Pauline Kael: A Life in the Dark [NOOK Book]


The first major biography of the most influential, powerful, and controversial film critic of the twentieth century

Pauline Kael was, in the words of Entertainment Weekly's movie reviewer Owen Gleiberman, "the Elvis or Beatles of film criticism." During her tenure at The New Yorker from 1968 to 1991, she was the most widely read and, often enough, the most provocative critic in America. In this first ...
See more details below
Pauline Kael: A Life in the Dark

Available on NOOK devices and apps  
  • NOOK Devices
  • Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 NOOK 7.0
  • Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 NOOK 10.1
  • NOOK HD Tablet
  • NOOK HD+ Tablet
  • NOOK eReaders
  • NOOK Color
  • NOOK Tablet
  • Tablet/Phone
  • NOOK for Windows 8 Tablet
  • NOOK for iOS
  • NOOK for Android
  • NOOK Kids for iPad
  • PC/Mac
  • NOOK for Windows 8
  • NOOK for PC
  • NOOK for Mac
  • NOOK for Web

Want a NOOK? Explore Now

NOOK Book (eBook)
$14.99 price


The first major biography of the most influential, powerful, and controversial film critic of the twentieth century

Pauline Kael was, in the words of Entertainment Weekly's movie reviewer Owen Gleiberman, "the Elvis or Beatles of film criticism." During her tenure at The New Yorker from 1968 to 1991, she was the most widely read and, often enough, the most provocative critic in America. In this first full-length biography of the legend who changed the face of film criticism, acclaimed author Brian Kellow gives readers a richly detailed view of Kael's remarkable life—from her youth in rural California to her early struggles to establish her writing career to her peak years at The New Yorker.

Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

Janet Maslin
…a smart and incisive biography…Mr. Kellow's clear, independent view of his subject is his book's most valuable surprise…It is possible to be dazzled by the bravura authority of [Kael's] writing without remotely agreeing with her, and this biography fully captures such contradictions. Kael liked to disparage what she called "saphead objectivity." But Mr. Kellow is no saphead, and he makes objectivity a great virtue.
—The New York Times
Frank Rich
…fair-minded and deeply reported…
—The New York Times Book Review
Louis Bayard
…Kellow's admiring but even-handed approach in Pauline Kael: A Life in the Dark…neatly captures the unruly emotions his subject provoked.
—The Washington Post
Publishers Weekly
Relentlessly outspoken, unafraid of challenging idols and embracing the lowbrow and the overlooked, New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael, who died in 2001, proves a formidable, however natural, subject for Opera News columnist Kellow (Ethel Merman). He handles this difficult, unsympathetic personality with an admirable evenhandedness, considering that Kael cultivated as many detractors as admirers with her honest, gut-provoked reviewing. Born in 19TK to Polish Jewish immigrants who tried their luck running a chicken farm in Petaluma, Calif., before moving to San Francisco, Pauline was a crack student, deep reader, and eventual philosophy student at Berkeley, her early critical skills honed in the fledgling Berkeley Renaissance of the 1940s, with critics R.P. Blackmur and James Agee as early influences. From a stint as codirector of the Berkeley Cinema Guild with her then husband, Edward Landberg, Kael segued naturally into radio (KPFA) and freelance journalism, championing the New Wave and attacking the fashionable “auteur theory.” Her first book, I Lost It at the Movies (1965), established her reputation as the “saltiest” reviewer around, leading to her opening salvo at the New Yorker with an enthusiastic review of Bonnie and Clyde (1968). The old guard, like editor William Shawn, never warmed to her, but the young and iconoclastic loved her. In his fluent, immensely readable study, Kellow fairly represents Kael’s tendency to hyperbole (writing of Barbra Streisand or Last Tango in Paris) as well as hurtful ad hominem (George Cukor’s Rich and Famous; Shoah). (Oct.)
Todd McCarthy
"Kellow, an erudite movie lover...writes beautifully and dexterously interweaves the story of a career long-thwarted with a sensitive reading o his subject's youthful enthusiasm and intellectual growth."
Whitney Matheson
“Brian Kellow’s biography of [Pauline Kael] is a fascinating and enlightening read.”
The New Yorker
The Wall Street Journal
This affectionate biography makes [Kael's] life and her passion for movies inseparable.
"For a biography to do justice to a complex personality and a great mind such as Kael’s, extensive research must be matched by acute perception. That requirement is fully, even joyously, met here."
Los Angeles
“A smart and eminently readable examination of the life and career of one of the 20th century’s most influential movie critics.”
The Washington Times
“[Kellow] brings a wise and sweeping vision to [Kael's] artistic mentality and her enduring legacy.”
“[M]eticulously researched.”
The Dallas Morning News
“Fun, fair, and fluently written, [Pauline Kael: A Life in the Dark] is an edifying read.”
The Portland Mercury
“Mr. Kellow throws a great deal of light on the famous critic’s heretofore mysterious ways.”
Associated Press Staff
“In Pauline Kael: A Life in the Dark, author Brian Kellow offers a making-of story as engaging as her criticism. It’s not easy feat—what’s less dramatic than scribbling into the night?—but Kellow tapped [Kael's] friends and foes and her writing while developing a colorful, even handed appreciation of one of film’s most influential critics….[An] eye-opening biography.”
The Playlist
“Compelling…thrillingly written and exhaustively researched….Genius.”
The Village Voice
“Kellow evocatively captures the blooming of film culture in the early 1960s, and the sobriety with which Kael took over the critical pulpit….Kellow not only grasps the significance of his subject, but invokes the pace and energy of [Kael's] singular style….good, dishy fun.”
San Francisco Chronicle
"At last, a biography of the highly influential New Yorker film critic."
Entertainment Weekly
“[A] rich, thorough, and admirably fair biography.”
The Hindu
“[A] finely balanced biography…[N]ot only will you not be disappointed with Kellow’s intrepid research, you’ll also be rewarded by his rich, close reading of her reviews (and the stories behind the writing of them) that does marvelous justice to Pauline Kael’s exhilarating gift for writing on the movies. Both, her admirers and her detractors could not have asked for a more satisfying biography.”
Toronto Star
The Buffalo News
“[A] smashing first biography of the famed New Yorker critic.”
The Onion A.V. Club
“[A] richly detailed biography.”
“[A] terrific new biography… [Kael's early life ] was a revelation to me, thanks to Kellow’s ace research.”
“[Pauline Kael is an] entertaining and insightful biography.”
“[Pauline Kael is an] excellent Biography.”
Celluloid Void
“[Brian] Kellow finds the emotional core of [Pauline] Kael’s persona….Kellow is quickly becoming a film fan’s dream biographer…. That Kellow chooses to write in calm, unshowy prose is both astute as a journalistic technique and integral to the book’s aesthetic success….Kellow’s Kael transcends mere artistic contrarianism and resembles a sort of impassioned duelist.”
Ben Brantley
“[Pauline Kael] got into my bloodstream more than any other critic. So I have been waiting most of my life for a smart, insightful biography like [Pauline Kael: A Life in the Dark] to take me beyond and beneath the hypnotic thrill of her prose.”
Elaine Showalter
“[An] entertaining and insightful biography, as much a study of her criticism as a narrative of her life. . . . [Pauline] Kael emerges from [Kellow’s] biography as a great cinematic character, a kind of Citizen Kane, with a life lived and shaped by the dark.”
“Brian Kellow’s biography Pauline Kael: A Life in the Dark wisely charts Kael’s life by focusing on her writing.”
Sense of Cinema
“[An] excellent new biography.”
American Spectator
“Yet Kael often reveled in movies she thought were a mess, just as anyone who reads Brian Kellow’s incisive, detailed biography of America’s most impassioned and influential movie critic, Pauline Kael: A Life in the Dark, is sure to be absorbed, sucked in, by Kael’s cluttered hodge-podge of a life—personally, professionally, emotionally, aesthetically….There is so much packed into Kellow’s rich book…that her life story seems an epic script.”
The New Yorker (Reviewers' favorites)
Janet Maslin
“[A] smart and incisive biography…. [Moviegoers] are in for a colossal eye-opening. [Kael's] love for film has no present-day counterpart…. Mr. Kellow’s clear, independent view of his subject is his book’s most valuable surprise….Kael liked to disparage what she called ‘saphead objectivity.’ Bur Mr. Kellow is no saphead, and he makes objectivity a great virtue."
Ben Brandtley
“[Pauline Kael] got into my bloodstream more than any other critic. So I have been waiting most of my life for a smart, insightful biography like [Pauline Kael: A Life in the Dark] to take me beyond and beneath the hypnotic thrill of her prose.”
Scott Eyman
"Mr. Kellow’s even-handed treatment gives us [Kael] in all her maddening overconfidence.”
The Wall Street Journal (Recommended Gift)
“This affectionate biography makes [Kael's] life and her passion for movies inseparable.”
Frank Rich
“To appreciate Kael’s trailblazing, you have to see it in its broader context. Luckily, that backdrop is filled in with surefooted sophistication by Brian Kellow in Pauline Kael: A Life in the Dark, a fair-minded and deeply reported Kael biography.”
Mary Pols
“I fell on Kellow’s book like a teenage girl on a lost volume of the Twilight saga and found it quite as riveting as teens find anything to do with Bella.”
Entertainment Weekly (Best Nonfictions Books of 2011)
“[A] rich, thorough, and admirably fair biography.”
Leonard Maltin
“The fact that most of us know little about [Kael's ] upbringing of her private life makes this an especially intriguing biography.”
Los Angeles Magazine (Critic's Picks
"Kellow has reconstructed Kael's 'life in the dark'....The result is a joy to read....[I]t's a fascinating book."
Howard Kissel
“[E]xhaustively researched, beautifully written….Kellow has told [Kael's] life in incredible detail….I found [Pauline Kael: A Life in the Dark] enthralling because it vividly recreates a world I was part of, which seems now very distant. It is also because Kellow has been generous in quoting [Kael's] sensuous, percussive, often wise prose….Pauline was a galvanizing presence, and Kellow has brought her back with overwhelming intensity.”
Richard Schickel
Pauline Kael: A Life in the Dark is a very good biography."
Philip French
“The [present] I hope someone will send me is Brian Kellow’s Pauline Kael: A Life in the Dark.”
Booklist (Top 10 Arts Books 2011)
“Kellow matches extensive research with acute perception in his sensitive and definitive biography of Pauline Kael, America’s foremost, and most controversial, movie critic.”
David Finkle
“Throws radiant light on the renowned movie critic.”
Laurie Winer
"[A] fascinating new biography….[Kellow] captures [Kael's] best passages and most heartless insults and puts them in context.”
Library Journal
Features editor of Opera News, Kellow is also author of Ethel Merman: A Life and The Bennetts: An Acting Family, an interesting background for someone writing about one of the most influential film critics ever. Note that the Library of America will simultaneously publish The Age of Movies: Selected Writings of Pauline Kael (750p. ISBN 9781598531091. $35).
Kirkus Reviews
The first biography of arguably the most influential and controversial film critic at a turning point in cinema history. Pauline Kael (1919–2001) was a study in contradictions: a farm girl (albeit from an unusual community of Eastern European Jews in Petaluma, Calif.) and proud Westerner who became film critic for the most urbane of Eastern magazines, the New Yorker; an outspoken critic of the auteur theory who faithfully championed several auteurs of the 1970s, including Peckinpah, Altman, Scorsese, Coppola and de Palma; and an acolyte of high art who wrote most passionately about "trash" that hit her in the gut. A generous nurturer of younger writers, she could turn cold or even brutal if they didn't act according to her plans for them. With her daughter Gina (who declined to participate in the book), Kael was dependent to the point of being an obstacle to her career and romances. But Kael's life outside of the movies is background to the narrative, as it seems to have been for Kael herself as she lived it. "For Pauline," writes Opera News features editor Kellow (Ethel Merman: A Life, 2007 etc.) writes, "being a spectator continued to be the best thing life could offer." She first came to some prominence as a movie maven in San Francisco, where she selected programs for an art house and opined on films for listener-supported radio. She was already 50 when she began writing for the New Yorker, but those two decades of her life take up roughly 75 percent of Kellow's book. Her influence owes probably most to her intensely personal writing style and her identification with and advocacy for the movie audience. Kellow performs biographical magic, telling her story mostly through her most famous (and notorious) reviews of some of the landmark films of the '60s and '70s: Bonnie and Clyde, M*A*S*H, Last Tango in Paris, Nashville, Jaws and Star Wars to name a few. Like Kael's own books, this bio is a page-turner.
The Barnes & Noble Review

