I Lost It at the Movies.

Product Information

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 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. 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.

A more adverse reaction comes from the auteurist Andrew Sarris, mainly as a result of the essay '" Circles and Squares", which was originally published in Film Quarterly. Sarris's reaction was in response to Kael's denunciation of the Auteur theory's merits, and has, in later years, occasionally jabbed at Kael's work. Examples of his critical observations are available in his books, e.g., The Primal Screen and Politics and Cinema. With the exception of "Circles and Squares", Kael has rarely responded. Notwithstanding Kael's unresponsive silence, this has gone down in film lore as the Sarris-Kael feud. 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. When an interviewer asked her in later years as to what she had "lost", as indicated in the title, Kael averred, "There are so many kinds of innocence to be lost at the movies." [1] It is the first of Kael's books titled with deliberately erotic connotations, typifying the sensual relation Kael perceived herself as having with the movies, as opposed to the theoretical bent that some among her colleagues had. Is There a Cure for Film Criticism? Or, Some Unhappy Thoughts on Siegfried Kracauer's Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Realityseksueel actieve vrouw die daarmee haar toegewezen plaats verlaat, de status quo bedreigt en om die reden Still though, reading Kael is engaging and inspires actual thought, and I look forward to re-reading my way through her collected writings. MLA style: "Pauline Kael: I lost it at the movies.." The Free Library. 1993 Artforum International Magazine, Inc. 28 Nov. 2023 https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Pauline+Kael%3a+I+lost+it+at+the+movies.-a014580121

Kaufman has been successfully channelling his negative impulses for about two decades now. He’s also been misunderstood as a misanthrope for roughly as long. Of all the adjectives one might apply to his scripts, as well as his directorial efforts, “mean-spirited” probably shouldn’t be one of them, nor should “ironic.” Unlike certain other brand-name purveyors of millennial “smart cinema,” Kaufman doesn’t countenance glib distance. Hence the legitimately thrilling dynamics of his work with Spike Jonze, whose detached music-video sensibility gives Kaufman’s whirligig scripts plenty of room; temperamentally, he’s closer to his other major collaborator, Michel Gondry, whose cute-is-what-we-aim-for style is more hit-or-miss. In any event, I choose to take the moments of sentimental pathos in Kaufman’s films, like Nicolas Cage serenading his brother-slash-shadow-self with the Turtles’ “Happy Together” at the close of Adaptation (2002), at face value. 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). 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 first Kael -- Light Kael -- writes these incredibly nuanced, incredibly humane essays that do what criticism is supposed to do: they show you something about a work of art you could not see yourself. For instance, she's able to take an art house film that I didn't fully understand (e.g. Jules and Jim) and show me exactly what made it worthwhile; or take a movie that I had reservations about (e.g. 8 1/2) and put words to what I couldn't, pinpointing precisely why the movie rings hollow. She just cares about art so much, and that shines in every sentence Light Kael writes.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 Despite having some extremely different views to Pauline Kael (mainly in her disillusionment with auteur theory, her outright rejection of many arthouse/experimental films that lean towards surrealism and certainly politically), it amazes me that I still consider her one of the greatest critics of all time. She challenges my whole perception of a masterpiece. There are works that I would consider flawless that she will find flaws in and the oddest thing is I don't necessarily disagree with the point she makes. 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). or even extraordinary, but at the very least they are all very good movies. But then of course, what