After the Tall Timber (41 page)

“I was shocked when I saw them,” Mr. Cortázar, a tall, sensitive man, who studied for two years at the film school in Prague, said of the pilgrims. “The contradiction, the superstition. I cannot speak for the new generation and say that they will not be religious. I cannot say that they will not believe in God. But I know that with literacy, in the new Cuba, this pilgrimage will not exist.” The film ends with shots of some very healthy, modern schoolchildren doing exercises on a beach.

Mr. Cortázar’s other testimony to a disappearing Cuba is
For the First Time
, a film about one of the film institute’s mobile units bringing Charlie Chaplin’s
Modern Times
to villagers in the Baracoa Mountains of Oriente. Mr. Cortázar interviews the villagers, who had never seen a film before, about what they think film is. “It is like a party,” one of them says, “with couples and beautiful girls.” Another, an immensely dignified, wrinkled lady, wearing a handkerchief over her hair, says film “is something you show in a cinema—very important thing. Very good.” A young woman gets frightened and bursts into tears. At night, carrying torches, a little audience arrives for its movie, and sits in folding chairs in a field. The faces are amused, not awed, and radiant. The children eventually yawn and go to sleep. ICAIC’s directors say that film is one of Cuba’s few windows to the outside world.
For the First Time
catches, simply and respectfully, a moment, the first viewing of film, that will probably never occur in Cuba again.

The New York Times
February 12, 1969

A NOTE BY THE AUTHOR

In the 1960s and ’70s, Pauline Kael was not only the most powerful movie critic in America. She had become the most powerful reviewer in any medium. And her influence extended, not just to criticism of all kinds, but to journalism, to academic writing, to the appointment of faculty to film departments at universities throughout the country. Writing every week for six months of the year in
The New Yorker
, and publishing regular collections of her pieces, she generated admiration (for some years deserved), and then—gradually, surprisingly—fear. She had colleagues and filmmakers she liked, and others she didn’t. Her likes and dislikes became dogmatic, remorseless. She had her cliques and imitators, including a more or less servile cult, known as the
Paulettes
. They chattered, laughed, whispered, loudly gossiped and sneered during previews and screenings, then went back to their various publications and tried to outdo one another in agreeing with Kael.

Meanwhile, almost without anyone’s taking notice, Pauline Kael’s interest in movies was declining, even as her writing style became more and more excessive. She began less to write than to rule. The titles of her books, in their redundant, unfunny naughtiness, should have given it away.
I Lost It at the Movies, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Deeper Into Movies
. The joyless, fake ordinariness of it all, the aging, essentially humorless woman reveling in unimaginative talking dirty—we didn’t notice, prize committees of various kinds did not notice the underlying quality of what we were endorsing, year after year.

But her influence was great, her exercises of power remarkably effective. What we might characterize as unconscious Pauline Kaelism was contagious, and now pervades the culture, wherever second-rate prose can be found.

A biography,
Pauline Kael: A Life in the Dark
by Brian Kellow has just been published. Library of America has just published an anthology of her writing. Both books are worthy and have been widely and seriously reviewed. In 1980, Renata Adler, at the time a
New Yorker
writer—author of two novels, and five books of essays and reporting, including, as it happens,
A Year in The Dark
, an anthology of her own pieces as former chief film critic of
The New York Times
—reviewed Kael’s
When the Lights Go Down
for
The New York Review of Books.
That review created an enormous fuss, consternation, the taking of sides.

Adler’s review itself was reviewed and discussed in newspapers and magazines at the time. It has remained a subject of controversy to this day.

There were rumors: a committee had collaborated to write it; Mr. Shawn, editor of
The New Yorker
, had secretly commissioned it; Adler was pursuing a vendetta generated by some incident or series of incidents years before. None of this, as it happened, was true.

Even Kellow, in his biography, gets it wrong. He writes that Adler, at a meeting of the New York Film Critics Circle, “stormed out,” saying she “had to see her analyst immediately.” Adler had no analyst, and she had not “stormed out.” When she did, in fact, walk out, several other critics, including Stefan Kanfer of
Time
, walked out with her. As they left, Kael said, “Do you realize how offensive you’re being?” That tone and that question were provoked by Adler’s, Kanfer’s, others’ (including Vincent Canby’s) quiet disagreement with a consensus which Kael was trying to create and enforce. Adler was, at the time, relatively young, the chief film critic of the
New York Times
. (That position was widely thought to be so desirable that advertisements for a department store read “Some people think Renata Adler’s job is like being paid to eat bonbons.”) Adler had no reason to be hostile to Kael, and was not. In fact, until she was asked to review Kael’s collection, Adler had admired Kael’s work.

