sandbox pauline kael and 70s lookback book club thread

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (182 of them)

I guess that's as much as you're going to come around on the book--fair enough. My arguments in this thread have primarily been against two phrases: "hatchet job" and "hackwork." I think of the former as being written out of personal pique or vendetta, with the express purpose of discrediting someone. "Hackwork" to me can mean sloppily researched, poorly written, or written quickly and cavalierly, as a way to cash in on something. I don't believe any of those things even remotely apply to A Life in the Dark. Specific complaints about how much personal opinion Kellow should be allowed to interject, or your problems with the Prizzi's Honor quote (which I didn't give a second thought to when I read the book, undoubtedly because I never gave a second thought to Prizzi's Honor the film), fine. I don't agree, but clearly there seems to something of a split opinion on that element of the book.

clemenza, Thursday, 15 December 2011 00:38 (twelve years ago) link

One can put enormous care into a book and still emerge with a hack job.

Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 December 2011 13:20 (twelve years ago) link

Also: Kellow comes off much better in that round table posted above, better than Camille Paglia, who by the second rambling monologue should have had someone sit on her face.

Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 December 2011 13:36 (twelve years ago) link

Didn't mind Camille that much because that's just the way she is and every once in while she would quote something very specific that was interesting and somebody else would pick up on that. Thought Toback repeated himself a lot but I guess he such a key figure in the PK story that it was worth it to hear his eyewitness viewpoint.

wang dang google doodle (James Redd), Thursday, 15 December 2011 14:46 (twelve years ago) link

You're in luck! The rest of the book is 10,000,000 Nights at the Movies.
Frank Rich review says this part starts when she gets to the New Yorker
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/books/review/roaring-at-the-screen-with-pauline-kael.html?pagewanted=all

At this triumphant juncture, a reader should turn to Kael’s full New Yorker reviews rather than Kellow’s year-after-year summaries of them. His narrative bogs down in recaps of movie plots and the juvenile jockeying that attended the annual awards balloting by the New York film critics’ organizations. Mercifully, this chronicle finally gives way to a dishy, if depressing, account of Kael’s decline. If her rise inspired many young writers to enter film criticism, her fall is a cautionary tale illustrating why critics in positions of power should get out while the getting is good, before they invariably flame out in corruption, self-parody, first-person megalomania or, in Kael’s case, all three.

wang dang google doodle (James Redd), Thursday, 15 December 2011 15:23 (twelve years ago) link

One can put enormous care into a book and still emerge with a hack job.

I suppose that's true, and if I thought Kellow were a bad writer, I'd agree. I think A Life in the Dark is very well written.

I go both ways with Paglia (I've still only watched half of the panel clip). Sometimes she makes me laugh (with her, not at her), other times I want to run for cover. I saw her speak about her poetry book a few years back. Ages ago, I had a film class with a girl who Paglia reminds me of so much. I remember she got drunk at a professor's party, didn't say a word for the next few weeks of class, and when she finally rejoined the discussion, it was (to coin a phrase) like a hurricane.

clemenza, Thursday, 15 December 2011 15:33 (twelve years ago) link

As a panel member she was ideal but a Quaalude wouldn't have helped.

Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 December 2011 15:54 (twelve years ago) link

*would've

Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 December 2011 15:54 (twelve years ago) link

If her rise inspired many young writers to enter film criticism, her fall is a cautionary tale illustrating why critics in positions of power should get out while the getting is good, before they invariably flame out in corruption, self-parody, first-person megalomania or, in Kael’s case, all three.

If critics like Rich would stop conflating the decline of American movies and the decline of Kael's prose, they'd stop writing drivel like this. I only notice a decline around 1990 and '91 when the paragraphs get choppier and her theses aren't fully realized (Kellow is partly right when he cites her Goodfellas review as an example).

Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 December 2011 15:56 (twelve years ago) link

Surely you would agree that you're in the minority in thinking that her '80s writing is the equal of her '70s (or earlier) writing.

clemenza, Thursday, 15 December 2011 17:25 (twelve years ago) link

I don't know! Like I wrote, we all agree Hollywood film wasn't as exciting in the eighties, but I can't remember anybody arguing that Kael's prose suffered a commensurate decline.

Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 December 2011 17:28 (twelve years ago) link

I guess I just have a hard time completely detaching the writing from the films themselves. I mean, obviously she didn't stop being a great writer--I'm not trying to say that. But for most of the eighties, I'm not as excited by her reviews of (say) Prizzi's Honor or Enemies: A Love Story or My Beautiful Laundrette as I am by those of Godfather II or Nashville or Invasion of the Body Snatchers because the films don't mean nearly as much to me. Now and again--Casualties of War would be the best example for me--we're back in sync. This is why comments of Kellow's like the Prizzi's Honor one above didn't bother me. I didn't even notice.

clemenza, Thursday, 15 December 2011 18:52 (twelve years ago) link

Saw Chinatown yesterday at the Lightbox, introduced by Adam Nayman, a local critic. The two endings--Towne's vs. Polanski's--came up, and reference was made to Kael's review. This is one time where I think she was completely wrong: her contention that Towne's ending, where Cross gets away with it but Evelyn leaves town, would have been better. Polanski's ending to me is perfect--and I agree with Nayman that it's not Polanski's "gargoyle grin" asserting itself, but rather a very anguished expression of his guilt over Sharon Tate's murder. (Supposedly he always felt guilty for not being there the night of the murder.)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/movies/brushing-up-on-roman-polanskis-downbeat-endings/article2271445/print/

clemenza, Monday, 19 December 2011 22:30 (twelve years ago) link

funnily enough, I vividly remember Kael writing approvingly that Jack's dopey hitman in Prizzi's Honor played like a cross between Ralph Kramden and Ed Norton.

Of course, I prefer Prizzi's Honor to the first Godfather film.

Dr Morbius, Monday, 19 December 2011 23:04 (twelve years ago) link

thx for reminding me that I need to see Prizzi's Honor

aesthetic partisan (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 19 December 2011 23:09 (twelve years ago) link

Huston had to explain to a flummoxed Nicholson that it's a comedy.

Lord Sotosyn, Monday, 19 December 2011 23:11 (twelve years ago) link

Something else came up yesterday that I'd never thought about, and I've probably seen Chinatown 15-20 times: Huston saying to Nicholson "Are you sleeping with my daughter" at a time when in real life he was.

clemenza, Monday, 19 December 2011 23:21 (twelve years ago) link

Huston supposedly said of P'sH, "Jack, everything you've done is infused with intelligence, and we can't have any of that here."

Dr Morbius, Monday, 19 December 2011 23:24 (twelve years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.