Pauline, Pauline, Paw-leen. Though I've taken no polls, my guess is that I'm far from the first Oedipal basket case to parody Dolly Parton's "Jolene" that way. But no matter what her goofier admirers think, Pauline Kael — best known as The New Yorker's "The Current Cinema" geyser from 1968 through 1990 — was not the Greatest Movie Critic Ever. She just behaved as though that was a plausible category, confounding newly minted also-rans who hadn't known it was a contest. As for her effect on future pop-culture scribblers, all I can do is misquote Blue Velvet: "She put her disease in us."

In Kael's avast-ye prime, Andrew Sarris, glumly cast (it hadn't been his idea) as the Village Voice yin to her tangier yang, plainly knew more and had thought harder about movie history. Coming along a bit later — the evidence was that he'd inhaled the concept of Greatest Movie Critic Ever as a brass ring worth choking on — David Thomson saw deeper into film's psychology. Yet no one else's claims matter, because Kael's notion of the stakes involved didn't outlive and indeed predeceased her. That may be the definition of a superstar. If you doubt she was one, rack your brains along with me to name another English-language movie critic who's been the subject of a full-dress biography. To wit, Brian Kellow's first- rate, sometimes troubling Pauline Kael: A Life in the Dark. And no, James Agee doesn't count, let alone Graham Greene; they both had other fish to fry. Only Kael has rated Boswellizing for film criticism alone.

On the other hand, however useful for neophytes, the Library of America's Kael anthology, The Age of Movies, isn't quite all it could be. Like 2009's Farber on Film, which compiled the work of cult-crit legend — and largely unacknowledged Kael influence — Manny Farber, it's billed as "A Special Publication of the Library of America," implying that both writers are somewhere south of canonical and justifying presentation literally flimsier than the LoA's norm. At $40 a pop, a "hardcover" whose backings don't bend under the consumer's thumbs might be nice. Editor Sanford Schwartz might also have done us non-neophytes a favor by printing more than the single essay here — "Movies, the Desperate Art," from 1956 — that hasn't already appeared in Kael's own collections. I'd have liked to see the 1952 pan of Chaplin's Limelight that started her on her way.

As a result, though I read Kellow's biography with fascination - - Kael's fan dance with the personal information she tossed into her early essays had a predictable Gypsy Rose Lee effect on junkies — I coursed through the 828 pages of The Age of Movies more briskly than an earnest reviewer should. The reason for that may be pardonable, though. I once knew around half its contents goddam near by heart.

Unlike those sturdy adolescents whose sexual initiation ("Tante Alice wasn't a blood relative") or political primal scene ("The Pinkertons shot Pops at noon") made their fifteenth birthdays memorable, the most transformative event of mine was neither erotic nor radicalizing. Except, perhaps, in totally figurative senses of both words. Having noticed I liked movies, my parents gave me a Bantam paperback called Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. If either cake or a baseball bat was in the picture, they've both ended up on memory's cutting-room floor.

