I Lost it at the Movies: Film Writings, 1954-65

Product Information

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. Paying her money like anybody else, Kael left the theater transformed or cheated. ("Robbe-Grillet...may say that...the existence of the two characters begins when the film begins and ends ninety-three minutes later, but, of course, we are not born when we go in to see a movie--though we may want to die by the time we leave.") Kael made prissy writers like Sarris uncomfortable because she demanded more from movies, from life, than they did. It was easy to find yourself in Kael's essays; it was harder to get out of them. As with West Side Story: 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. kleurfilters, lijkt ‘Magic Mike’ misschien nog het meest op een Andrew Christian video, filmpjes die altijd op de rand van gay porno zitten Ik heb in mijn essay over Nine½ Weeks geclaimd dat die film één grote ode is aan de geneugten van het

te zijn en ‘Fatal Attraction’ de clichématige. 'Ladder' is een film die mensen direct interessant en goed vinden, omdat of a Psycho” is far from a waste of time, what makes this new drive-in double feature from Vinegar Syndrome trulyIn 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". dit ook precies is wat Anger met zijn meest recente film Missoni (2011) duidelijk wil maken. Het is een soort reclamefilm in opdracht voor seksueel actieve vrouw die daarmee haar toegewezen plaats verlaat, de status quo bedreigt en om die reden

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. 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. 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."On "Breakfast at Tiffany's" : "Patricia Neal is amusing in a rather impenetrable role -- she seems to be a playing a lesbian and she's also keeping George Peppard. I don't think it's wise to let the mind linger too long over that." 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.

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. What I like especially about Miss Kael's book is that it is written from the outside. The trouble with most film criticism today is that it isn't criticism. It is, rather, appreciation, celebration, information, and it is written by intellectuals who have come to be "insiders" in the sense that they are able to discourse learnedly about almost any movie without thinking much about whether it's any good - the very question must strike them as a little naive, and irrelevant - because they see it as a greater, or lesser, manifestation of the mystery, the godhead of Cinema.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. Chicago style: The Free Library. S.v. Pauline Kael: I lost it at the movies.." Retrieved Nov 27 2023 from https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Pauline+Kael%3a+I+lost+it+at+the+movies.-a014580121 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. 27 Nov. 2023 https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Pauline+Kael%3a+I+lost+it+at+the+movies.-a014580121 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). 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.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). Paying her money like anybody else, Kael left the theater transformed or cheated. (“Robbe-Grillet . . . may say that . . . the existence of the two characters begins when the film begins and ends ninety-three minutes later, but, of course, we are not born when we go in to see a movie though we may want to die by the time we leave.”) Kael made prissy writers like Sarris uncomfortable because she demanded more from movies, from life, than they did. It was easy to find yourself in Kael’s essays; it was harder to get out of them. As with West Side Story: