Talk:Pauline Kael

Seems to have been excised in July 2008, with no explanation. The quote is frequently cited in the mainstream press, and IMO it is valuable for Wikipedia to provide a reference explaining the actual quote. It should be restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.64.162 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I detect a fair amount of Kael-directed rage in the previous version of this article. I've tried to restore some balance, reporting the views of both the Kael-haters and the Kael-admirers. Opus33 21:00, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wrote a fair amount of that previous version, and I'm definitely a Kael-admirer. I'll see if I can find a way to bring our two versions together and stay NPOV. --Modemac 13:29, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok, Modemac. But I do suggest you go lightly. If that last version was what a "Kael-admirer" would produce, I'd hesitate even to contemplate what a true "Kael-hater" would say! Cheers, Opus33 18:20, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Opus33, I'm looking through Modemac's edits, and they don't sound anti-Kael to me at all. Just out of curiosity, what are some of the bits you're thinking of? —Chowbok 21:47, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I feel as if the "Style and Influences" section is not actually about Kael's style or influences (towards the end, it mentions critics that she herself influenced, but that's it.) Instead, the section just talks about various reviews and opinions Kael held. Could a better title be, simply, "Body of Criticism"?

Britannica Online says:

She was the regular film reviewer for McCall's for some months in 1966 and for the New Republic in 1967, and in 1968 she joined The New Yorker. She reviewed films for that magazine until her retirement in 1991. [] --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 17:22, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Considering that she's one of the most influential film critics of her era, I think it's probably right to add some more sections on her work. I can't really be trusted with the exact details behind all these, but all of them are important, both in terms of her development as a critic and in American film criticism in general

• Her "war" with Andrew Sarris over the Auteur theory. Hugely significant in critical though, essentially the two foremost American film critics going toe-for-toe over the premise of the "auteur theory." An expurgated version is included in her Circles & Squares essay, which can be found in her first collection, I Lost it At the Movies

• Her sabbatical at the beginning of the 1980s. It's significant because she was (slightly) less productive subsequently, and also became quite disillusioned with the subsequent failures of Coppola, Scorsese, etc. Not sure how to include this, but the "Why Are Movies So Bad? Or: the Numbers" essay is a decent starting point. Later on she championed directors such as Demme, David Lynch, etc

Also do we have to get premission to remote link to other sites? I'm new to Wikipedia, so I was just curious. If so Paul Rossen's webpage [1] has material relating to Kael, including the full "Raising Kane" essay

• Actually that's another point, there needs to be something on her booklength "Raising Kane" essay (if there isn't already), it was unique at the time because it gave a hell of a lot of credit to the co-screenwriter, Herman Mancweicz (some argue at the expense of Welles)

Anyway, that's enough for one 'post,' any suggestions? I think the difficult would be getting the facts right and comforming to the NPOV standards of Wikipedia

--Matt Dunedin 11:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Go for it! That all sounds like important stuff to add, so have at it. And yes, adding informative, non-commercial external links is fine as long as it's kept under control. —Chowbok 03:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would like to see a piece about her infulential essay "Trash, Art, and the Movies." This essay was a good starting point for people who were perplexed by the way she could give good reviews to trashy movies while blasting the latest work of Ingmar Bergman. --MiguelMunoz 18:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

There should be some discussion of Kael's famous and influential review of Bonnie and Clyde (a not so veiled reply to Bosley Crowther's famous New York Times' dismissal of the movie) and the about face it caused by many critics who had originally panned the movie, including John Simon and Richard Shickel.

This is such a gross miscalculation. Kael was the most anti-elitist of critics, and she always made an emphasis on the movies' emotional power rather than "intellectual" qualities. This should be corrected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.217.129.139 (talk • contribs) 13:08, June 16, 2006 (UTC-6)

Suddenly, there are a slew of POV problems here. I've been adding some citation tags to the article regarding some unsourced claims. This paragraph in particular I think is just riddled with problems:

Kael was a confirmed feminist and traveled in New York City's various intellectual and liberal society circles, and this background infused her reaction to some films. She had lifelong dislike of films that she felt portrayed women incorrectly, as well as so-called 'action' films that featured male violence, particularly those with law-and-order themes, and tended to dismiss them out-of-hand. One example is 1967's Point Blank, a film Kael dismissed for its brutality that would later be critically acclaimed for its novel direction and acting. She gave praise only grudgingly to standout works in that genre, even accusing accused directors and writers of a right-wing or fascist political agenda. In Straw Dogs, Kael concluded that director Sam Peckinpah had made 'the first American film that is a fascist work of art', and called the film Dirty Harry "fascist medievalism".

• Kael a "confirmed feminist"? Does anyone agree with that? I never once felt that she had a feminist agenda or analyzed films from a strictly feminist point of view. If this claim is retained, a link or reference to a Kael interview should be included. It may very well be true but I don't think it is.