Published the year before she turned fifty, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was Kael's second collection of criticism. Her first had been 1965's I Lost It at the Movies, which I quickly devoured as well. Mind, lots of the time, I didn't know what she was talking about, from her demolitions of my adolescent canon — why wasn't The Longest Day even in the index? Who were François Truffaut, Akira Kurosawa, Joe McCarthy, Bertrand Russell? — to the aphorism that led off her killer job on West Side Story: "Sex is the great leveler, taste the great divider." I just knew I wanted to think like that, live like that. (Write like that, too — and fat chance.) Though it wouldn't be released until later, I fear the most appropriate movie for me to have watched in Pauline's company just then would have been Truffaut's The Wild Child.

The timing couldn't have been more fortuitous, since my new heroine had recently begun her stint at The New Yorker. To which, God love 'em, my parents subscribed. A fact whose significance I was in no position to appreciate then — believe me, middle age has taught me better — is that, with a couple of abortive exceptions, Kael's New Yorker job was her first real berth at any magazine after years as an erratically paid freelancer. Or even an unpaid one, in the case of the weekly broadcasts, on San Francisco's KPFA, whose acerbic independent-mindedness won her local notoriety from 1955 on.

On top of that, it wasn't until her thirties that she realized movie criticism was her vocation. Kellow's early chapters detail her scruffy decade-plus of odd jobs, frustrated ambitions, bohemian non-rhapsodies, and scary near-penury after not- quite-graduating, six credits short of a degree, from Berkeley in 1939. If she ended up wielding her belated nationwide clout in a manner that suggested Courtney Love's gallivanting blah- blah-blah crossed with the "Sentence first, trial later" side of Lewis Carroll's Queen of Hearts, that may be no wonder — but it's also getting ahead of the story.

By obsessional standards, Kellow falls short of exhaustive. His indifference to which publishing house briefly had Kael on the payroll during her mostly miserable first crack at New York in the 1940s would boil Robert A. Caro's hair. Yet he's brainy, convincingly informed about her life — though not, unfortunately, about movie criticism, except hers — and a long way from thoughtlessly adulatory. Among other nuggets, the gaps he's filled in about Kael's pre-fame years make a dandy corrective to her opportunistic use of autobiography.

For instance, every Kael adept knows she grew up on a ranch in Northern California. Alerting us to that was the brilliant move in one of her greatest essays: 1963's "Hud, Deep in the Divided Heart of Hollywood." Back then, proper-minded critics just didn't pull rank in the arresting way Kael did by comparing the adulteries of Paul Newman's Hud to those of her own father.

Nonetheless, her evocatively generic "ranch" makes Kellow's "thriving community of Jewish chicken ranchers" in Sonoma County, to which Kael's immigrant parents moved from New York in 1912 to try their luck, a bit of a letdown. California's early-twentieth-century accommodation of ethnic Utopias is in fact a wonderful story, but you wouldn't know it from Isaac and Judith Kael's daughter. Anyhow, the family quit Petaluma for cosmopolitan San Francisco when Pauline was still a youngster. Goodbye, "Little Moviehouse on the Prairie." Kael's relationship to Judaism became an issue after her notorious 1985 pan of Claude Lanzmann's nine-hour Holocaust documentary, Shoah — a piece, let us note, not included in The Age of Movies. According to Kellow, Kael only inserted its apologetic opening paragraph — "I ask the forbearance of readers for a dissenting view of a film that is widely regarded as a masterpiece" — under rare (I'll say) editorial duress. All the same, her refusal to self-identify as Jewish puts her in some fairly exalted midcentury company: Norman Mailer (Kellow strikes me as mistaken in claiming she wasn't a fan), Bob Dylan. In their vigorously American ways, all three were aiming for, not assimilation, but transcendence.

