New Yorker. She supplemented that income with speeches and she published some review collections, but she wasn't rich. Indeed, one reason she took an ill-fated, sure-to-be doomed job working in Hollywood for Warren Beatty was..she needed the money. And Beatty turned her over to studio execs who just said "no" to every project Kael pitched. And she went back to New York a bit richer, but broken.
This is a great post ... sort of highlights the problem with this kind of work and the problems with politics in general.
I think Roger was a better critic early on, but I think he also realized what was in the cards, and sold out whole-heartedly.
I'd rather read a critic like Pauline Kael any day, even though I've never heard of her.
None of the critics that made it into the "future" had any kind of critical or negative reviews. They might pick one movie at random that did not have anyone that would take offense to pan while they are talk up the most outrageous garbage.
My best example is "Prometheus" which Roger gives 4 stars. That was quite possibly the worst science fiction movie every made if you take the ( rating / cost ) quotient into account ... it stunk. There was not one moment in that movie that was not all about the effects. Everything else was awful, and the plot made no sense.
What I expected from Ebert if he wanted my respect ... which clearly he did give a rat's patootie about, was someone who would make the effort to try to really criticize some of these movie ... but there were so many many bad movies that I guess his show would have just escalated to the absurd.
Or maybe they just liked movies you didn't? I have heard from people that love Prometheus and it's mysteries, giving it top ratings, so just because you don't like it don't mean that others can't.
shareBest line in the movie? Good Lord.
I can't imagine the people who cheered that line have actually read any of her criticism. They probably were just responding to the documentary's positioning of her as an arrogant, insular East Coast critic. She wrote for the New Yorker instead of the proletarian Sun-Times, so she must be full of herself.
Actually, her reviews are anything but pompous. She responded to movies in a very immediate way. Through her concise prose (5001 Nights at the Movies is an invaluable collection of capsule reviews) she established a truly unique point of view on what makes movies important and meaningful. She's up there with the finest film critics. Like the best critics, you can enjoy a review by her even if you haven't seen the movie.
Here's a great appreciation of her work by someone you might be familiar with: http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/knocked-up-at-the-movies
Oh, I read a LOT of Pauline Kael.
Her and her Kael-ies disciples and descendants are some of the most insufferable critics then...and now.
Pauline Kael was a fantastic film critic. Just a different style than Ebert.
I did laugh with that quote tho.
"That moonwalk back there was streets ahead buddy."
[deleted]
Pauline Kael was a credible and intelligent writer who's opinion was worth noting...her problem however was that she tried to use her power as a respected film critic to not only kill good films before they could find an audience, but to attempt to kill the careers of people she didn't like. She would intentionally try to hurt people on a personal level with her reviews and various dealings with Hollywood, acting as though er opinion was the gold standard and should be agreed with by all. She was the kind of person who constantly attempted to put herself on a pedestal of excellence while stepping on others in a very mean spirited way. In other words, while talented, Pauline Kael was a bitch. And she admitted to that later in life as I recall.
[deleted]
your memory is a bit off regarding aliens. while he did dwell on the intensity of the movie and how unpleasant it was for him, he also gave it 3.5 stars - hardly a low rating. i'd assume that the rating reflects how effective aliens was at connecting with him, even though it wasn't a pleasant experience.
shareNothing against Roger Ebert but Pauline Kael AND James Agee (I might also add Richard Schickel) were better film critics. It's that simple.
shareThat is great! And, it still has punch, even when bleeped on the CNN airing. It shows the divide between the working-class Chicago folk and someone they viewed as being from the elitist class like Kael.
I. Drink. Your. Milkshake! [slurp!] I DRINK IT UP! - Daniel Plainview - There Will Be Blood
Roger excelled over even the best critics in his (a) television work, and (b) ability to engage in spirited debates. Kaufmann, Canby, and Kael may be better writers, but put them on TV and the viewers would probably fall asleep in a minute. Discussing and debating on TV is a whole new set of skills that depend on not just what you say, but also how you say it. And his debates with Gene were so engaging and impactful that law school students have studied them. That makes Roger a multi-dimensional film critic unlike any other. I'm glad the film "Life Itself" touched on his early television works where he looked ill at ease, and showed how he grew into this engaging personality in print and on screen.
This is most likely going to get me shot down, but honestly imo, Pauline Kael came off near (repeat, near) Armond White levels in her day.
Sure, I have to agree that she created a much-needed wave of wit in film criticism that resonates to this day, but most of the time it seemed like she was criticizing directors and actors for their natural being rather than their performance in a film. When she praised the camp and shot down a classic, for me it came off as attention-grabbing shock value than valid criticism.
Again, I won't disagree that she was a large influence to many, but not all of her traits should be her put on a golden pedestal. Ebert himself had his flaws, but he showed humanity first and foremost, and he spoke to the viewers face to face, never trult talking down.
"DO NOT WRECK THIS GIGANTIC DOOM."