Kael Revision

Marni Newell
With lewd humor and images, Kael’s art shines through
2/20/09
Oscar Wilde describes criticism as an art form that is staunchly subjective in his essay “The Critic as Artist.” The art Wilde speaks of is in the critic’s ability to convey her sense of personality in the criticism and make the piece her own. He says “the highest Criticism deals with art not as expressive, but as impressive, purely.”
Pauline Kael, in this sense, is the pinnacle of Wilde’s portrait of a critic. Kael’s critiques of films are a reflection of her values and her reasoning in a way that is as entertaining as it is informative. This allows for readers to draw their own conclusions on the films she reviews without simply agreeing with her decision.
Renata Adler describes Kael’s writing style, or more specifically, what Adler perceives as Kael’s shortcomings as a critic, in her essay, “House Critic.” Adler details Kael’s use of questions, seemingly unclear metaphors, uses of personal pronouns, and repetitive images in Kael’s latest anthology of critiques, and cites them as reasons why Kael has “ceased to care about” films.
More accurately, these quirks in Kael’s writing represent her unique style.
One of Adler’s criticisms of Kael is her use of questions in reviews, which Adler believes distracts the reader and has them blindly reaching for answers. What Adler doesn’t appreciate about Kael’s use of questions, is the effect they have on the reader that cannot be mirrored with a statement; it gives the sense of inviting the reader to disagree with Kael instead of telling them what to believe. For instance, one question Adler quotes is, “How can you have any feeling for a man who doesn’t enjoy being in bed with Sophia Loren?” This question catches the reader’s attention and is rhetorical, humorous, and illuminating.
With this one question, Kael opens the readers eyes to a different perspective of the actor who isn’t enjoying being in bed with Sophia Loren, it recalls them to specific scenes, and then, lastly, allows them chuckle at the absurd idea that any man wouldn’t enjoy being in bed with Sophia Loren.
The effect would fall drastically short if Kael had followed Adler’s strict guidelines and written, “A man who doesn’t enjoy being in bed with Sophia Loren can’t be taken seriously.” Odds are the aggressive sentence would have been overlooked and dismissed.
Similarly, Adler picks apart Kaels images and metaphors that deal with bodily functions. One example she cites is Kael’s phrase “just a belch from the Nixon era.” Even not knowing the context of this statement, a clear image is still communicated: an attempt at something that not only fell short, but stank.
Adler summarizes her criticisms with a list of four aspects of movies Kael does seem to appreciate, “frissions of horror; physical violence depicted in specific detail; sex scenes...; and fantasies of invasion.” With this, Adler is attempting to warp one of the main duties of a critic: to know what they like. Adler distorts and emphasizes the perversity in her description of Kael, but the fact remains that she does have a style, she has preferences, and she is consistent in pointing out when a film executes these correctly and when they do not.
In the end, readers know where Kael stands based on their knowledge of her inclinations and can enjoy her critiques as both entertainment and an assessment of the film based on her unique interests and perspective.