Aggressively concocted public personas were their signature move. Though Kael wasn't in Mailer's or Dylan's league as a self-reinventor, readers smitten by the bawdy sophistication of her observations on love and sex in the movies vs. real life may be crestfallen at how her I've-been-around act seems to have been much ado about next to nothing. Among other nods to Rabelais, she implied that she had more than one ex-husband in her colorful-sounding past: "My marital vicissitudes. . . may over-complicate nomenclature," was her explanation to KPFA listeners of why she signed herself Pauline Kael, conjuring up a Rosalind Russell–ish dame who'd had her wedding-bell innings with Cary Grant and Ralph Bellamy.

Not so. There was only one marriage, a lackluster one — undertaken mainly for financial stability, says Kellow — to the owner of the Berkeley art-house cinema whose repertoire she oversaw in the fifties. Treasured by Bay Area movie fans, Kael's opinionated program notes have had a hell of a shelf life, incidentally. Not only did she reprint many of them in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and the later 5001 Nights at the Movies, but they went on showing up in The New Yorker's capsule takes on vintage films even after her death.

One obvious damper to grand passions is that the few romantic partners Kellow cites were mostly gay — including poet James Broughton, the father of her only child, Gina. (Kael's single- mom struggles to provide for her daughter in infancy are every bit as moving as her later treatment of the grown-up Gina as her factotum is unpleasant.) According to one Kael crony, she was "completely done" with men by her fifties — an age at which Mae West no doubt figured she was still getting started. None of this would be of interest if Kael's response to movies hadn't been famously libidinous. With increasing tastelessness, she encouraged that perception in naming her book collections, culminating in 1984's atrocious (I mean the title, not the contents — though the contents were pretty thick gruel) Taking It All In. Especially for a former devotee turned member of the guild, it's no fun to wonder if it was all sublimation, bearing out the ancient knock at critics for living vicariously.

Be that as it may, people who only discovered Kael in her floridly jazzy New Yorker glory days are in for a surprise if The Age of Movies is their first encounter with her I Lost It at the Movies and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang incarnations. Her responses are avid, but they aren't surrenders; she doesn't appear to think that turning her into a sated puddle is the test of any movie's greatness. She's flinty, analytical, and proudly independent. Except in her mockery of other critics — rudeness that inevitably helped get her noticed - - hyperbole isn't yet her stock in trade.

On that front, the opening qualifier in one early-1960s review not reprinted in The Age of Movies — "Cautious as I am about superlatives" — deserves a place in any collection of Famous Last Words. Here's how the spread-eagled Kael of 1975 began one of her more fabled raves: "Is there such a thing as an orgy for movie-lovers — an orgy without excess? At Robert Altman's new, almost three-hour film, Nashville, you don't get drunk on images, you're not overpowered — you get elated. I've never before seen a movie I loved in quite this way; I sat there smiling at the screen, in complete happiness. It's a pure emotional high, and you don't come down when the picture is over; you take it with you."

Nashville is, indeed, almost three hours long — which disposes of any actual information to be gleaned from that intro. The rest is high-grade flackery on behalf of a movie she was so eager to champion that she convinced The New Yorker to run her "review" before Nashville was in final form or had a definite release date. Violating that critical no-no turned her from legit reviewer to one-woman sales force.

Kael on Nashville showcases the vices of her New Yorker flood-tide mode, from the hectoring use of the second person to the invention of a notional film genre — "Nashville is the funniest epic vision of America ever to reach the screen" — of which the movie in question instantly becomes the ultimate example. Not to mention the privileging of her sensual reaction over any other critical yardsticks. Near parodies of intellectual window dressing, her silly comparisons of Altman's movie to Joyce's Ulysses almost poignantly recall the Kael who could toss in casually cultivated allusions to literature or philosophy whenever they seemed apt, definitely not the case here.

