Even when Kael is at her best (and she is one hell of a
writer, make no mistake), she's riffing arrogantly off her
opinions instead of standing humble before the work. Her
opinions are her true subject.
Not that she's alone in this -- most journalistic reviewers
fall prey to it. Kael was just unusually brazen about it
(famously never watching a movie more than once -- she only
did one-night stands).
Criticism that isn't as fixated on offering an immediate
thumbs-up thumbs-down can get down to the more interesting
task of elucidating the unique quality of a work or an
oeuvre.
I think entertainment per se is over-rated; being entertained
is a pretty passive activity. I think more highly of
engagement.
Mark
On 11/13/07,
funkmasterj@runbox.com <
funkmasterj@runbox.com> wrote:
>
> > Pauline Kael didn't
> > care about Robert Altman's vision; she cared
whether she liked the
> > particular movie. That's a serious flaw in a
critic."
>
> Why? The vision matters to Altman, but I watch
movies to be
> entertained. What we the audience see in writing or
movies doesn't need to
> be what the creators of those works saw in them.
They don't need to care
> either - there's a big different between academic
interpretation and
> criticism of entertainment value. I remember the
scene in "Back to School"
> with Rodney Dangerfield where Rodney gets Kurt
Vonnegut to write a paper on
> the meaning of Kurt Vonnegut's writing. The
professor comes back and says,
> "You've completely missed the meaning!"
>
> Jordan
>
>
> RARA-AVIS home page: http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
-- Mark R. Harris 2122 W. Russet Court #8 Appleton WI 54914 (920) 470-9855 brokerharris@gmail.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 13 Nov 2007 EST