In this, her first collected volume, The Kaeler is at her best and most fresh. I may disagree with her, but there's never been a film critic with her quirky mind coupled with her stylish writing. She spends as much time reviewing the other film reviewers such as Bosley Crowther, Stanley Kauffmann, and Dwight MacDonald as she does reviewing the films. I never cared much for that crew anyway, so nothing is gained by setting them up as straw men. On "West Side Story" : Boobs and wiseguys, she asserts, try to impress with their seriousness. When the always boring Stanley Kauffmann calls it the best musicom ever made, The Kael snorts. The best are those which celebrate high spirits, giddy romance and light satire like "Singin' in the Rain," she counters. This is a book that meant a great deal to me when I was in college and looking forward to a career as a professor of film history and criticism. (It never happened, but that is a long story.) Ik heb in mijn essay over Nine½ Weeks geclaimd dat die film één grote ode is aan de geneugten van het

On "A View from the Bridge" : "Arthur Miller's intention is to create tragedy; but what we see is a man behaving so insanely that we keep wondering why he wasn't put away." te zijn en ‘Fatal Attraction’ de clichématige. 'Ladder' is een film die mensen direct interessant en goed vinden, omdat She is resolutely middlebrow in her taste, with a very light leaning toward the postmodern. While she hates big Hollywood productions like The Sound of Music, she appreciates Antonioni's L'Avventura and Godard's Breathless.Then the bugaboo, The Auteur Theory : This you must read, for The Kael is a Killer here. "What is all this nonsense about?" she asks most sensibly, noting that any film involves a team and Golden Age directors were simply assigned films. With deadly accuracy, she demolishes auteurism. the late, great Pauline Kael. This is a collection of her early, pre-New Yorker, writings about film. I have always been a Pauline Kael fan. I love the way she writes about movies -- even when I don't agree with her, or have no idea what she's talking about, it makes me excited about film and I find myself wanting to watch Last Year at Marienbad again (which normally is the kind of idea that should make you say OH FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, NO.) just to see particular things she is talking about. All of that said, in many ways the woman was a raving lunatic, and that also comes through. I'm torn over whether or not to include some specific examples of her kookiness, mostly involving homosexuality but some real gems on race as well, because I worry that the fun of pointing and laughing at the crazy lady (and to be fair, some of it no doubt seemed less demented in the late 1950s/early 1960s) would overshadow her truly perceptive exploration of the movies and American culture. Is There a Cure for Film Criticism? Or, Some Unhappy Thoughts on Siegfried Kracauer's Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality of a Psycho” is far from a waste of time, what makes this new drive-in double feature from Vinegar Syndrome truly

I have always been a great admirer of Kael's film criticism, even while most of the time I didn't agree with her. There is something about her writing that even while she dislikes a film and will bluntly just say that she dislikes movies that others consider good or even great, she enjoys the act of experiencing the picture and talking about them. I also love how she often will gauge the reactions of an audience around her, even mentioning comments by people made during the viewing. Gauging audience reaction is a big part (in my honest opinion) as to whether a picture is working or not. The other night I saw JURASSIC WORLD: FALLEN KINGODOM and while I hated it (it is a really badly scripted movie), the audience didn't seem to care and loved watching the humans running from and (some) being eaten by dinosaurs. A group behind me made some amusing comments, and it reminded me of Kael and I am sure that if she were alive and reviewing the picture from that screening, she would use some of those comments to enhance her point. The book actually does not contain the full range of Kael's writings published in magazines from this period. From 1962–64, Kael had written for a short-lived section of Film Quarterly entitled Films of the Quarter, alongside other critics such as Stanley Kauffmann and the screenwriter Gavin Lambert. Some, but not all, of these writings are included in this book. Sex is the great leveler; taste the great divider. I have premonitions of the beginning of the end when a man who seems charming or at least remotely possible starts talking about movies. When he says, “I saw a great picture a couple of years ago—I wonder what you thought of it?” I start looking for the nearest exit. His great picture generally turns out to be He Who Must Die or something else that I detested—frequently a socially conscious problem picture of the Stanley Kramer variety. Boobs on the make always try to impress with their high level of seriousness (wise guys, with their contempt for all seriousness). In reference to the title of the book, the critic Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote an article entitled "I Missed It at the Movies: Objections to Raising Kane" as a rebuttal to Kael's essay on Citizen Kane, which had been entitled " Raising Kane".

Discover

Still though, reading Kael is engaging and inspires actual thought, and I look forward to re-reading my way through her collected writings.

APA style: Pauline Kael: I lost it at the movies.. (n.d.) >The Free Library. (2014). Retrieved Nov 28 2023 from https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Pauline+Kael%3a+I+lost+it+at+the+movies.-a014580121 Chicago style: The Free Library. S.v. Pauline Kael: I lost it at the movies.." Retrieved Nov 28 2023 from https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Pauline+Kael%3a+I+lost+it+at+the+movies.-a014580121 kleurfilters, lijkt ‘Magic Mike’ misschien nog het meest op een Andrew Christian video, filmpjes die altijd op de rand van gay porno zittenor even extraordinary, but at the very least they are all very good movies. But then of course, what