Nashville didn't fulfill her shilling prediction that it would "take off into the stratosphere." Instead, that review didn't only mark the peak of Kael's influence; Taxi Driver aside, it was the last hurrah for what she herself had termed "a legendary period in movies." Starting with her tremendous 7,000-word essay on Bonnie and Clyde — if the movie prefigured American film's 1970s renaissance, the piece won Kael her New Yorker gig — the symbiosis between critic, subject, and semi-popular excitement doesn't have any parallels I can think of this side of Clement Greenberg becoming influential just in time to explain Abstract Expressionism to everybody.

The first two Godfather movies, The Conformist, Godard's Weekend, Mean Streets, Altman's own McCabe and Mrs. Miller and The Long Goodbye: reading Kael on those works and any number of others was no mere adjunct to watching them, but part of the experience. The same was true of those she panned, from A Clockwork Orange — "the work of a strict and exacting German professor who set out to make a porno-violent sci-fi comedy" — to Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs. If her enthusiasms and hates alike went overboard, that suited her audience's heady sense of the vitality of movies in the polarized Nixon years.

People who'd had their cinematic sensibility formed by her now felt that sensibility triumphantly confirmed. Perhaps the reason we didn't notice she was becoming a hype merchant was that we were too jazzed ourselves to be discerning. Yet part of a critic's job — and the younger Kael's contrarianism about midcentury pieties is a bracingly pugnacious example — is to see beyond faddishness. The Queen of the May hubris turned unmistakable in her 1972 review of Bernardo Bertolucci's Last Tango in Paris, maybe the most throbbingly ridiculous (see how easy it is?) piece by a great critic ever to reach print.

Her opening comparison of Last Tango's New York Film Festival premiere to the debut of Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps was a death knell to any sense of proportion. Old Kael hands couldn't help recalling how her expert mid- sixties takedown of vainglorious producer Stanley Kramer had used a similarly fatuous quote from Linus Pauling — "It may be that some years from now we can look back and say that On the Beach is the movie that saved the world" — to set up the withering zinger, "Six years have passed: does anyone remember On the Beach as anything more than a lousy movie?" It's not just that Last Tango hasn't lived up to her claims — e.g., "Bertolucci and Brando have altered the face of an art form," when even its rump (at more obvious risk) has survived pretty much unscathed. No movie could have, meaning that Kael's excesses had finally surpassed those of her ostensible topic.

The superstardom on display in print wasn't even the whole story. Of all the compliments she'd earned in Frisco, the most retrospectively ironic is her frequent target Dwight Macdonald's typically unflustered praise of I Lost It at the Movies for its outsider integrity. Those were the days. Even before she took a leave of absence to work for her pal Warren Beatty as a Paramount production consultant in 1979 — a Keystone Kael episode that ended up as a humiliation — The New Yorker's celebrity critic was notorious for her chumminess with her faves, making the pretense of evenhanded judgments a semi-transparent sham.

It's bad enough that, before reviewing them, she was a VIP guest on the sets of several Altman movies — not even as a journalist, just an easily buttered-up Buddha. Calling her out for "setting one standard for people she knows and another for people she doesn't," the more principled Andrew Sarris got exasperated enough to note that her laudatory review of James Toback's Fingers didn't fill readers in that Toback — Kael's most puzzling aesthetic crush this side of Brian de Palma — was her constant companion at screenings. Indeed, during her ill-fated Hollywood stint, collaborating with Toback was her main job, which didn't stop her from reviewing his later work.

She lobbied Stephen Frears over dinner to cast Michelle Pfeiffer in Dangerous Liaisons, even sending Frears a VCR tape of an earlier Pfeiffer performance — and then, naturally, lyricized Pfeiffer in her review. Meanwhile, filmmakers outside her pet circle became the targets of increasingly monotonous vendettas. Besides being stupefyingly blinkered, her loathing of Clint Eastwood was so sulphuric that even Kael's friends wondered what its psychological subtext might be.

