I'm glad you posted this reading of Kael's Shining review. I used to have a copy of one of her review anthologies, which contained it, but can't seem to find it. In any case, Kael has some genuinely on point criticisms of The Shining, however, the review is a bit of mess - she's all over the place as though she couldn't quite organize her thinking about it, and I think there's a distinct subtext that she may have felt out her element when trying to come to terms with what Kubrick's intent was. In fact, most of us are still trying to figure that question out, but when she goes on about how little Kubrick seems to care about the film's characters and how the actors depict them, she genuinely failed to understand that Kubrick was not interested in the psychological naturalistic style that informs commercial film acting - a style that allows audiences to readily identify with the characters. Kubrick doesn't make that sort of movie and never has. There has always been a dispassionate element in his treatment of his characters, as though viewing them from a distance. And it's no different in the Shining. There's a reason Kubrick often made actors do endless retakes of scenes, and that was to wean them off their instinctive "actorish" response and find something more primal within. This resulted in Nicholson giving one of his most over-the-top performances while Duval would give one of the greatest female cinematic performances of the twentieth century, enough to rival Renée Jeanne Falconetti in Dreyer's 1928 masterpiece "The Passion of Joan of Arc." And yes, I most sincerely mean that. Way past time Shelly got her due.
@@KaelSalad2024 Kael's praise for her performance is the best part of the review. It's an interesting review, perceptive in many ways and yet blind in others.
In her review Kael was dead wrong about a lot of things. As in many of her observations about this and other films, she often didn't seem to have a lot of imagination, or at least a willingness to think outside the box (her calling 2001 a "monumentally unimaginative movie" is the kind of act that warrants eternal censure). The Shining broke new ground and was ahead of its time in many ways. It was essentially the first "slow burn" horror movie, or at least the best example of it. She (and many other critics) saw this as a flaw and found it boring, yet countless horror movies since then have used this same technique of setting mood and tone, and have received a great deal of praise for it. She wasn't much of a Kubrick fan, and her issues with him stemmed not from flaws on his part but from his always being one step ahead of her. Having said all that... I did listen to this whole review, which I'm sure says something about her astuteness -- or at least the quality of her writing. She does make a lot of smart observations; the problem is she draws the wrong conclusions from them. Still, if I found myself doing a lot of talking back to her review, that is a credit to her.
Unfortunately, she was also wrong about many other films that are now considered classics. Kaels hatred of Kubrick or Eastwood was manic. I honestly don't know why I should still be interested in the opinion of someone who has been wrong so often. She also worked in Hollywood once. Where are the masterpieces she produced?
Overall I think she's too harsh but she makes some very interesting observations there. In a way they seem to mirror Malcolm McDowell's comment about Kubrick that I read recently: "Stanley can never understand the human element. If he could eliminate that, he could make the perfect movie." 😅
Malcolm McDowell was just salty because Kubrick never called him back after finishing A Clockwork Orange. He pretty much said so himself in later years. I seriously doubt anybody who was close to Kubrick would agree with that statement.
Thank you for showing this review of Ms. Kael. I would be curious to know what she and Jeremy think of the analysis of Rob Ager and of Malmrose Projects. Most Sincerely, Chris Howley, Wollaston, Massachusetts
I read this review, and I am still impressed with how she picked this one apart and noted the coldness of Kubrick’s style compared to Nicholson's performance. Thanks for this!
@@hermanhale9258 Maybe because they also happen to agree with what Kael said, and might not have even read her review of it. And she stated her case with the most clarity and eloquence, for the enjoyment of many and the anger of a small minority. But then Siskel and Ebert, et al, didn't receive letters with threats of violence from that small minority., as she did.
@@boborrahood Possibly. Or, even if they did read it, they might not remember that they did, or what she said. They might innocently think it is their own idea.
I never thought Kael's "impressionistic" [how she bristled at that adjective!] views of cinema were particularly accurate. How many go on and on nowadays about say, the films of Arthur Penn?
Well done! Both your reading and the video with her review printed over this and other film images add to this. I've been a longtime reader of Kael and met her a few times when she came out to San Francisco for appearances, interviews, book signings. I wrote to her at the New Yorker back in 1987 and then in 1995, when she wrote me back a second time. Now to see if I can replace that audio recording of her interview with Sedge Thompson on KQED from 1987(that was pulled off the internet).. She had given me written permission to get copies and asked if I'd like any of her books. She sent me the one you're reading this from, Taking It All In, inscribed to me along with that second letter. She had Parkinson's, but was able to still write somewhat legibly. I look forward to your next reading..
You’ve really encouraged me, Bob. It’s great to be connected with someone who met her-looking forward to hearing that interview. This is the subsequent Kael video I made:th-cam.com/video/AUvxpXoQFOo/w-d-xo.htmlsi=44kTTqZq2inUw3G9
Kael says "we" a LOT when speaking only for herself. She complains about having no comic relief after calling Jack funny AND saying he isn't meant to be. Says who? This just feels like jealousy, honestly. Kael's observations sometimes reveal the text, sometimes herself. "All Work And No Play", "Redrum", the hedge maze, "Here's Johnny", the startling murder of Halloran, the frozen corpse of Jack, the visceral performance of Winters - all of these things were inventions of Kubrick's that deviate from the text. I would argue all are improvements that make this one of the best book adaptations ever put to screen, and one of the most rewatchable movies ever.
Curious which failed movie you’re referring to? I thought Beatty brought her on mainly as a consultant for filmmakers. I heard she really advocated to get David Lynch to direct Elephant Man.
Kael used the royal “we” in most reviews. It was part of her chosen rhetoric; a conscious decision to include the reader and thus strengthening the idea of “we the audience. “ It’s also used extensively by lawyers (and politicians) to subtly pull the listener or reader onside. It can seem portentous to modern ears, yet it was not uncommon among critics of this era, including Walter Kerr.
I always felt the cold, detached, almost inhuman feeling to the Shining was part of the feeling which Kubrick wanted to elicit with the material. It underscores the alienation which all of the characters feel from one another, their environoment, and most importantly how Jack Torrence becomes aliented from his sanity. There is this weird feeling of 'the uncanny' which The Shinning elicits in me. I'm not frightened so much as mesmerized, bewildered, and then subtly disturbed.
Very well put. I get more than subtly disturbed, so that’s why it’s been a while since I popped it on. Doctor Sleep was also highly disturbing, and I don’t normally subject myself to horror movies. Maybe the most disturbing film I ever got through was Beloved. Don’t think I realized when I walked into cinema that they had me for 173 minutes.
I have a hard time taking serious any critic who insists on using “we” as if they’re speaking for anybody but themselves. I’d have to question what’s wrong with a person if they found the shots following Danny on his Big Wheel “joyous”. Personally, I’ve always believed that Kubrick chose his shots and used the camera to be from the POV of a ghost at the hotel, perhaps from the malevolent force inhabiting the Overlook itself. I think it’s what gives the entire film, from start to finish, it’s unsettling “vibe”. At any rate, The Shining was not well received critically at its release in 1980. This is where the phrase “time will tell” applies. Time has told. The Shining is generally accepted as a genius piece of film, from the cinematography, to it’s inspired soundtrack and amazing performances. It is also one of, if not the most, analyzed and conjectured (too much so, imo) films ever made.
Pauline Kael never fully understood Kubrick's work. If you read her review of 2001 - A Space Odyssey, that lack of understanding was already apparent. She was partly responsible for the very poor characterization that Kubrick's films are "cold" and detached from the human. Now, for me, if there is one thing that is evident in Kubrick's work, it is that it is profoundly humanist. Nobody would think of making the same criticism of the cinema of Robert Bresson, for example, a filmmaker who used actors as "models", who fulfilled narrative and dramatic functions, just as important as the meticulous positioning of the camera. However, in Bresson's films (and I would argue that just as in Kubrick's films) the main theme is always the human. As for The Shining - perhaps the most influential horror film of the 1980s - I think the brilliance of the cinematography greatly enhances the overall tone. Think of the opening sequence, where the simple juxtaposition of the helicopter shots with Wendy Carlos' soundtrack immediately summons up all the evil to come. A masterpiece.
She might not have labeled Bresson as “cold,” but she did write: “Robert Bresson has made several films of such sobriety that while some people find them awesomely beautiful, other people find sitting through them like taking a whipping and watching every stroke coming.” About Bresson’s “Au Hasard, Balthazar,” she says, “Considered a masterpiece by some, but others may find it painstakingly tedious and offensively holy.”
I don’t think Kubrick and Bresson’s films always have the “human” theme, but I do sense more empathy for their characters than Kael accused them of not expressing. I think Kubrick and Bresson used their movies to show humans at their weakest and most ridiculous at times.
@@KaelSalad2024 Yes, I agree. For example, The Shining isn't a humanist movie at all (I even find the thesis that the movie is a study of the descent into madness a bit far-fetched). Rather, it's a powerful exercise in the horror genre - in that sense, of all Kubrick's films, it's the one where it's most evident that cinema itself ends up being a theme. But films like Paths of Glory, Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut are certainly sober and adult reflections on the human condition. There would also be a lot to say about 2001 - A Space Odyssey.
@@KaelSalad2024 No film critic has an entirely clean record. She fiercely defended brilliant films that had been largely ignored, but failed to recognize the importance and depth of the work of directors like Kubrick and Cassavetes (In the case of the latter, it even seemed that her criticism was motivated by personal hatred).
I found Pauline Kael's review for KING KONG '76; I love her again. I adore KING KONG '76 having seen it as the two parter when I was 7 "The greatest misfit in movie history makes a comeback in this new version. Monster, pet, misunderstood kid, unrequited lover, all in one grotesquely oversized body, the innocent ape is martyred once again. The movie is a romantic adventure fantasy -- colossal, silly, touching, a marvellous Classics Comics movie (and for the whole family). . . .
@@CBrolley thought it might help the video seem a bit more analytical honestly than if everything got presented in color. You’re the first person to say anything!
I love Pauline Kael when I agree with what she's saying, and with Dino De Laurentiis' KING KONG '76 Kael is Spot On; I even feel Exactly the way I did in 1978 when I read her review just now; I'm IN LOVE with that movie tied with the 1933 KING KONG that Kael calls "a stunt film" in comparison.
Yes. Out of all her reviews that is one of ones where I was most in agreement with her. I hate to use this often abused phrase but in the case of de Laurentiis' 'King Kong' Kael "just got it" where so many critics of that time and this just don't. One of the best balances of tone I've ever seen: satire, absurdist comedy, rat a tat three hander scenes between Lange- Bridges-Grodin, genuine spectacle, and truly surprusing heartbreaking melodrama with the eyes of Rick Baker sustaining the premise. And a truly great John Barry score. It could been a piece of 💩 but it navigated the landmines triumphantly. It reminds me of the US remake of 'The Office'. We were ready to shove into the dustbin of bad ideas but it made fools of us all thankfully.
Kael loved certain movies and hated others. She used her platform to express personal opinions in unique, challenging ways. I don’t think she had an anti-Hollywood agenda, and I also wouldn’t call The Shining a “Hollywood” example. It was an anomaly. A critic with an anti-everything agenda (minus conservative politics) is Mr. Armond White.
P. Kael, was a great writer who also had a lot of wit. When she was good, she was very good but when she was bad, she was better and he made an art of it. But about cinema, he had no idea about that.
At least she disagreed intelligently. Shes obviously a good writer and extremely knowledgeable. When i don't like a movie i just call it dumb. I guess that's why she was at the new York times and i wasn't.
She had a lot of different ways to describe how dumb she found different movies, yet she showed appreciation for some really “trash” movies, too, which caused some consternation with editors of The New Yorker.
@@KaelSalad2024 Just because somebody uses a lot of ink talking about a film doesn't mean they actually have anything interesting or insightful to say about it.
I’ve found it’s better to watch movies and form your own opinion over time critics change there mind any way , as for the shining it’s one of my favourites
That part where she somehow completely missed the obvious mirror with Jack in his Stovington t-shirt in it, is quite telling of how this lady, who seemed to enjoy projecting her own shortcomings onto the silver screen, wasn't all there.
@@KaelSalad2024 15:17 She even calls it a "sweatshirt". Given you're someone who thinks Pauline was a competent film critic, I'm not surprised you don't get it either. I mean, it's only right there on the screen in front of you.
Thanks for pointing out the time stamp-that helped. You can see that I “corrected” Kael in red letters about this little error. She claimed to never go back and view films a second time, so this was disorienting for her.
Too many criticisms of PK's critique to be made, but I'll focus on this: she intimates that Kubrick's "2001" has a "utopian" ending, with its 'Star-Child' figure. But she seems to be unaware of the fact that that earlier film was titled "2001: a space odyssey" -- and Homer's 'Odyssey' culminates in its erstwhile hero returning home to Ithaca, which had suffered the depredations of the multitudinous suitors for the hand of his supposed 'widow' Penelope; Odysseus, magically disguised by the goddess Athena, is the only man who can successfully string Odysseus's bow and shoot an arrow through a series of aligned hoops -- proving that he is Odysseus, returned from Troy after a 20 year hiatus. Then Odysseus SLAUGHTERS each and every one of those suitors, cleaning house like it's the Second Coming of a vengeful Messiah. The ending of "2001" -- for those who know their 'Odyssey' -- more-than-hints that the outcome following the return of David BOWMAN (remember Odysseus stringing his own bow?) in an exalted deified state will be RETRIBUTION for the wrongs done to the home he had left. Just as the 'divine intervention' of the Monolith had turned the herbivorous 'ape' Moonwatcher into an animal-killing now-carnivorous Man -- who then used his skull-smashing Tool to wreak his revenge upon the rival ape-man who had scared him and his tribe away from that pathetic water-hole, clubbing in his skull with that Bone-Tool -- so, too, will David Bowman do what that 'bow-man' (archer) from Ithaca did to those who had mistreated HIS wife and son and household during his absence. Forget Clarke's excellent sequel novel "2010" -- as well as the mediocre film adaptation of it -- and get a clue as to what KUBRICK was more-than-hinting, for those who 'get' the classical references. There's nothing 'utopian' about the ending of Kubrick's "2001" -- far from it. Kubrick, in naming his film "a space odyssey," surely meant for us to compare it with Homer's source epic. Read what happens to those suitors when the 'bow-man' returns home, and tell me again, Pauline, that Kubrick intended for us to see the returning David Bowman -- now endued with godlike powers -- as portending some kind of wondrous, utopian future. No, it's an implied Apocalypse.
@@KaelSalad2024 Clarke wrote the novel as the film was in pre-production and production. Clarke considered his book to be a Novel -- NOT a Novelization. As I recall, the Bowman-Starchild, seeing the orbiting nuclear weapons platforms, used his power to destroy them, i.e. to 'cleanse' the Earth's orbital space of such things. In other words, he was to use his power to set things right. And, yes, the name 'David Bowman' was in the book, too, and not just the film. Clarke doesn't go into more detail than that depicting the return of Bowman-Starchild to Earth. It's my interpretation that Kubrick modeled 'Bowman' on Odysseus in this "space odyssey" especially as it was Odysseus's use of his Bow near the end of the story that presaged his bloody revenge against the suitors who had been ruining his home during his absence.
Kael and Lotte Eisner are the Godmothers of film criticism; Kael is stoic towards The Shining and The Exorcist and called Platoon "soupy" . . . Critics are journalists, the don't seem to allow themselves to be engulfed by the films they're reviewing, Kael doesn't at least. Lotte Eisner in The Haunted Cinema, at least, explores and examines the movies like they're in petri dishes under a microscope. There's an overarching clinical distancing that critics seem to exude. They're not immersed in what they're seeing I feel
But Kael actually reveled in certain movies, taking immense pleasure in being swallowed up. I think that’s why she kept using such sex-tinged book titles like Taking It All In. She revealed how overwhelmed she became watching Casualties of War (another very long piece). When she took pleasure in something, it was visceral. Maybe I need to make a video where she’s revealing her sense of delight!
To me, Pauline Kael was both brilliant and somewhat misguided. I can compare her to someone who visits a great restaurant, eats a meal, and then responds by writing out the shopping list of the ingredients she thinks made up the meal. Instead of talking about how it made her feel, or the sum effect of it. She was incredibly good at describing what went into pictures, but less at what she got OUT. She was a master analyser, and a very sharp writer. Oftentimes, she made very, very valid negative points about movies I adore, like Platoon. Which gives some sense how convincing she was in her arguments. But I still think she often missed the bigger picture. No pun intended.
@@leonvanhuyssteen872 I see where you’re coming from and also see many examples where she’s writing from her gut about how a movie made her feel-like when Casualties of War stirred her deeply and caused a terrible memory of a neighborhood child being abused in order to taunt her.
@@KaelSalad2024 I read and remember her glowing review of Casualties of War. But she loves De Palma. Always stood up for him. Which is another little issue I have with her. She often stuck by her favorites, as she kept castigating directors she hated. It's ironic, but Casaulties would've never seen the light of day if it wasn't for the success of Platoon, by Oliver Stone. Who she hated! But now, to lead on from my earlier post, Kael once described Stone as a director who "directs as if someone put a gun to the back of his head and said GO!" Which I find incredibly descriptive and more or less accurate. But also key to why I love(d) Stone! BTW it is really refreshing to discuss high-quality film criticisms in forums like this. Thanks for posting!
@@leonvanhuyssteen872 agreed-it’s fun. I know she wasn’t pleased with De Palma’s Bonfire of the Vanities (which only Armond White the Contrarian seemed to enjoy), and if I recall correctly she also didn’t go for Scarface. She’s nothing but honest, I think. I would have enjoyed reading her take on Stone’s JFK and NBK.
"To see a film once and write a review is an absurdity," he said. "Yet very few critics ever see a film twice or write about films from a leisurely, thoughtful perspective. The reviews that distinguish most critics, unfortunately, are those slambang pans which are easy to write and fun to write and absolutely useless. There's not much in a critic showing off how clever he is at writing silly, supercilious gags about something he hates." -Kubrick
If you dont like the shining, then i dont like you lol its one of, if not the greatest movie ever. The scenes with Lloyd and Grady are some of the greatest scenes in movie history. The grady bathrrom scene especially.
Please expand on this. I just started reading some of Kael's work, so I'm in no position give an opinion on this. I'm not a huge fan of Nolan (Dunkirk is my favourite), but I am of Villeneuve (and not because of Dune)
@@racializedkanadian Damn, there was an excellent article on Kael's class issues in a New Yorker from '22 I think that is currently buried in my basement so I can't go into as much detail as I'd like, but shorthand is: she had issues with technical directors who put their energy into spectacle instead of selective qualities of human drama. She thought it was a type of grandstanding to hide their creative deficiencies. EX: she hated 2001 but loved BLUE VELVET. The last film she critiqued was RUSHMORE and Anderson has been a little meager on the details beyond a firm "well, that was some RUSHMORE Mr. Anderson." So with Nolan she might've thought that INCEPTION was his most honest big-budget work because it was the pulpiest, but she likely would've shit on the others for small things that added up to something overall dishonest. She might have like THE PRESTIGE because it put a lot of the mystery off for the drama. She might've given DUNKIRK a pass but likely would've excoriated INTERSTELLAR. Villaneuve she might be more gentle with given that his early work would've impressed her and his take on BLADE RUNNER 2049 might've been 50-50 but she wouldn't have liked DUNE at all for the Nolan-esque quality of spectacle over nuanced exposition. Her take on ARRIVAL in too hard for me to parse.
@@Theomite Thank you for taking the time! I sometimes think I am more interested in WHY she wrote and said 'certain things' , rather than the actual things she wrote, and said. LOL. Fascinating person. Lots to agree and disagree with it. I did not know she went to Hollywood to try and make films herself. Another piece of the puzzle. I like the fact that she seems to have been able to express herself unencumbered, and that she was able to use all her knowledge as a foundation for what she wrote in her essays / critiques.
She makes some interesting points, and her review is fascinating. But she has a very old-world view, which was already retreating into the past as she was writing. And she was wrong, I was frightened. I was very frightened. She was, perhaps, too jaded, too in her own head.
Thanks for this video. I'm surprised she spent so much time on it, since she didn't like the movie. I mostly agree with her, especially on the scenes with Lloyd and Grady. I think the theme of the movie is mostly "War", and that is what the river of blood coming out of the elevator means. She thinks that is banal - so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring.
In my opinion, this is a terrible review, on so many levels. I mean, i still gave it the old 👍🏼, because the channel did the work to post it, and I watched it, and I appreciate their time and effort. I just really disagree with the opinions of this presumably respected film critic on just about every point.
@@poutinedream5066 glad you are posting a dissenting voice. I thought she made a good point about Kubrick’s use of Halloran to give Jack a victim. I wouldn’t have thought of that on my own.
Oddly enough, Kael had more positive things to say about "The Shining" than most of Kubrick's later movies. She had praise for the sound effects, the opening aerial shot, the steadicam tracking shot of the boy riding around on his tricycle, and the cleverness of the "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" scene. I think she really wanted to like the movie, as she was a fan of both Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall, but was disappointed that it wasn't particularly scary and didn't make much sense.
Lmao, that first paragraph literally starts off with a backhanded compliment: "the REAL theme of the movie is Kubrick's technical brilliance". She wasn't even attempting to engage with what Kubrick was trying to do with the film.
I get the feeling you might not have read much of her; that she didn't like one of your favorite movies and you're offended she doesn't agree with you on that film. You mention Gene Siskel, he and Ebert would say something like "Two thumbs up, and they couldn't be held higher!" Kael would get mostly fan mail from her readers, but also some threatening mail for disagreeing with them on , say, Platoon, or Rain Man. Something Siskel, & Ebert and other film writers/critics didn't experience.
@@BobOrrahood-t2w I would be willing to bet money that Siskel & Ebert got WAY more hate mail. They were literally the most popular critcs in America for about 25 years. Nobody knows who Pauline Kael is outside of movie nerd circles.
@@jamesoakes1819 Siskel and Ebert were unlikely to receive hate mail because they wrote what they thought most other critics or audiences would like and agree with. Unlike them, and other TV critics, Kael was indifferent to hype and received opinion; she didn't write reviews as a one to four stars rating consumer guide. She won the National Book Award for her 1973 collection Deeper Into Movies, the first non-fiction book to win. At least Roger Ebert wrote that "Pauline Kael has had a more positive influence on the climate of American film than any other single person." Another writer said "Reading her is better than going to the movies." I don't necessarily agree with that, but think her writing is more illuminating and interesting than likely any other film writer.
Call me a consummate contrarian but- I’m pretty much in agreement with Kael here. The Shining, as adapted by Kubrick, has always felt hollow and cold, empty- and maybe that was his intention; but the end result never satisfied.
@@KaelSalad2024 I agree- and I put a lot of that down to their performances, and their being about the only “heart” in the film left to cling to after Jack goes off the deep end.
If what I've been told and read is true, Kael was no fan of horror movies at all, which leaves her in no position whatsoever to fairly judge any movie from the genre. To believe she could hate something and at the same time judge it without bias and on its actual merits, is conflictual to say the least. The fact that the movie is still regarded by many as one of the greatest horror films ever made, almost half a century removed, gives credence to her lack of judgement and impaired valuation of both the genre and film.
I saw “The Shining” in its original release. I didn’t dislike it, but I think it’s been fairly overrated. A good film? Yes. A masterpiece? Others will no doubt disagree, but I’d say no.
Kael upsetting the Kubrick fanboys. I saw the movie when it came out and it's about the only scary movie ever that didn't scare me. But the fanboys think it's profound.
That would be kind of like if I shit my pants in public and then claiming all the people around me were being too sensitive by telling me I smelled like shit.