Renata Adler’s “Pauline Kael piece” generated a lot of fuss and controversy. Through the years, it was mentioned so often in articles about Kael, including virtually all her obituaries, that people who had never read the piece had the strongest possible views of what they thought was in it. The reviews of Kellow’s biography and the Library of America volume often mention the piece in some way.

What follows is what the famous or infamous piece actually said.

2015

THE JOB of the regular daily, weekly, or even monthly critic resembles the work of the serious intermittent critic, who writes only when he is asked to or is genuinely moved to, in limited ways and for only a limited period of time. Occasionally, a particularly rich period in one of the arts coincides with a prolific time in the life of a major critic; or a major critic—Edmund Wilson, Harold Rosenberg—takes over a weekly column and uses it as the occasion for an essay. After a time, however, even Edmund Wilson no longer wrote frequently and regularly about books. He also wrote, all his life, on other subjects. Harold Rosenberg wrote continuously on subjects other than painting. Normally, no art can support for long the play of a major intelligence, working flat out, on a quotidian basis. No serious critic can devote himself, frequently, exclusively, and indefinitely, to reviewing works most of which inevitably cannot bear, would even be misrepresented by, review in depth.

At most publications, staff critics are cast up from elsewhere in the journalistic ranks—the copy desk, for instance, or regular reporting. What they provide is a necessary consumer service, which consists essentially of three parts: a notice that the work exists, and where it can be bought, found, or attended; a set of adjectives appearing to set forth an opinion of some sort, but amounting really to a yes vote or a no vote; and a somewhat nonjudgmental, factual description or account, which is usually inferior by any journalistic standard to reporting in all other sections of the paper. On the basis of these columns, the reader gets his information and, if he is an art consumer, forms his own judgment and makes his choice.

Serious publications, however, tend from time to time to hire talented people, educated, usually young, devoted to the craft of criticism, at least as it entails fidelity to an art and to a text under review. What usually happens is that such a critic writes for some time at his highest level: reporting and characterizing accurately; incorporating in whatever is judgmental evidence for what he’s saying (a sign of integrity in a critic, as opposed to an opinion monger, is that he tries for evidence; in reviewing prose forms, for example, he will quote); and producing insights, and allusions, which, if they are not downright brilliant, are apposite. What happens after a longer time is that he settles down.

The consumer service remains the professional basis for the staff reviewer’s job; fidelity, evidence, and so forth are still the measures of his value, but the high critical edge becomes misplaced, disproportionate when applied to most ordinary work. The staff critic is nonetheless obliged, and paid, to do more than simply mark time between rich periods and occasional masterpieces. The simple truth—this is okay, this is not okay, this is vile, this resembles that, this is good indeed, this is unspeakable—is not a day’s work for a thinking adult. Some critics go shrill. Others go stale. A lot go simultaneously shrill and stale. A few critics, writing quietly and well, bring something extra into their work. Arlene Croce, a fine ability to describe. John Russell, a piece of education in art history. Hilton Kramer, something in the realm of ideas. A few others bring a consistent personal voice, a sort of chat whose underlying proposition is: This is what happened in my field today; here’s what I have to say about it; draw what conclusions you will, on the basis of your familiarity by now with my style, my quality of mind, and the range of my association, in short with who I am. Some staff critics quit and choose to work flat out again, on other interests and in intermittent pieces. By far the most common tendency, however, is to stay put and simply to inflate, to pretend that each day’s text is after all a crisis—the most, first, best, worst, finest, meanest, deepest, etc.—to take on, since we are dealing in superlatives, one of the first, most unmistakable marks of the hack.

Movies seem to invite particularly broad critical discussion: To begin with, alone among the arts, they count as their audience, their art consumer, everyone. (Television, in this respect, is clearly not an art but an appliance, through which reviewable material is sometimes played.) The staff movie critic’s job thus tends to have less in common with the art, or book, or theater critic’s, whose audiences are relatively specialized and discrete, than with the work of the political columnist—writing, that is, of daily events in the public domain, in which almost everyone’s interest is to some degree engaged, and about which everyone seems inclined to have a view. Film reviewing has always had an ingredient of reportage. Since the forties,
The New York Times
has reviewed almost every movie that opened in New York—as it would not consider reviewing every book, exhibit, or other cultural event, or even every account filed from the UN or City Hall. For a long time it seemed conceivable that movies could sustain, if not a great critic, at least a distinguished commentator-critic, on the order, say, of Robert Warshow, with the frequency of Walter Lippmann. In the late fifties and early sixties, it seemed likely that such a critic might be Pauline Kael.

Writing freelance, but most often in
Partisan Review
, Ms. Kael seemed to approach movies with an energy and a good sense that were unmatched at the time in film criticism. In France, young people were emerging from the archives of the Cinémathèque to write reverently for film publications and, later, to make the films that became the
nouvelle vague
. Here, movie critics were so much the financial and spiritual creatures of the industry that, in 1962, Judith Crist was counted new and brave for having a few reservations about
Cleopatra
. Magazines had staff movie critics; but no one paid much attention to them. Newspaper movie critics were, in general, writers of extended blurbs for high-budget films. Out in San Francisco, though, there was this person, writing as frequently as she could manage to sell pieces. In 1965, a book appeared, something mildly off in the coarse single
entendu
of its title,
I Lost It at the Movies
, but, as a collection of movie reviews, interesting. Ms. Kael continued to write, freelance. One began to look forward, particularly if one had already read a lot about a picture, to reading what Pauline Kael had to say.

Then, briefly at
McCall’s
(where, braver even than Ms. Crist, she panned
The Sound of Music
) and, beginning in 1968, at
The New Yorker
, Ms. Kael acquired a staff critic’s job and a strong institutional base. Nothing could be clearer—the case of John Simon comes to mind at once—than that such a change is by no means always fortunate. A voice that may have seemed, sometimes, true and iconoclastic when it was outside can become, with institutional support, vain, overbearing, foolish, hysterical. Instead of the quiet authority of the this-is-who-I-am, and here’s-what-I-have-to-say, there is the somewhat violent spectacle of a minor celebrity in frenzy, weirdly intent on what he/she is going to “do to” whatever passes for his/her weekly text. For a year or two, Ms. Kael, however, continued to write fine pieces. If there were many weeks when she seemed far from her best, nothing could be more natural; no writer is always at his/her best. She tended to write rather too long for what she had to say each week, and there was something overwrought in her tone. Here, of course, there was a difference from a serious intermittent critic—whose tone and length reflect, not the rote pressures of a deadline but a real pitch and interval of thought. For some time, however, the effect was only this: One could not look forward, always and to the same degree, to reading what Ms. Kael had to say.

Then there began to be quirks, mannerisms, in particular a certain compulsive and joyless naughtiness. Not just conscious, heavy allusions of the sort that recurred in her titles,
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang; Deeper into Movies
, etc., but an undercurrent of irrelevant, apparently inadvertent sexual revelation. It seemed that editing, especially
New Yorker
editing, would have caught this tendency at its most awkward and repetitive. It was possible that precisely the columns most nearly out of all control were episodes in a struggle against
The New Yorker’s
constraints—not always an unworthy struggle. But there was also, in relation to filmmaking itself, an increasingly strident
knowingness
: Whatever else you may think about her work, each column seemed more hectoringly to claim,
she certainly does know about movies
. And often, when the point appeared most knowing, it was factually false. Ms. Kael, for instance, berated George Roy Hill, at length and in particularly scornful, savvy terms, for having recorded the outdoor sequences of
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
indoors, in a studio: “Each  . . . comes out  . . . in the dead sound of the studio. There is scarcely even an effort to supply plausible outdoor resonances.” As it happens, Mr. Hill had insisted on recording outdoors, at great expense and over heavy objections from the studio, which had predicted (accurately, at least as regards Ms. Kael) that no one could tell the difference. When informed of such errors, Ms. Kael never acknowledged or rectified them; she tended rather to drag disparaging references to the work of filmmakers about whom she had been wrong into unrelated columns ever after.