Then, of course, there were the Paulettes: the claque of younger, mostly male critics who became her Sunset Boulevard–esque acolytes and intimates, regurgitating her tastes and style from newspaper and magazine perches she'd often helped wangle for them. Though Kellow is undecided about how much toeing the party line was a condition for staying in Pauline's good graces, my own recollection is that Kael's opinion of a movie made reading her epigones awfully predictable. I almost choked with laughter when, once "The Godmother" — David Thomson's joke, not mine — was safely retired, one well-known Paulette bravely announced that Unforgiven was the first Eastwood movie he'd ever liked.

Because she was no dummy, these people — with a couple of swattable exceptions — really were gifted critics, just what made their quest for pride of place in Pauline's second chicken ranch lamentable. (For the record, whether this reviewer ever had the stuff to join the pecking order became a moot issue fast; in one of only three phone conversations I had with the great woman, I undiplomatically hinted at my preference for her earlier books. She stayed civil, but the drop in temperature would have busted a North Pole thermometer.) While the most talented of them all apparently wounded Kael deeply when he distanced himself in print after her retirement, nobody's ever called James Wolcott a dummy either.

The sad part is that most of them came along too late for the party. Once the 1970s "Golden Age" of adventurous, upstart directors ended — done in by Hollywood's new blockbuster mentality, which usually gets all the blame, but also by the simple fact of the audience's changing tastes — movies lost the crackling sense of consequence that Kael herself had done so much to simultaneously describe and foster.

According to Kellow, she was dispirited by the medium's retreat into inanity. Yet, seemingly for no better reason than wanting to go on being "Pauline Kael," she kept writing about movies — increasingly inchoately — in the same amped-up style, swooning over Debra Winger until steam rose off the page and acclaiming de Palma's thuggish latest as if he had compromising pictures of her locked in a safe. Because the LoA editor could cherry-pick, her decline into garrulous dross isn't that evident in The Age of Movies. It's telling nonetheless that Schwartz only reprints three pieces each from her final three collections, where some previous books are represented by a dozen or more.

"To be true to what Pauline taught us, you had to break with her," Owen Gleiberman, a near-Paulette who backed away in time, tells Kellow. While it would be vanity to claim I can identify — never met her, just got those three phone calls, and she made 'em by the dozens — I feel a certain simpatico. Around a quarter century into making my living as a pop critic, I outraged an ultra-distinguished colleague who'd been non- sycophantic friends with her by writing in Esquire, "No way around it, folks: that evil old bat is the reason I do what I do." Although, luckily for me, my one appearance in Kellow's book quotes a somewhat more restrained adieu — and gets its venue wrong, BTW — abuse that intemperate ought to tell you that what Kael turned into wasn't exactly water off a duck's back to me. If you'll forgive the Holden Caulfield note, I sometimes kind of hate her even now. But I still call her Pauline.

A two-time National Magazine Award winner during his stint as Esquire's "Screen" columnist, Tom Carson is currently a columnist at GQ. He is the author of Gilligan's Wake (2003), a novel.

Reviewer: Tom Carson

Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9781101545324
  • Publisher: Penguin Group (USA)
  • Publication date: 10/27/2011
  • Sold by: Penguin Group
  • Format: eBook
  • Pages: 432
  • Sales rank: 865,618
  • File size: 2 MB

Meet the Author

Brian Kellow
Brian Kellow is the features editor of Opera News, where his column, “On the Beat,” appears monthly. He is the author of The Bennetts: An Acting Family and the coauthor of Can’t Help Singing: The Life of Eileen Farrell. A classically trained pianist, Kellow has also written for Opera and Playbill, among others. He lives in New York City.
Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Average Rating 2
( 1 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star


4 Star


3 Star


2 Star


1 Star


Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation


  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
Sort by: Showing 1 Customer Reviews
  • Anonymous

    Posted September 14, 2011

    No text was provided for this review.

Sort by: Showing 1 Customer Reviews

If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
Why is this product inappropriate?
Comments (optional)