The Corner

Film & TV

Pauline Kael at 100

The Hollywood sign in Los Angeles, Calif. (Lucy Nicholson/Reuters)

Pauline Kael, whose film criticism anchored The New Yorker between 1968 and 1991, would have turned 100 on June 19. (She died in 2001.) Farran Smith Nehme has a nice appreciation of The Pleasures of Pauline Kael at the website of the British Film Institute. Check it out.

Anyone interested in film or in writing should have on their shelves copies of, at the least, For Keeps and 5001 Nights at the Movies. Kael was not only a great American film critic. She was also a great American writer. You can learn a lot from studying her prose.

She convinced by the cleverness of her polemics and the passion spent upon her enthusiasms, John Podhoretz wrote of Kael in The American Scholar in 1989. She was also, when writing in top form, very readable. That was often.

Reviewing her collection Going Steady for the April 7, 1970, issue of National Review, Richard Corliss said Kael had become the best film critic in — oh, what the hell — ever.” Her influence was felt by younger writers, including Owen Gleiberman and James Wolcott, and by filmmakers, from Brian De Palma to Robert Altman to Quentin Tarantino. She achieves what a great teacher does, Corliss went on, pouring knowledge and understanding into her readers, and drawing a tough-minded but expansive film attitude out of them.

Several years later, in a National Review essay pegged to Kael’s collection Deeper Into Movies, John Simon took a different tack. Miss Kael’s zest, wit, sharpness, knowledgeableness, and juicy idiosyncrasies shine on unabated, Simon wrote in the March 30, 1973, issue. Indeed, Miss Kael has become so much of a mythic phenomenon and household commodity, a still voice lurking at the back of many an unconscious and thundering critical avalanche gathering adherents as it rampages on, that it is time to assess the manifestation itself.

Simon argued that Kael tended to equate, more or less, vulgarity with vitality. He said she used movies as a surrogate for life. Her critical judgment suffered when she went to films for purposes of wish fulfillment, escape, rebellion against parental authority, and nostalgia. Kael’s attitude toward audiences displayed a yearning to become part of the community. She was a person endowed with superior intelligence but gladly willing to sacrifice some (though not all) of it for the sake of warming herself on the bosom of the crowd. Kael was a movie democrat, Simon a cinematic republican.

What strikes the reader of Kael today is how seriously she took her responses to the movies, and how she tried to understand the reasons behind her responses. She was a true intellectual. Like a true intellectual, she was loved irony and opposed cant, euphemism, and cliché. The title of her first collection was I Lost It At the Movies. But Pauline Kael’s loss was our gain.

Most Popular

White House

Nikki Haley Has a Point

Nikki Haley isn’t a Deep Stater. She’s not a saboteur. She wouldn’t undermine the duly elected president, no siree! That’s the message that comes along with Haley’s new memoir With All Due Respect. In that book, she gives the politician’s review of her career so far, shares some details about her ... Read More
White House

Trump vs. the ‘Policy Community’

When it comes to Russia, I am with what Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman calls the American “policy community.” Vindman, of course, is one of the House Democrats’ star impeachment witnesses. His haughtiness in proclaiming the policy community and his membership in it grates, throughout his 340-page ... Read More
Law & the Courts

DACA’s Day in Court

When President Obama unilaterally changed immigration policy after repeatedly and correctly insisting that he lacked the constitutional power to do it, he said that congressional inaction had forced his hand. In the case of his first major unilateral move — “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” which ... Read More
Books

A Preposterous Review

A   Georgetown University professor named Charles King has reviewed my new book The Case for Nationalism for Foreign Affairs, and his review is a train wreck. It is worth dwelling on, not only because the review contains most of the lines of attack against my book, but because it is extraordinarily shoddy and ... Read More