A lot of very trenchant comments below. Kael was brainy, provocative and a great writer, but she seemed blind to a lot of the ineffable qualities that have given filmmakers like Kubrick and films like The Shining their lasting stature. And her ubiquitous use of the pronoun "we" when describing her personal reaction to movies, as if her subjective responses are automatically assumed to be universal, is really galling to me. Today, at least on TH-cam and podcasts, though not as much in print, there is the ubiquitous use of the term "for me" by reviewers. This can be irritating too, though it's understandable given the trolling culture on the internet.
@@bobkannen4272 You’re not the only one who’s unhappy about her use of “we” But I think it’s a bold choice and reflects her belief that she’s taking the pulse of a theatrical audience and not merely speaking about her own preferences-even if she is doing that often. Like when she quoted an audience member overheard after a screening of Blue Velvet: “Maybe I’m sick, but I wanna see that again.”
"Taking the pulse of an audience". That's an interesting way of looking at it and I'll have to give it some thought. I do have to admit that I was skeptical about The Shining for many years, myself, mostly for the same reasons Stephen King didn't like it. It's only after getting into a lot of the analysis it's had in recent years that I concluded it was one of the great films. I think history hasn't been kind to a lot of Kael's opinions, but I admit it hasn't been kind to many of my initial thoughts either. I guess I'm digressing, but your point is noted..@@KaelSalad2024 "
@@KaelSalad2024 Any professional media critic who claims to speak for "the common man" is a charlatan. Overeducated elites trying to pretend like they weren't overeducated elites.
This was one of the most positive reviews Kael ever gave a Kubrick movie. As far as I know her one rave review was for 'Lolita'. Otherwise she was suspicious and often downright hostile to Kubrick's intentions, methods, and pretentions. But here with 'The Shining' there is a subtext of disappointment. You get the impression she WANTS to like it and it seems to me that she bends over backwards to point out all the things she does like about it. In any case Ive always loved her writing whether I agree with her or not.
@@Starchdread In addition to Lolita, Kael also wrote positive reviews of Kubrick’s The Killing, Paths of Glory, and Spartacus. She pointed out good things in The Shining and Clockwork Orange. But some Kubrick fans are offended if she doesn’t share their enthusiasm of their favorite.
Lmao. The first paragraph literally starts off with a backhanded compliment: "the REAL theme is Kubrick's technical brilliance". She clearly wasn't attempting to engage with what Kubrick was trying to do with the film at all.
She seems jealous because she failed to be a filmmaker and used that jealousy as an unconscious reason to hate a genius like Kubrick. She didn’t even understand the film. Grady and Lloyd the bartender are GHOSTS, they’re not fever dreams. It’s literally a ghost story and Kubrick himself described the film as a ghost story, which means all these people are not imagination fever dreams. She kept saying “we” which is so pretentious. It’s as if she is under the assumption that her beliefs are automatic facts. Basically, she didn’t understand the film on the most basic and fundamental foundational level, so of course she didn’t understand the rest of the film. She sounds butthurt. Just because she is a failure filmmaker, doesn’t mean a beloved movie is bad.
@@madcircle0461 I think she’s not alone in not understanding parts of the movie. She’s famous for only ever watching movies once, so she wrote from her strong emotional reactions (or lack of one), and it seems like what Kubrick believed would scare people didn’t scare her. She thought the insert shots were kind of a cheap way to jolt viewers. On the other hand, she talks about the audience wanting to stand and cheer the exhilarating Steadicam shots and remarks about the beauty of Danny sliding down a snowdrift, which doesn’t sound jealous to me. I believe she just didn’t enjoy most of the movie and gave many interesting reasons to justify her gut reaction. I wouldn’t call her exactly a failed filmmaker because of her consulting ending fast. She just found something she liked better-writing about movies. I don’t always agree, but I sense a human being eager to find something great instead of a critic who loves to dismiss whatever doesn’t meet their high standards (e.g. John Simon)
@@KaelSalad2024 it's a dark fun house mirror (an inverse monolith of 2001 - if that monolith represents the cinema screen) the shining reflects the audience members own personal obsession as back to them - it's why it's simultaneously about the abuse and death of native Indians, the moon landings and child abuse abuse simultaneously.
@@mojonojo3 I think the ending of the movie is a closer indication of Kubrick’s point. By showing photo proof that Torrance is unable to escape his fate to “always” be serving as the caretaker and getting his wish to stay there “forever and ever” Kubrick seems to be communicating that Jack and humans in general are trapped in a never ending cycle. Kael reacted to his metaphysical hypothesis with “God help us…”
Kael teaches me how to describe what I'm experiencing in a movie and how to "see" a movie but I can't stand her observations in this review from the Snobbish publication, The New Yorker, she's also writing for a snobbish readership
I don't know what your definition of snob is, but Kael mostly defied the culture of The New Yorker elites and celebrated films deemed "trash" by the upper classes. She wrote "Trash, Art, and the Movies" (a long piece) to explain her position, and she wrote from her gut--refusing to see movies more than once, which also meant she could get a few details wrong.
@@gterrymed my first time was watching some of it on network television so that’s not ideal-especially due to editing out nasty parts. I still haven’t had an immersive cinema experience, so I can’t claim terror.
Screw her, I was frightened; she writes like she's in the Upper Class. People in the Upper Class social stratum are so stoic, I chat with them every so often here in Ithaca and they sound like Pauline Kael's writing.
@@DavidBrown-ke8cb you look like you've been homeless, David Sterling! Lose some weight and stop drinking alcohol or whatever you're doing, your life will improve.
I agree w/ you, Jeffrey-I always said, studying film in college, that Kubrick should’ve been a world-class cinematographer rather than a director. His handling of actors was very distant & oftentimes cruel tho his visuals were stunning.
I'm glad you posted this reading of Kael's Shining review. I used to have a copy of one of her review anthologies, which contained it, but can't seem to find it. In any case, Kael has some genuinely on point criticisms of The Shining, however, the review is a bit of mess - she's all over the place as though she couldn't quite organize her thinking about it, and I think there's a distinct subtext that she may have felt out her element when trying to come to terms with what Kubrick's intent was. In fact, most of us are still trying to figure that question out, but when she goes on about how little Kubrick seems to care about the film's characters and how the actors depict them, she genuinely failed to understand that Kubrick was not interested in the psychological naturalistic style that informs commercial film acting - a style that allows audiences to readily identify with the characters. Kubrick doesn't make that sort of movie and never has. There has always been a dispassionate element in his treatment of his characters, as though viewing them from a distance. And it's no different in the Shining. There's a reason Kubrick often made actors do endless retakes of scenes, and that was to wean them off their instinctive "actorish" response and find something more primal within. This resulted in Nicholson giving one of his most over-the-top performances while Duval would give one of the greatest female cinematic performances of the twentieth century, enough to rival Renée Jeanne Falconetti in Dreyer's 1928 masterpiece "The Passion of Joan of Arc." And yes, I most sincerely mean that. Way past time Shelly got her due.
Duvall was pretty great, true.
@@KaelSalad2024 Kael's praise for her performance is the best part of the review. It's an interesting review, perceptive in many ways and yet blind in others.
In her review Kael was dead wrong about a lot of things. As in many of her observations about this and other films, she often didn't seem to have a lot of imagination, or at least a willingness to think outside the box (her calling 2001 a "monumentally unimaginative movie" is the kind of act that warrants eternal censure). The Shining broke new ground and was ahead of its time in many ways. It was essentially the first "slow burn" horror movie, or at least the best example of it. She (and many other critics) saw this as a flaw and found it boring, yet countless horror movies since then have used this same technique of setting mood and tone, and have received a great deal of praise for it. She wasn't much of a Kubrick fan, and her issues with him stemmed not from flaws on his part but from his always being one step ahead of her.
Having said all that...
I did listen to this whole review, which I'm sure says something about her astuteness -- or at least the quality of her writing. She does make a lot of smart observations; the problem is she draws the wrong conclusions from them. Still, if I found myself doing a lot of talking back to her review, that is a credit to her.
Unfortunately, she was also wrong about many other films that are now considered classics. Kaels hatred of Kubrick or Eastwood was manic. I honestly don't know why I should still be interested in the opinion of someone who has been wrong so often.
She also worked in Hollywood once. Where are the masterpieces she produced?
Overall I think she's too harsh but she makes some very interesting observations there. In a way they seem to mirror Malcolm McDowell's comment about Kubrick that I read recently: "Stanley can never understand the human element. If he could eliminate that, he could make the perfect movie." 😅
February 7, 2024
Little Alex must have missed Barry Lyndon. The instant retort to this old chestnut about Kubrick's inability to "understand the human element."
Malcolm McDowell was just salty because Kubrick never called him back after finishing A Clockwork Orange. He pretty much said so himself in later years. I seriously doubt anybody who was close to Kubrick would agree with that statement.
I appreciate Kael’s thoughtful review here, but I also think she just doesn’t get it. Kubrick’s films are fever dreams.
Thank you for showing this review of Ms. Kael. I would be curious to know what she and Jeremy think of the analysis of Rob Ager and of Malmrose Projects. Most Sincerely, Chris Howley, Wollaston, Massachusetts
February 7, 2024
I read this review, and I am still impressed with how she picked this one apart and noted the coldness of Kubrick’s style compared to Nicholson's performance.
Thanks for this!
Many people repeat things she said about The Shining here on TH-cam, as if they were new ideas.
February 7, 2024
@@hermanhale9258 Maybe because they also happen to agree with what Kael said, and might not have even read her review of it. And she stated her case with the most clarity and eloquence, for the enjoyment of many and the anger of a small minority. But then Siskel and Ebert, et al, didn't receive letters with threats of violence from that small minority., as she did.
@@boborrahood Possibly. Or, even if they did read it, they might not remember that they did, or what she said. They might innocently think it is their own idea.
I never thought Kael's "impressionistic" [how she bristled at that adjective!] views of cinema were particularly accurate. How many go on and on nowadays about say, the films of Arthur Penn?
Well done! Both your reading and the video with her review printed over this and other film images add to this. I've been a longtime reader of Kael and met her a few times when she came out to San Francisco for appearances, interviews, book signings. I wrote to her at the New Yorker back in 1987 and then in 1995, when she wrote me back a second time. Now to see if I can replace that audio recording of her interview with Sedge Thompson on KQED from 1987(that was pulled off the internet).. She had given me written permission to get copies and asked if I'd like any of her books. She sent me the one you're reading this from, Taking It All In, inscribed to me along with that second letter. She had Parkinson's, but was able to still write somewhat legibly. I look forward to your next reading..
You’ve really encouraged me, Bob. It’s great to be connected with someone who met her-looking forward to hearing that interview. This is the subsequent Kael video I made:th-cam.com/video/AUvxpXoQFOo/w-d-xo.htmlsi=44kTTqZq2inUw3G9
Kael says "we" a LOT when speaking only for herself. She complains about having no comic relief after calling Jack funny AND saying he isn't meant to be. Says who? This just feels like jealousy, honestly. Kael's observations sometimes reveal the text, sometimes herself. "All Work And No Play", "Redrum", the hedge maze, "Here's Johnny", the startling murder of Halloran, the frozen corpse of Jack, the visceral performance of Winters - all of these things were inventions of Kubrick's that deviate from the text. I would argue all are improvements that make this one of the best book adaptations ever put to screen, and one of the most rewatchable movies ever.
Curious which failed movie you’re referring to? I thought Beatty brought her on mainly as a consultant for filmmakers. I heard she really advocated to get David Lynch to direct Elephant Man.
@@KaelSalad2024 True, Kael was a fan of David Lynch going back to Eraserhead, at least.
Kael used the royal “we” in most reviews. It was part of her chosen rhetoric; a conscious decision to include the reader and thus strengthening the idea of “we the audience. “ It’s also used extensively by lawyers (and politicians) to subtly pull the listener or reader onside. It can seem portentous to modern ears, yet it was not uncommon among critics of this era, including Walter Kerr.
In my opinion it’s an obvious masterpiece. It’s perfection!
I always felt the cold, detached, almost inhuman feeling to the Shining was part of the feeling which Kubrick wanted to elicit with the material. It underscores the alienation which all of the characters feel from one another, their environoment, and most importantly how Jack Torrence becomes aliented from his sanity. There is this weird feeling of 'the uncanny' which The Shinning elicits in me. I'm not frightened so much as mesmerized, bewildered, and then subtly disturbed.
Very well put. I get more than subtly disturbed, so that’s why it’s been a while since I popped it on. Doctor Sleep was also highly disturbing, and I don’t normally subject myself to horror movies. Maybe the most disturbing film I ever got through was Beloved. Don’t think I realized when I walked into cinema that they had me for 173 minutes.
I have a hard time taking serious any critic who insists on using “we” as if they’re speaking for anybody but themselves. I’d have to question what’s wrong with a person if they found the shots following Danny on his Big Wheel “joyous”. Personally, I’ve always believed that Kubrick chose his shots and used the camera to be from the POV of a ghost at the hotel, perhaps from the malevolent force inhabiting the Overlook itself. I think it’s what gives the entire film, from start to finish, it’s unsettling “vibe”. At any rate, The Shining was not well received critically at its release in 1980. This is where the phrase “time will tell” applies. Time has told. The Shining is generally accepted as a genius piece of film, from the cinematography, to it’s inspired soundtrack and amazing performances. It is also one of, if not the most, analyzed and conjectured (too much so, imo) films ever made.
Pauline Kael never fully understood Kubrick's work. If you read her review of 2001 - A Space Odyssey, that lack of understanding was already apparent. She was partly responsible for the very poor characterization that Kubrick's films are "cold" and detached from the human. Now, for me, if there is one thing that is evident in Kubrick's work, it is that it is profoundly humanist. Nobody would think of making the same criticism of the cinema of Robert Bresson, for example, a filmmaker who used actors as "models", who fulfilled narrative and dramatic functions, just as important as the meticulous positioning of the camera. However, in Bresson's films (and I would argue that just as in Kubrick's films) the main theme is always the human. As for The Shining - perhaps the most influential horror film of the 1980s - I think the brilliance of the cinematography greatly enhances the overall tone. Think of the opening sequence, where the simple juxtaposition of the helicopter shots with Wendy Carlos' soundtrack immediately summons up all the evil to come. A masterpiece.
She might not have labeled Bresson as “cold,” but she did write: “Robert Bresson has made several films of such sobriety that while some people find them awesomely beautiful, other people find sitting through them like taking a whipping and watching every stroke coming.” About Bresson’s “Au Hasard, Balthazar,” she says, “Considered a masterpiece by some, but others may find it painstakingly tedious and offensively holy.”
I don’t think Kubrick and Bresson’s films always have the “human” theme, but I do sense more empathy for their characters than Kael accused them of not expressing. I think Kubrick and Bresson used their movies to show humans at their weakest and most ridiculous at times.
@@KaelSalad2024 Yes, I agree. For example, The Shining isn't a humanist movie at all (I even find the thesis that the movie is a study of the descent into madness a bit far-fetched). Rather, it's a powerful exercise in the horror genre - in that sense, of all Kubrick's films, it's the one where it's most evident that cinema itself ends up being a theme. But films like Paths of Glory, Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut are certainly sober and adult reflections on the human condition. There would also be a lot to say about 2001 - A Space Odyssey.
@@KaelSalad2024 No film critic has an entirely clean record. She fiercely defended brilliant films that had been largely ignored, but failed to recognize the importance and depth of the work of directors like Kubrick and Cassavetes (In the case of the latter, it even seemed that her criticism was motivated by personal hatred).
Kael is cold and detached herself. Lol😅
Why are The Shining sequences in b/w?
I found Pauline Kael's review for KING KONG '76; I love her again. I adore KING KONG '76 having seen it as the two parter when I was 7 "The greatest misfit in movie history makes a comeback in this new version. Monster, pet, misunderstood kid, unrequited lover, all in one grotesquely oversized body, the innocent ape is martyred once again. The movie is a romantic adventure fantasy -- colossal, silly, touching, a marvellous Classics Comics movie (and for the whole family). . . .
king kong was a bigger deal than star wars to me and my friends back then.
What’s with all the B&W?
@@CBrolley thought it might help the video seem a bit more analytical honestly than if everything got presented in color. You’re the first person to say anything!
I love Pauline Kael when I agree with what she's saying, and with Dino De Laurentiis' KING KONG '76 Kael is Spot On; I even feel Exactly the way I did in 1978 when I read her review just now; I'm IN LOVE with that movie tied with the 1933 KING KONG that Kael calls "a stunt film" in comparison.
Yes. Out of all her reviews that is one of ones where I was most in agreement with her. I hate to use this often abused phrase but in the case of de Laurentiis' 'King Kong' Kael "just got it" where so many critics of that time and this just don't. One of the best balances of tone I've ever seen: satire, absurdist comedy, rat a tat three hander scenes between Lange- Bridges-Grodin, genuine spectacle, and truly surprusing heartbreaking melodrama with the eyes of Rick Baker sustaining the premise. And a truly great John Barry score. It could been a piece of 💩 but it navigated the landmines triumphantly. It reminds me of the US remake of 'The Office'. We were ready to shove into the dustbin of bad ideas but it made fools of us all thankfully.
The bright white settings are EXACTLY what makes it terrifying. Seeking revenge on Hollywood for her failure is a poor excuse to be a critic.
Kael loved certain movies and hated others. She used her platform to express personal opinions in unique, challenging ways. I don’t think she had an anti-Hollywood agenda, and I also wouldn’t call The Shining a “Hollywood” example. It was an anomaly. A critic with an anti-everything agenda (minus conservative politics) is Mr. Armond White.
P. Kael, was a great writer who also had a lot of wit. When she was good, she was very good but when she was bad, she was better and he made an art of it. But about cinema, he had no idea about that.
At least she disagreed intelligently. Shes obviously a good writer and extremely knowledgeable. When i don't like a movie i just call it dumb. I guess that's why she was at the new York times and i wasn't.
She had a lot of different ways to describe how dumb she found different movies, yet she showed appreciation for some really “trash” movies, too, which caused some consternation with editors of The New Yorker.
Kael was fantastic film critic however how does one critique a Kubrick film especially one as iconic as this one???
I believe she showed us how-in 11-12 extraordinary pages!
@@KaelSalad2024 Just because somebody uses a lot of ink talking about a film doesn't mean they actually have anything interesting or insightful to say about it.
She hated Kubrick, all she did was criticize him.
Read her review of Lolita or The Killing or Spartacus or other his movies before 2001?
I’ve found it’s better to watch movies and form your own opinion over time critics change there mind any way , as for the shining it’s one of my favourites
That part where she somehow completely missed the obvious mirror with Jack in his Stovington t-shirt in it, is quite telling of how this lady, who seemed to enjoy projecting her own shortcomings onto the silver screen, wasn't all there.
Kael had shortcomings-don’t we all! I confess I have no idea what you’re talking about with the t shirt
@@KaelSalad2024 15:17 She even calls it a "sweatshirt". Given you're someone who thinks Pauline was a competent film critic, I'm not surprised you don't get it either. I mean, it's only right there on the screen in front of you.
Thanks for pointing out the time stamp-that helped. You can see that I “corrected” Kael in red letters about this little error. She claimed to never go back and view films a second time, so this was disorienting for her.
Too many criticisms of PK's critique to be made, but I'll focus on this: she intimates that Kubrick's "2001" has a "utopian" ending, with its 'Star-Child' figure. But she seems to be unaware of the fact that that earlier film was titled "2001: a space odyssey" -- and Homer's 'Odyssey' culminates in its erstwhile hero returning home to Ithaca, which had suffered the depredations of the multitudinous suitors for the hand of his supposed 'widow' Penelope; Odysseus, magically disguised by the goddess Athena, is the only man who can successfully string Odysseus's bow and shoot an arrow through a series of aligned hoops -- proving that he is Odysseus, returned from Troy after a 20 year hiatus. Then Odysseus SLAUGHTERS each and every one of those suitors, cleaning house like it's the Second Coming of a vengeful Messiah.
The ending of "2001" -- for those who know their 'Odyssey' -- more-than-hints that the outcome following the return of David BOWMAN (remember Odysseus stringing his own bow?) in an exalted deified state will be RETRIBUTION for the wrongs done to the home he had left. Just as the 'divine intervention' of the Monolith had turned the herbivorous 'ape' Moonwatcher into an animal-killing now-carnivorous Man -- who then used his skull-smashing Tool to wreak his revenge upon the rival ape-man who had scared him and his tribe away from that pathetic water-hole, clubbing in his skull with that Bone-Tool -- so, too, will David Bowman do what that 'bow-man' (archer) from Ithaca did to those who had mistreated HIS wife and son and household during his absence.
Forget Clarke's excellent sequel novel "2010" -- as well as the mediocre film adaptation of it -- and get a clue as to what KUBRICK was more-than-hinting, for those who 'get' the classical references. There's nothing 'utopian' about the ending of Kubrick's "2001" -- far from it. Kubrick, in naming his film "a space odyssey," surely meant for us to compare it with Homer's source epic. Read what happens to those suitors when the 'bow-man' returns home, and tell me again, Pauline, that Kubrick intended for us to see the returning David Bowman -- now endued with godlike powers -- as portending some kind of wondrous, utopian future. No, it's an implied Apocalypse.
Does the Bowman name match Clarke’s novel? In the book, does David come back ready for vengeance?
That baby looked pretty nice to me! Maybe he was really a bad baby!
@@KaelSalad2024 Clarke wrote the novel as the film was in pre-production and production. Clarke considered his book to be a Novel -- NOT a Novelization. As I recall, the Bowman-Starchild, seeing the orbiting nuclear weapons platforms, used his power to destroy them, i.e. to 'cleanse' the Earth's orbital space of such things. In other words, he was to use his power to set things right. And, yes, the name 'David Bowman' was in the book, too, and not just the film. Clarke doesn't go into more detail than that depicting the return of Bowman-Starchild to Earth. It's my interpretation that Kubrick modeled 'Bowman' on Odysseus in this "space odyssey" especially as it was Odysseus's use of his Bow near the end of the story that presaged his bloody revenge against the suitors who had been ruining his home during his absence.
Kael and Lotte Eisner are the Godmothers of film criticism; Kael is stoic towards The Shining and The Exorcist and called Platoon "soupy" . . . Critics are journalists, the don't seem to allow themselves to be engulfed by the films they're reviewing, Kael doesn't at least. Lotte Eisner in The Haunted Cinema, at least, explores and examines the movies like they're in petri dishes under a microscope. There's an overarching clinical distancing that critics seem to exude. They're not immersed in what they're seeing I feel
But Kael actually reveled in certain movies, taking immense pleasure in being swallowed up. I think that’s why she kept using such sex-tinged book titles like Taking It All In. She revealed how overwhelmed she became watching Casualties of War (another very long piece). When she took pleasure in something, it was visceral. Maybe I need to make a video where she’s revealing her sense of delight!
@KaelSalad2024 and she LOVED 😍 KING KONG '76 as do I. If you could read her review for KING KONG '76 I'd be grateful 🙏 its hard to find online.
To me, Pauline Kael was both brilliant and somewhat misguided. I can compare her to someone who visits a great restaurant, eats a meal, and then responds by writing out the shopping list of the ingredients she thinks made up the meal. Instead of talking about how it made her feel, or the sum effect of it. She was incredibly good at describing what went into pictures, but less at what she got OUT. She was a master analyser, and a very sharp writer. Oftentimes, she made very, very valid negative points about movies I adore, like Platoon. Which gives some sense how convincing she was in her arguments. But I still think she often missed the bigger picture. No pun intended.
@@leonvanhuyssteen872 I see where you’re coming from and also see many examples where she’s writing from her gut about how a movie made her feel-like when Casualties of War stirred her deeply and caused a terrible memory of a neighborhood child being abused in order to taunt her.
@@KaelSalad2024 I read and remember her glowing review of Casualties of War. But she loves De Palma. