Exceptionally interesting WRITER AND CRITIC. As a critic, she was maybe almost as fine as the greatestCrowther, I mean (but then again, THIS CROWTHER WAS TRULY UNIQUE).I find thrillingly interesting almost everything she wrotewith age, she gained an enormous, unmatchable experience of movies. As a writer, she is especially interesting. I think I like her more than Maltin, Ebert and maybe even Sarris. I absolutely abhor some of her wackiest, weirdest notions (such as the '70s being
the finest movie era!it sounds like mockery
;or her overrating THE GODFATHER, that is a simple case of style over substance, as they put it
).She said or wrote wonderfully true things about Murray, Carrey,Cage, the light comedies with Ben Lyon and Bebe Daniels ,the early Spielberg, the damn sexy young De Niro, Connery, "MUMFORD" and "THREE KINGS", and many ,many othersleaving aside her aggressive Americanism that was part of the fun.Her lines were dense and seemed wellthought and she had the good habit of judiciously giving the right and useful examples, in the quantity required. As a writer, she was a great essayist, a great author of essays and synthesis.
Her ostentatiously affirmed intent of being lowbrow and exclusively American and of taking delight in the average and of aggressively bashing the arthouse is after all enjoyable. Her condition was one of a moviegoer. She wanted to have fun when going to the movies; as she herself stated it, she was not after some rare experiences or exotic delights, but after strong true fun.
It may be that she was quite often biased, whimsical and unfounded (as in the nonsense she wrote about Hitchcock's nature and moviesor about the art of cinema, of cinema as artI myself come from the line of Averty, Bazin and Leprohon )her irrational biases were too obviousyet paradoxically all these abuses do not fundamentally undermine her literary work. Her biases and whims were obvious for everyone and known; yet there are also in her pages some of the best pieces of movie criticism ever written. Read her essay about Grantyou'll never wish to write otherwiseyou will exclaim'so this is the only way to write about an actorabout actors, cinema ,roles, etc.'.
Her synthetic essays are better than her articles, of course; her essays about Grant ,Brando are among the finest things of movie criticism ever written. Her writings are the expression of a personal, singular experience. The quality of her experience ,the authenticity and genuineness are the real core of her criticism. I think she was hopelessly wrong in praising the '70s and in refusing to acknowledge that Welles was the best American director ever, and his movies, the best ever (instead of overrating some insipid, style over content flicks of the '70s ),yet her orientation and mind remain fundamentally right. In particular judgments about a movie or another, Ebert may be more often right ;Mme. Kael may look sometimes capricious and arbitrary, yet she has a way better stuff, mind and culture and expression and credo. She is preferable from a lot of reasons. The essay about Grant is her most enviable achievement, a model for all movie critics. Her sense of fun and her nonchalance are remarkable. Her impressionist authenticity is of the finesther openness and receptivity for what she called 'great moments' and 'absurdly right little moments' and 'little things'. 'Coherence and wit and feeling' was her credo. She asked for American films overflowing with happinesshedonist and impressionist credo that bore fruits in her writings. Above all, she was interestedand she grew almost exclusively interestedin the performances, the roles, the actorsabove anything else. She felt that movies went down the drainand that Spielberg and Lucas were responsible for this decline and for the faking, falsification of the American cinema. She felt that the Lucasian fetish of fun destroyed the fun itself. These were right theses, or intuitions. She trusted her reactions, and did not care about the consensus. She knew most of the critics were phoniesuntalented phonies. In her later years, in her sundown years, she kept having good words for Travolta's performancesas well as for Connery, Cage; one feels she was quite reserved about most of the socalled Method actors.
I have read that she liked Chet Baker, The Charterhouse Of Parma, Christopher Plummer, Al Green, Chris Isaak, Bette Midler, Leonard Cohen, etc..She was sociable and uninhibited.
What I like best is not her reviews (though there are hundreds of the most valuable),but her essays and detailed studiesas many as they are.She knew the secret of the precise example.
Her ostentatiously affirmed intent of being lowbrow and exclusively American and of taking delight in the average and of aggressively bashing the arthouse is after all enjoyable. Her condition was one of a moviegoer. She wanted to have fun when going to the movies; as she herself stated it, she was not after some rare experiences or exotic delights, but after strong true fun.
It may be that she was quite often biased, whimsical and unfounded (as in the nonsense she wrote about Hitchcock's nature and moviesor about the art of cinema, of cinema as artI myself come from the line of Averty, Bazin and Leprohon )her irrational biases were too obviousyet paradoxically all these abuses do not fundamentally undermine her literary work. Her biases and whims were obvious for everyone and known; yet there are also in her pages some of the best pieces of movie criticism ever written. Read her essay about Grantyou'll never wish to write otherwiseyou will exclaim'so this is the only way to write about an actorabout actors, cinema ,roles, etc.'.
Her synthetic essays are better than her articles, of course; her essays about Grant ,Brando are among the finest things of movie criticism ever written. Her writings are the expression of a personal, singular experience. The quality of her experience ,the authenticity and genuineness are the real core of her criticism. I think she was hopelessly wrong in praising the '70s and in refusing to acknowledge that Welles was the best American director ever, and his movies, the best ever (instead of overrating some insipid, style over content flicks of the '70s ),yet her orientation and mind remain fundamentally right. In particular judgments about a movie or another, Ebert may be more often right ;Mme. Kael may look sometimes capricious and arbitrary, yet she has a way better stuff, mind and culture and expression and credo. She is preferable from a lot of reasons. The essay about Grant is her most enviable achievement, a model for all movie critics. Her sense of fun and her nonchalance are remarkable. Her impressionist authenticity is of the finesther openness and receptivity for what she called 'great moments' and 'absurdly right little moments' and 'little things'. 'Coherence and wit and feeling' was her credo. She asked for American films overflowing with happinesshedonist and impressionist credo that bore fruits in her writings. Above all, she was interestedand she grew almost exclusively interestedin the performances, the roles, the actorsabove anything else. She felt that movies went down the drainand that Spielberg and Lucas were responsible for this decline and for the faking, falsification of the American cinema. She felt that the Lucasian fetish of fun destroyed the fun itself. These were right theses, or intuitions. She trusted her reactions, and did not care about the consensus. She knew most of the critics were phoniesuntalented phonies. In her later years, in her sundown years, she kept having good words for Travolta's performancesas well as for Connery, Cage; one feels she was quite reserved about most of the socalled Method actors.
I have read that she liked Chet Baker, The Charterhouse Of Parma, Christopher Plummer, Al Green, Chris Isaak, Bette Midler, Leonard Cohen, etc..She was sociable and uninhibited.
What I like best is not her reviews (though there are hundreds of the most valuable),but her essays and detailed studiesas many as they are.She knew the secret of the precise example.