Response to Pauline Kael

Since the 1940s, according to Renata Adler, the New York Times has reviewed almost every movie that opened in New York as it would not consider reviewing every book, exhibit, or cultural event. Movie is one of many favorite pastimes of American people and it brings up broad critical discussions. In that sense, Pauline Kael had a significant impact on the 20th Century’s culture industry.

In a delightful memento of whom often addressed as the most influential film critic of our time, Afterglow, Kael’s acerbic, yet honest insights on a variety of topics come through in an informal interview clearly and entertainingly as they did in her published reviews. Francis Davis, author and a friend of Kael, confesses how he once used Kael’s review to convince a friend to watch a movie with him. Her enthusiasm for films is highly contagious for she praised or slammed the movie with frivolous vitality. The colorful details and vivid images she presents to the readers are stimulating. However, upon deciding that she does not appreciate the movie, her bitter straight-shooting is enough to make one wonder if Kael has any sympathy for the movie director or the actors.

Pauline Kael always wrote with brutal honesty and that is what makes her stand out. She is not afraid to write as she saw things. In the times when the critics are way too concerned with having the ‘right taste,’ Kael’s confident voice is very refreshing. One may have a total opposite taste in film as Kael, yet cannot help but to feel curious what she has to say about the new film. The honesty and sincerity under all her flare allows her readers to relate – or empathize – better with her reviews.

Another great merit of hers was that she wanted to write about movies the way people really talked as they were leaving the theatre. She believed that writing in academic English in an attempt to elevate movies actually lowers them. She was a professional movie critic, and of course her reviews are a little more elaborate than simply saying ‘good, bad, or ugly.’ However, Kael’s reviews are not at all intimidating – you do not have to read the same sentence over and over again to figure out what it means.

Pauline Kael bluntly complains how we all have become a heavy-handed society that wants movies to be about the misery and alienation of our generation. However, her claim of being a fan of lighthearted lowbrow movies is jeopardized by Adler’s critic that she, in principle, likes frissons of horror; physical violence; sex scenes; and fantasies of invasion in films (and most people would agree that those are heavy and turgid topics.) Her reviews also indicate her fondness of heated up discussions and conflicts.

Although, often accused of writing more stimulating reviews than the actual film, and also of writing about everything else – including the related social issues – but the fil itself, her reviews easily provoke curiosity in any reader. Either convinced by her rave, or just to see if she’s right, or even for the sake of proving one of the most influential critics of the time wrong, Kael’s readers once again head to the box office.