Kael avoided making overtly feminist points in her reviews, preferring to leave them implicit. One place where her feminism was clear can be found in her radio broadcasts, published in either I Lost it at the Movies or Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. She has a chapter called "Letters" where she takes on two listeners (one male, one female) who attack her as unfeminine. She provides a witty and clearly feminist reply. The only time it came out in an actual review in my memory was her piece about American Graffiti, where she points out that the film ends by telling us what happens to all the men in the story, but none of the women. She then adds (I'm quoting from memory here) "I say this not to make a feminist issue out of it (though that's implicit), but an aesthetic one..." (The parenthetical is hers.) I think it came out a bit in what she wrote about Lina Wertmuller's Swept Away, too. So she didn't have a "feminist agenda," or "analyze films from a strictly feminist point of view," but her feminism was clearly one important piece of the point of view she brought to her movie reviews. As I write this, the point about her feminism is no longer in the article, but I'm thinking of putting it back in. --MiguelMunoz 17:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

• "this background infused her reaction to some films". How can this possibly be proven? Why is this claim even made? It seems like original research to me. Unless specific examples of her responses to individual films directly linked to her background can be included, this should be removed.

I just remembered another good example. Her review of Satyjit Ray's The Home and the World ends by saying (again from memory) "When it comes to the truth about women's lives, this Indian director puts most European directors of both sexes to shame." Her feminism was well known to her fans and detractors alike. I don't see any problem with this claim. --MiguelMunoz 17:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

• "a lifelong dislike" of "so called action films that featured male violence" and "tended to dismiss them out of hand". A lifelong dislike? She tended to dismiss them out of hand? Too much is made about her one-sentence dismissal of Point Blank (not a separate review of that film, by the way, it was an aside in her review of Bonnie & Clyde). Kael nearly always wrote very lengthy and detailed critiques, even of the most routine action films. And if she tended to dismiss such films out of hand, why did she write so ecstatically about Peckinpah's films, or Walter Hill's? In the New York Times, Stephen Farber noted the complete opposite about Kael, complaining that she seemed to write with too passionate enthusiasm about action films (as well as westerns and horror films).[2]

She disliked simplistic action fantasies like Clint Eastwood's "The Enforcer," but she loved films that explored the nature of violence in our society, which is why she loved Peckinpah's films so much. For example, Bonnie and Clyde wasn't about "male violence," it was an exploration of violence by a gang of both men and women. The violence was never portrayed heroically, and it didn't conform at all to the conventions of the male action picture genre. I think this is a very fair claim as well --MiguelMunoz 17:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

• "she gave praise only grudgingly", "accusing accused directors" of "fascist or right-wing political agenda." How is it known that the positive reviews she wrote about action films was done grudgingly? Straw Dogs and Dirty Harry are noted as "examples" but aren't these the only titles she described as "fascist"? And was she the only critic who described these films in that manner? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hal Raglan (talk • contribs) 13:44, August 31, 2006 (UTC-5)

I agree. It should also be noted that she called Straw Dogs "fascist" in the course of a positive review, and that she was friends with Peckinpah. —Chowbok 19:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The intro to this article is a "citation needed" mess. I've rewritten the last sentence, hopefully someone with a little skill and knowledge will make a more global assault on the paragraph. The "unreformed cultural elitist and moralizer" line belongs in a subsection if anywhere. And until it can be supported with a reference, it probably doesn't deserve any place at all. (Tatwell 23:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)}Reply

Well, I supplied the citations requested, only to have most of them deleted and sections entirely purged of the slightest criticisms of Kael's actions over her long career. I re-supplied the basic facts, citations, links, and references. Kael's attack on Dirty Harry and other films she thought were 'fascist' is too well known and widely reported to purge from the article, seems to me she even got into a feud with Don Siegel once over that issue. It is an important fact that is instructive in the debate over the popularity of law-and-order and vigilantist films of the era.

I do recall that Vanneman was not the only writer to point out Kael's breach of ethics when she took the step of reviewing and promoting films whose scripts she'd previously worked on. Not widely known while she was alive, it seems appropriate to mention at this late date. Such a breach in context of law, medicine, or journalism practice would constitute an ethical violation - something for the reader to consider, anyway. Anyway, I tried to compromise with those that would make this article a fawning paean to Kael, and did not revert back some of the points I made that were excised. - TIM 2 SEP 2006

I agree with you that Kael's lack of objectivity is an issue that needed to be addressed. However, you need to familiarize yourself with some basic wikipedia policies. Most importantly, make sure your edits are verifiable by citing to reliable sources that actually reflect what your edits say. This is particularly true of adding negative comments. I have tried to compromise with those who would turn this into an unsourced negative hit piece on Kael, by rewriting/editing some points to lessen POV, and purging spurious material while retaining facts.Hal Raglan 01:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Hal, I really don't believe that's your motive at all, and I don't think any other neutral observer would, either. While fawning and positive references to Kael go completely uncited and unsupported, you are still deleting my references to Kael's critics of 'hysterical' reviews even after I provided THREE separate verified citations. You converted 'hysterical' , the word which was what was actually written in the cited references, to 'passionate', which is NOT what is cited in the reference. This is sheer POV hacking. At first, I ignored your first revision, only to see you and other Kael fans had hacked off whatever was left of my additions 3 hours later. Far from being a negative hit piece, the few additions I made were all sourced in referenced, but I don't see you deleting ANY of the positive Kael comments though they are unsupported or unsupportable (most influential critic of 20th century, etc., etc.)

If all you're after is a Kael fan page, at least be honest enough to admit it. -Tim 3 SEP 2006

Watch the insults and unsupported attacks. I didn't change "hysterical" to "passionate". Another editor removed the reference from the paragraph, probably because it was also mentioned later in the article. You have accused me of POV hacking, which is pretty hilarious when you consider that you seem to have had no problems with ludicrous (and completely unsupported) attacks on Kael like: "However, Kael was quick to criticize action films that she felt attacked her own liberal values." This is an encylopedia, not a Kael-hater's blog. Please, spend some time familiarizing yourself with the various wikipedia policies before attempting any more editing here. And try to use the discussion page as a way to resolve problems, instead of simply insulting other editors.Hal Raglan 02:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed that you did a blanket revert of all my edits to the article, without explanation. I detailed all my reasons for my changes either here or in my edit summaries. Since I had done so already, I feel no obligation to keep your last edit intact (other than keeping the "hysterical" reference in the opening paragraph, something that appears to be very important to you). Your revert was done w/out discussing your changes in any substantive way. Don't make any more changes to this article unless you discuss your proposed edits here in advance and then wait for a response to see if other editors agree with your suggestions.Hal Raglan 02:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've placed this article's Good Article nomination on hold because of a number of minor issues. I believe these could be fixed within the seven-day hold period.

First, it's rather light on citations. The lead and "Style and Influences" are well-referenced, but there are few references in the "Biography" section, and none in the "Nixon 'quote'" section. Considering some of the claims being made ("infamously negative review", "she liked to boast", "greatest prominence as a critic", "her opinion... was seen... as blasphemous", "Kael is frequently quoted as saying..."), they need to be cited. Some of these actually do have sources called out in the text, but no accompanying footnotes.

Second, it would be nice to have a picture of Kael. This isn't a requirement and wouldn't stand in the way of the article becoming a GA, but it would be a general improvement.

Third, some of the text appears to tread close to POV. While the writing is definitely not bland, it shouldn't overstep neutrality. For instance, do her reviews really need to be described as "erudite, eloquent, esoteric, emphatic"? Wouldn't one of those adjectives suffice? (If that's a quote from one of the cited sources, on the other hand, that's acceptable, but quotation marks should be used to indicate that we are in fact quoting someone else's opinion, not presenting our own.) Shimeru 23:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

There's been improvement over the past week, particularly with the NPOV concerns. However, the citations requested are still needed, so I cannot currently pass this article. Please feel free to reapply once those citations are in place. Shimeru 22:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm reviewing this article for its' second nomination as a Good Article. As I read the article, I'll be leaving comments here as well as making notes of the edits I make for minor corrections. As this is a GA Review, I will be checking to make sure that the article is well written, properly formatted, adequately referenced, and neutrally covers a broad range of information. I have taken note of the previous discussions on this article, as well as the results of the last GA Review, and will keep them in mind as I read the article. Here goes...

• Your lead sounds good, and if you keep that amount of referencing up throughout the article, I don't expect to have any problems at all with that aspect. Wow.
• San Francisco was spelled wrong in the second paragraph of "Early Life" - fixed that for you.
• The first section of the biography is very good - I'm impressed.
• I'm still not finding anything that needs improvement in the second section here. This is going to be a rather short review if this continues to be the case.

General Comments: What the hell is this doing as a Good Article candidate? This is better than a GA, but that's all I can rate it as because that's all you lot asked for. This article is excellent. You've removed all non-neutral content from this article. It covers a very wide range of information about Kael. It's incredibly well referenced. In fact, about the only suggestion I have to make is to find some more pictures to throw in here. Very well done! I just looked over the criteria for Featured Articles, and from what I've seen here, I think this article would stand a very good chance running for that distinction. This is at least A-Class, and definitely has the potential to be a Featured Article. Keep up the good work! Hersfold ^(talk/work) 23:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

In Deeper Into Movies, Kael reviewed the 1970 film The Great White Hope. Is there anyone out there who has a copy of that book who would be willing to contribute to the article on the film The Great White Hope? On the discussion page of the article is a paraphrase of Kael's review that misses a citation.Fairlane75 20:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

  This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):   b (MoS):  

   The lead section of an article this size should be longer than one short paragraph. What is missing is the subject's biography.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  

   Sourcing is good throughout, except for the introduction to the "Opinions" section, where there are some direct quotations and potentially controversial statements that ought to be sourced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):   b (focused):  

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:  

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:  

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:  

   Lampman (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The link to the Pauline Kael A-Z review page seems to have been removed by Yahoo...  ;-( Fagiolonero (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply