Film Criticism

[Camera Obscura]

Someone doesn't like Pauline Kael.

I think the first reaction speaks volumes: "Minus the pronoun issue, is her approach all that different from your own? Just replace ‘Bergman’ and ‘Kubrick’ with ‘Clowes’ and ‘Ware’."

[Binker]

Painful. Kael's usage of 'we' in the passages he quotes is not at all "odd," it's highly prevalent in aesthetic criticism. It's simply a grammatical convention, and it has both stylistic (avoidance of I) and practical (denotes a position on the intended effect of a work) purpose. The essayist misattributes duplicitous intentions to her employment of the audience-inclusive we and then triumphantly sees through her, pointing out that her analysis is informed by personal perspective. No fucking shit lady. Of course many criticize this usage of we on somewhat similar grounds, that its presumptuous or vague or whatever, but to base an analysis of Kael's criticism on it, as if it's in any way revelatory in regards to her approach is absurd.

The entire second half is a straw man. Kael grounds her political analysis to the film that she is addressing and branches out only to address the politics of film creation, thus she's putting forth the image of, "a capitalism whose worst sin is making mediocre movies; with a bourgeois society the worst sin of which is enjoying those same mediocre films." #-o

More generally, all that lamenting over apolitical, amoral criticism seems so misapplied to Kael, whose taste and analysis I remember as very politically charged.

[domino harvey]

Remind me why we care what this blog dude has to say about anything

[Mr Sausage]

Exposing bad thinking is always a useful exercise, I think. Especially when it produces excellent posts like Binker's, which he ought to post as a comment on that site.

[NoahB]

Hey all. Thanks for linking to and reading my review. I appreciate it.

I'm not as impressed as Mr. Sausage with Blinker's reply. Kael's use of "we" is often brought up ias a particular stylistic tic. It's not something everyone does by any means (if you check the comments on the blog, you'll see she discusses it and explains it in an interview. Her response to the interviewer is not "everyone does this so it isn't worth commenting on.") You can certainly have a different take on why she uses "we", but saying, essentially, "well, it's not even worth noticing" seems like pretty weak sauce to me. She's a professional writer; she uses it a lot to make specific kinds of points. It's worth thinking about why she does that and what effect it has on her argument and her thinking. Style is substance; surely Kael wouldn't disagree with that.

Of course Kael is informed by her personal perspective. There's nothing wrong with that. There is something wrong in failing to own your perspective, and in trying to shore it up with an appeal to a mystically unified audience. To me it seems like bad writing and sloppy thinking; an effort to create sweeping rhetoric based on nothing in particular.

As for your second part; yes, she first addresses politics then moves to a discussion of the politics of film creation. Specifically, she says the film is racist then claims that the reason for racism in the film is that commercial entertainment likes to appeal to "soft spots." This suggests that the film is racist because it's commercial. But some commercial films aren't racist; on the other hand, many great, non-commercial films are racist. Appealing to commercialism to explain racism, therefore, is confused. Or to put it another way, capitalism doesn't create racism, and nor does poor filmmaking. Kael always refers everything to film qua film, so she can't say the film is bad because it's racist; instead she has to say that the film is racist because it's bad. I don't think that's clear or insightful thinking.

As for your last point — you may well remember her analysis as politically charged. A vague memory or impression isn't really an argument, though.

Thanks again for reading and responding. Take care.

[Mr Sausage]

There is something wrong in failing to own your perspective, and in trying to shore it up with an appeal to a mystically unified audience.

What is your evidence that she is using it to to disown her perspective? You seem to take this for granted. Yet why is your conclusion more likely than, for example, that she uses "we" to include her readers in her perspective? Or, even further, as a way to invite them to do so? Have you also considered that reading someone's words implicitly includes you in the act of thinking and expounding going on in the piece? That a writer may, if they wish, facilitate this conjunction by offering rhetorical invitations to join along? This "we" business is a common technique for slipping in one's argument by using inclusive language to appeal to the reader's receptiveness. Such rhetoric would not disown your perspective, just stop it from seeming exclusive. Again, what is your evidence that the above possibilities are any less true than what you've claimed? Did you have a good reason for choosing as you did, or were you motivated chiefly by your dislike?

Moreover, how is her audience "mystically" unified rather than simply rhetorically unified? Your choice of words sounds deliberately uncharitable. What is the point of treating someone's rhetoric literally? Do you not agree that rhetoric is used to create and sustain fictions, and that said fictions are useful tools for persuasion? If she were to use a metaphor, would you rebuke her for being so silly as to confuse one thing for another? Or do you prefer to pick and choose what rhetorical devices you'll take literally?

It sounds to me like you did not even bother to consider the possible arguments against your positions.

[NoahB]

Hey Mr. Sausage.

It's not clear to me that you understand my argument, or even your own for that matter. What I said doesn't preclude almost any of what you're saying. She's attempting to include and invite readers to join her. She's doing that by creating a "we" of cinema-goers; a group that shares her perspectives and conclusions. The trick is, those perspectives and conclusions are not just shared through "we"; they're validated by "we." "We" learn to love cinema through watching trash. The idea is that trash is worthwhile because it teaches "us". That's a very different argument than saying, "I happen to like trashy movies because they taught me to like good movies." Again, you can't separate style and substance. Universalizing like that changes what she's saying. It allows her to identify with the masses and speak for them. I think that's disingenuous and, more importantly, dumb.

In fact, you more or less suggest she's being disingenuous yourself. "This "we" business is a common technique for slipping in one's argument by using inclusive language to appeal to the reader's receptiveness." Why does she need to "slip" something in? Why is she appealing to the reader's receptiveness rather than to logic or to their sense of humor? Your argument boils down to, "She's not being manipulative and sneaky! She's being sneaky and manipulative!"

I'm not taking the "we" literally, incidentally. I don't think there are two or more Pauline Kaels writing the essay. I'm treating it as a rhetorical device that has a rhetorical function. You seem to believe that "taking it literally" means the same thing as "taking it seriously." It doesn't.

Overall, your response seems like an outraged attack on the idea that a critic might write polemic. I mean, do you really mean to suggest that it's wrong to be influenced in one's criticism by a dislike of what one is criticizing? That it's illegitimate to be uncharitable? That's a pretty funny way to defend Pauline Kael.

[Mr Sausage]

What I said doesn't preclude almost any of what you're saying.

Oh? Here's what you say:

There is something wrong in failing to own your perspective,

Declaiming ownership means attributing something to someone who is not you. Pretty hard to do that when you're using "we" to include yourself in the group of owners. The first is "they own," the second, being Kael's, is "we own." A very simple distinction.

And, again:

Of course, by "we," Kael actually means "I", or, more completely, "I who am not quite willing to own an opinion, and therefore intend to attribute it to a pseudo-mystical, validating other."

"We" is not and cannot be a term for otherness. It is the exact opposite of otherness. Otherness is far, it uses the language of distance, ex. "them." "We" is near, it is the language of closeness and connection. Otherness, again, is whatever is not you or of your group. Kael cannot be doing what you claim. You don't seem to understand the language you're using.

In fact, you more or less suggest she's being disingenuous yourself. "This "we" business is a common technique for slipping in one's argument by using inclusive language to appeal to the reader's receptiveness." Why does she need to "slip" something in? Why is she appealing to the reader's receptiveness rather than to logic or to their sense of humor? Your argument boils down to, "She's not being manipulative and sneaky! She's being sneaky and manipulative!"

Tell me more about how insidious it is to ply your readers so that they'll be more open to your ideas.

I'm not taking the "we" literally, incidentally. I don't think there are two or more Pauline Kaels writing the essay. I'm treating it as a rhetorical device that has a rhetorical function. You seem to believe that "taking it literally" means the same thing as "taking it seriously." It doesn't.

Why would you invoke a "mystically unified audience" if not to point out that the unification isn't "real," as if anyone were under the impression it was anything except a rhetorical position? You're doing exactly what I claimed, reducing the figurative to the literal in an attempt to discredit her rhetoric.

Overall, your response seems like an outraged attack on the idea that a critic might write polemic. I mean, do you really mean to suggest that it's wrong to be influenced in one's criticism by a dislike of what one is criticizing? That it's illegitimate to be uncharitable? That's a pretty funny way to defend Pauline Kael.

I was under the impression I was accusing you of letting your emotions dictate your interpretation rather than a consideration of the various possible positions.

[NoahB]

I was under the impression I was accusing you of letting your emotions dictate your interpretation rather than a consideration of the various possible positions.

But if Kael means anything, if her approach to criticism has any value at all, it's that emotions are central to criticism, and that "consideration of the various possible positions" leaves you with staid, boring blandness.

And staid boring blandness is pretty much where you're at, using a high schoolers list of pronouns to define the limits of how "we" can be used rhetorically; puritanically insisting that "ply" has no connotations of insidiousness; bouncing up and down on "mystically" because it's so unfair to Kael to suggest that her rhetorical maneuver is filled with balderdash. Because all rhetorical moves are not "literally" true, right, so it's ungentlemenly to suggest that some sort of vague commitment to truth and honesty might be a useful virtue for a writer.

Your defense of Kael is that she doesn't mean what she says and, indeed, doesn't mean anything. Also, I am unfair and cruel. I doubt Kael would thank you for the first, and her entire career was devoted to the idea that it was better by far to be unfair than dull.

[Binker]

Hello Noah

Kael's use of "we" is often brought up ias a particular stylistic tic. It's not something everyone does by any means (if you check the comments on the blog, you'll see she discusses it and explains it in an interview. Her response to the interviewer is not "everyone does this so it isn't worth commenting on.") You can certainly have a different take on why she uses "we", but saying, essentially, "well, it's not even worth noticing" seems like pretty weak sauce to me. She's a professional writer; she uses it a lot to make specific kinds of points. It's worth thinking about why she does that and what effect it has on her argument and her thinking. Style is substance; surely Kael wouldn't disagree with that.

I'm unfamiliar with the discussion surrounding Kael's usage of "we", but the fact that she has chosen to explain her specific use of it does not change the reality that it is a usage which is not even remotely unique to her. My claim is not that all stylistic choices are irrelevant, but rather that the one you've identified as crucial and revelatory in regards to Kael's writing is in fact quite a common one and perhaps not quite as underhanded as you seem to think.

Of course Kael is informed by her personal perspective. There's nothing wrong with that. There is something wrong in failing to own your perspective, and in trying to shore it up with an appeal to a mystically unified audience. To me it seems like bad writing and sloppy thinking; an effort to create sweeping rhetoric based on nothing in particular.

But the only argument for why she "fails to own her perspective" you've provided is what is essentially a stylistic choice of which she is neither the originator nor one of a select few proponents. I simply think the usage is far less problematic and deceitful than you seem to. And again, you aren't the first to have problems with this usage of we in critical and academic writing, many have found it to be a rather arrogant and presumptuous device. But I doubt many have taken the criticism as far as you have, where a writer's use of it becomes argumentation that he or she is unwilling or afraid to own a personal stance.

You write this

It makes it look like Kael has a thesis, when all she really has is a long essay in which she says she likes trashy genre pictures and doesn’t like 2001 and The Graduate and likes bits of Hitchcock and how all of this has prepared her for liking really good movies made by people she will praise in some other essays elsewhere in the book, like (presumably) Godard.

rather sneeringly, like she was earnestly trying to prevent you from identifying the personal tastes, beliefs, and perspectives which inform her analysis. I think she simply took this as red, felt no need to constantly reaffirm it in the writing itself, and indeed felt comfortable in employing a rhetorical device that might invite her audience to share in her beliefs.

As for your second part; yes, she first addresses politics then moves to a discussion of the politics of film creation. Specifically, she says the film is racist then claims that the reason for racism in the film is that commercial entertainment likes to appeal to "soft spots." This suggests that the film is racist because it's commercial.

I haven't read the review in question, but I would feel uncomfortable interpreting what seems to be a rather limited point on the pressures of the commercial film industry as a claim that commercialism is the sole cause of racism.

But some commercial films aren't racist; on the other hand, many great, non-commercial films are racist. Appealing to commercialism to explain racism, therefore, is confused. Or to put it another way, capitalism doesn't create racism, and nor does poor filmmaking.

Again, your interpretations of what is really just a question of scope are maximally unfavorable. Simply because she does not go into something does not mean she's ignorant or dismissive of it. Do you really believe Kael would have argued that racist thinking is solely a product of commercialism? It's prima facie absurd, especially as commercialism in the sense its being used here suggests an appeal to broader social phenomena.

As for your last point — you may well remember her analysis as politically charged. A vague memory or impression isn't really an argument, though.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[Mr Sausage]

But if Kael means anything, if her approach to criticism has any value at all, it's that emotions are central to criticism, and that "consideration of the various possible positions" leaves you with staid, boring blandness.

So it is your position that you and Ms. Kael share the exact same critical approach? Well...

Nevertheless, there is a difference between taking a Walter Pater approach to your critique of a film, and using it to talk about whether or not the ideas in an essay are true.

And staid boring blandness is pretty much where you're at, using a high schoolers list of pronouns to define the limits of how "we" can be used rhetorically

Hah! Let's say that I literally am a highschooler. How does it feel to have a highschooler prove you're misunderstanding basic words? I'll happily take all your insults, they just mean you know you cannot offer a defense.

puritanically insisting that "ply" has no connotations of insidiousness

Connotations are context dependent, are they not? So, go ahead, tell me again how insidious it is to "ply" someone in the context of trying to make your audience receptive and open to your ideas and arguments.

Because all rhetorical moves are not "literally" true, right, so it's ungentlemenly to suggest that some sort of vague commitment to truth and honesty might be a useful virtue for a writer

Once again, metaphors aren't "literally true," so are you going to criticize those, too, or are you going to cherry-pick for your convenience?

Your defense of Kael is that she doesn't mean what she says and, indeed, doesn't mean anything.

I'm pretty sure my point is that she is not doing what you claim she is doing, something that I've demonstrated ably enough to have stumped you into giving up even arguing for your ideas. As for not meaning what one says, welcome to the wonderful world of irony and sarcasm and all the other beautiful insincerities that make life fun.

[NoahB]

Yay! Double teamed!

Blinker, have you read the passages I'm discussing? I really haven't seen many (I can't think of any, actually) writers use "we" as persistently and insistently as Kael does. It's use is really the lynch pin of the major essay in Going Steady — it ends up being her point in the final sentence (that is, the point is that "we" like trash and that that is important.) People occasionally throw in a "we" here or there, but she maintains it for paragraphs, and uses it to cement her argument. It seems pretty central to what she's doing stylistically to me.

Also, you're incorrect that that's the only example I use of her refusing to own or acknowledge (or formulate) her own viewpoint. There's the Leroi Jones discussion; there's her praise of Godard's politics without being willing to say anything about the content of those politics...it's something she does all the time.

In terms of my sneering...I think you're not quite getting the intent of the sneer. My point isn't that Kael is hiding her opinion about this or that film; she always makes her taste clear. My point is that her opinions are built on nothing; she doesn't interrogate them or put them together or relate them to anything but her own particular rush of enthusiasm; there's never a thesis. Her use of "we" is intended in part to cover that over; if "we" all think this, it must have meaning. But it doesn't; it's just her particular reactions. "We" substitutes for context, but it's a very poor substitute.

If I confronted Kael and said, "You can't possibly think that commercialism is the cause of racism, can you?" perhaps she'd say, no, no, of course it isn't. But what we've got is her essay, and what she says in the essay is that the film's racism is the result of commercialism. Your defense seems to be that she can't possibly say that because it is stupid. But people say and believe stupid things all the time. I think a critic should call them on it, not pass over it on the assumption that they couldn't possibly have meant it.

Mr. Sausage:

Like Kael, I enjoy writing polemics. I don't know that there's much similarity beyond that.

For someone who's down on literalness, you're own approach to language is really painfully literal. You didn't prove anything about the use of "we" except that you've nailed yourself to a wall of denotations from which you seem unable to extricate yourself.

Why does Kael need to oleaginously "ply" anyone? What arguments exactly is she trying to get people to "open" themselves to, and why does she need to tell them she's "one of them" or "us" in order to do so? What's at stake in so insistently demanding that she's one of the people, one of the audience, while at the same time defining that audience's experience in terms of her own prejudices and interests? I tried to answer those questions. You're insisting that not only are my answers wrong, but the questions themselves are illegitimate. That seems foolish to me; if you take Kael seriously as a writer, it seems like you should extend her the courtesy of believing that her style isn't a random blip, but has something to say.

Re: literalness. All language is always a metaphor; even literal is a word, and so is as much dream as truth. But that doesn't meant that metaphors can't be true, and it doesn't mean that writers can't be honest or dishonest. Kael to me seems to deliberately avoid the most important issues she raises and to use rhetorical gambits in order to obscure the confusion of her thinking.

Arguing for your ideas doesn't mean parsing and fisking and then declaring victory, incidentally. It means, first of all, figuring out what your ideas are.

Incidentally, Ray Carney's take on Kael is pretty similar to mine, though he likes her more than I do overall.

Yet having acknowledged her achievement, one still must admit the extraordinary blind spots in her vision of film. If she exposes us to the unregimented, even irresponsible energies of personal performances, it is at the expense of leaving out an awful lot else. In fact, what seems left out of her meticulous anatomy of gestures, glances, and looks, her aesthetic of frissions, shocks, and visions, is simply all the rest of life. Kael's attention to the isolated movements, shots, or postures that define a performance necessarily isolates it from the social, political, and personal contexts that surround and sustain it. Meaning drops away.

The whole review is here

[Mr Sausage]

For someone who's down on literalness, you're own approach to language is really painfully literal. You didn't prove anything about the use of "we" except that you've nailed yourself to a wall of denotations from which you seem unable to extricate yourself.

Prove it. I dare you. Prove there's a single way that "we" is not in contradistinction to otherness.

This is incredible. I live with my girlfriend. We own a television. According to you, right there I just declaimed ownership of that television. It's owned by somebody else, not me. Seriously? How the hell does someone say they're not part of a group by saying they're included in that group? You're really going to tell me that Pauline Kael says "we" in order to indicate that she is not a part of that "we" she just told you she was part of? She doesn't share those ideas, those are other people's ideas? How the hell does a first person pronoun not include its speaker? How could you ever possibly indicate otherness with a first person pronoun? Otherness means not I, not us, not we, someone else. You've failed to understand the word at its basic level.

You're done. Your position is destroyed. Have the decency to admit as much and formulate a new argument.

Why does Kael need to oleaginously "ply" anyone? What arguments exactly is she trying to get people to "open" themselves to, and why does she need to tell them she's "one of them" or "us" in order to do so? What's at stake in so insistently demanding that she's one of the people, one of the audience, while at the same time defining that audience's experience in terms of her own prejudices and interests? I tried to answer those questions. You're insisting that not only are my answers wrong, but the questions themselves are illegitimate. That seems foolish to me; if you take Kael seriously as a writer, it seems like you should extend her the courtesy of believing that her style isn't a random blip, but has something to say.

No one needs to ply anyone. But if you're going to make an argument, it's a good idea to be persuasive, and making your audience pliant is a great way to engage them in what you have to say. Much better than your own technique, which is to alienate from the very start by saying things like someone is "boring as fuck."

If you want to claim that her "we's" falsely imply she is one of the 'people,' one of the movie-going public, go ahead. Frankly I think she's making her approach democratic rather than hierarchical in order to avoid giving the impression that only an elite can feel about movies as she feels, but let's pretend that there's no reason to think that. If you claim the above, you may actually have a ghost of a point. But you didn't, you accused her of the opposite, of declaiming her opinions by attributing them only to people who aren't her, something that is false on the simple level of language comprehension.

[Binker]

Blinker, have you read the passages I'm discussing? I really haven't seen many (I can't think of any, actually) writers use "we" as persistently and insistently as Kael does. It's use is really the lynch pin of the major essay in Going Steady — it ends up being her point in the final sentence (that is, the point is that "we" like trash and that that is important.) People occasionally throw in a "we" here or there, but she maintains it for paragraphs, and uses it to cement her argument. It seems pretty central to what she's doing stylistically to me.

I've read only the portions quoted in your essay, and they all conform to a usage of we of which I am very, very familiar. The prevalence or location of the usage I don't find particularly relevant, you're still assigning disproportionate importance to what is really just a very minor rhetorical device. I'm sure that that essay is fundamentally concerned with the value and significance of "trash," and not necessarily with proving the reality that EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION loves trash. That isn't the point, it's just a bit of persuasive phrasing. And I must say I am firmly in agreement with Mr. Sausage that the such rhetoric is not at all duplicitous.

In terms of my sneering...I think you're not quite getting the intent of the sneer. My point isn't that Kael is hiding her opinion about this or that film; she always makes her taste clear. My point is that her opinions are built on nothing; she doesn't interrogate them or put them together or relate them to anything but her own particular rush of enthusiasm; there's never a thesis. Her use of "we" is intended in part to cover that over; if "we" all think this, it must have meaning. But it doesn't; it's just her particular reactions. "We" substitutes for context, but it's a very poor substitute.

You're speaking in quite general terms here, perhaps a bit due to the nature of the discussion, but I'll just note that she is writing film review, which is distinct from film criticism, an academic field. Not to say that reviewers should be held to no logical standards, but a well-developed thesis outside of the fundamental question of liking or disliking a film might be a bit much to ask.

If I confronted Kael and said, "You can't possibly think that commercialism is the cause of racism, can you?" perhaps she'd say, no, no, of course it isn't. But what we've got is her essay, and what she says in the essay is that the film's racism is the result of commercialism. Your defense seems to be that she can't possibly say that because it is stupid. But people say and believe stupid things all the time. I think a critic should call them on it, not pass over it on the assumption that they couldn't possibly have meant it.

Well, did she ever say that commercialism is the sole cause of racism, or is that an extrapolation you're making from one of her arguments, one that might also be interpreted as having implications which are less far-reaching and don't lead to assigning the writer a position which is flatly illogical?

[NoahB]

Prove it. I dare you. Prove there's a single way that "we" is not in contradistinction to otherness.

"We" is often used to designate a collective otherness in horror films. Insect groups saying "we is the swarm" or whatever. When individuals get assimilated and start using "we", they're seen as other.

It's not especially relevant here, but you asked for a single example. Here's perhaps a more direct point. Becoming part of a collective is often a way to disavow individual responsibility. It works that way in bureaucraciesc. When you say, "this is our television set," you're obviously part of the group and not disavowing personal responsibility. When you say, "Our organization has decided to repossess your house," something a little different is happening. Groups are not individuals; dissolving individuality in a group is therefore (to some degree) a linguistic renunciation or denial of individuality. "I think therefore I am" is a significantly different statement from "We think therefore we are," or from "We think therefore I am."

No one needs to ply anyone. But if you're going to make an argument, it's a good idea to be persuasive, and making your audience pliant is a great way to engage them in what you have to say.

Why is it a good idea? What ideas is she putting forward that need to be smoothed down? Isn't it condescending to presume your audience needs to be coddled and patted on the head in this way? Is she selling snake oil or is she reviewing movies?

Blinker, she doesn't say it's the sole cause of racism, but she does make it the point of her essay; that is, the point of the essay become not, "this film is racist and a piece of crap" or "this film is a piece of crap because it is racist" but "this film is racist because it is a piece of crap." I think that line of thinking is very typical of where she's coming from, and of her general move to turn issues of morality or politics into questions of film quality. I'm mocking her in that bit and pushing her position to a ridiculous logical conclusion. But I think it is the logical conclusion you get to if you push.

Not to say that reviewers should be held to no logical standards, but a well-developed thesis outside of the fundamental question of liking or disliking a film might be a bit much to ask.

The central essay of the collection I read is long and ambitious and presented as a statement of her views on film in general. I think it's entirely appropriate to expect some sort of thesis from such a piece.

Perhaps you're right that I should lower my expectations. But then, why not just read something that I don't need to lower my expectations for?

[Mr Sausage]

"We" is often used to designate a collective otherness in horror films. Insect groups saying "we is the swarm" or whatever. When individuals get assimilated and start using "we", they're seen as other.

Yeah, "they're" only seen as other by the people not included in the "we." Again, we is a contradistinction to otherness. No insect saying "we are the swarm" means "I'm not part of the swarm, guys." Now you're failing to understand basic perspective. No one from the perspective of "we" is not including themselves in that "we." To a swarm, everyone not of the swarm is other; to those outside the swarm, the swarm is other. We = us. They = others. I cannot possibly hammer this home more.

It's not especially relevant here, but you asked for a single example. Here's perhaps a more direct point. Becoming part of a collective is often a way to disavow individual responsibility.

I'll give you that, but it's too bad that wasn't your point. Your point was that she disavowed ownership, not that she relinquished responsibility for the ideas she owns. Surely you can see how these are not the same things.

Once again, prove to me that when Kael says "we" she means "I am not a part of this group and do not share in its ideas." Also, it's about time you considered whether her "we's" actually refer to a group or a collective instead of just her and the reader. You've totally failed to account for the possibility that she's using the word to create a sense of intimacy between her and her possible reader, ie. only two people.

Why is it a good idea?

Why isn't it?

What ideas is she putting forward that need to be smoothed down?

Here you go again, implying that there must be something terribly insidious about her ideas if she's going to resort to shifty old rhetoric and the arts of persuasion. You've given this received idea quite an airing. You ought to tell us more about how we should never convince someone of something by making our argument, you know, convincing.

Isn't it condescending to presume your audience needs to be coddled and patted on the head in this way? Is she selling snake oil or is she reviewing movies?

What about this is coddling? What about this is head patting? What about the art of persuasion is so baffling? Would you even have a point if you used neutral rather than negative language to describe what she's doing? Do your negative words not entirely generate your meaning for you?

[Binker]

Blinker, she doesn't say it's the sole cause of racism, but she does make it the point of her essay; that is, the point of the essay become not, "this film is racist and a piece of crap" or "this film is a piece of crap because it is racist" but "this film is racist because it is a piece of crap." I think that line of thinking is very typical of where she's coming from, and of her general move to turn issues of morality or politics into questions of film quality. I'm mocking her in that bit and pushing her position to a ridiculous logical conclusion. But I think it is the logical conclusion you get to if you push.

This is getting a bit circular so I think this will be my last response and I'll let you have the final word if you'd like it. I can only suggest that you reconsider the scope of her overall argument and the intended exclusivity of her concluding point. She's addressing the politics of film creation, maybe even to the exclusion of a broader political analysis, because she's a film critic and perhaps even more essentially because those are the political issues which interest her enough that she feels compelled to write about them. This does not imply that she believes that these broader social issues do not exist, that they do not matter, or even that they are less important in the overall scheme of things than the realities of commercial filmmaking. Indeed, I'll say again, when she writes that commercial filmmaking appeals to "soft spots," embedded within that criticism is the notion that commercial filmmaking is reactionary and not responsible for the creation of the attitudes its responding to. "Racism springs from the aesthetic failures of bourgeois sentimentalism" seems to me an astounding distortion of the implications of her argument.

Now you're of course free to your personal preferences and it may well be that you prefer film writing which takes a broader approach to connecting content to external political realities. But I still think you're unfairly assigning Kael exceedingly stupid and rather offensive political views.

The central essay of the collection I read is long and ambitious and presented as a statement of her views on film in general. I think it's entirely appropriate to expect some sort of thesis from such a piece.

In that form I agree, but isn't the thesis rather transparently the value and superiority of "trash" art? Whether or not you found her persuasive is a different question.

Perhaps you're right that I should lower my expectations. But then, why not just read something that I don't need to lower my expectations for?

Personally, I expect interesting and thoughtful analysis from film review, but not necessarily an academic thesis to the exclusion of obvious value judgments.

[matrixschmatrix]

NoahB, I've read that essay, albeit a while ago, and I believe her point with racism was that studios pressure moviemakers to have shallow, stereotyped characterization, because that allows one to have more clear-cut villains and heroes, which means the audience can remain soft, neither thinking about the movie nor reconsidering the emotions they had going into it.

This in turn reinforces racism, among other prejudices. It's easy enough to demonstrate how that could happen- think about Do the Right Thing. If we make it clear cut, and had heroes and villains put in place of its real people- and hey, Sal should be the hero, because he looks most like the audience, so that's not difficult for them to swallow- the film would seem immensely racist, some sort of horrid tract about how the interests of various races can't possibly coincide, rather than a movie about how a functional community can explode because of unaired racial baggage and a corrupt system.

Thus, if it were poorly made- which is often something studios pressure movies to be- it would also be racist. That isn't the only possible source of racism by any means, but commercialism often leads to shallowness that takes away the humanity that destroys racism.

[starmanof51]

Incidentally, Ray Carney's take on Kael is pretty similar to mine

With kindness in my heart, let me advise against waving that around too freely, he's become a mockable figure to many in this forum. Seek out the "Spit on Ray Carney" thread, if you can take it. I daresay Armond White is the only film gadfly who catches more snark (albeit orders of magnitude more).

OK, back to the body slams, which we've been enjoying.

[Perkins Cobb]

OK, back to the body slams, which we've been enjoying.

Speak for yoursel -- ohhhhhhh.

[NoahB]

I guess it makes sense that Carney would piss people off. That essay I linked is great though; wonderfully written and really insightful. Much, much more fun to read than Kael, at least for me.

Anyway, looks like the conversation has mostly finished up, and as Blinker said we'd started to go in circles by the end there anyway. But I just wanted to thank folks again for reading my essay and for the discussion. It's been fun. Take care all.

[Mr Sausage]

Sorry, you've got one challenge ahead of you, and to ignore it would be dishonest:

A first-person personal pronoun uttered by a speaker must include that speaker among the people to whom that pronoun refers. If we accept this as true--which it is--how could Pauline Kael have uttered a first person pronoun that attributes ideas or feelings to persons, or groups of persons, who are not, or do not include, herself? Noting of course that she does not place these pronouns in the mouth of anyone but herself.

If you cannot answer this question except with "she cannot," then all of your claims, both here and in your blog post, are wrong. Admitting that, your next step is to offer a retraction, that being the ethical thing required of you as a writer.

Now is the time to step up since, after all, what is the benefit of holding a wrong opinion?

[zedz]

And the moral of the story is: there are some people with whom you don't argue semantics.

(And who knew they were a bloodsport?)

[Mr Sausage]

Well, seriously, this guy thinks Pauline Kael is being disingenuous by predicating her film criticism on what she presumes is a common experience. Why, what a ghastly thing to do when writing about an audience-directed medium: maintaining for the sake of argument that the audience of the movie will have a similar experience as hers, and that there are implications to this experience! No! And how misdirected of her to try to give readers a reason to value trash by explaining how it will benefit us, too, rather than just her!

And apparently doing all of this by attributing her feelings to an 'other' through the use of...wait for it...personal pronouns!

Ugh.

[NoahB]

Mr. Sausage, it's the same question we've been arguing back and forth over the last page or so. Further go rounds would just bore everyone, I think.

Take care.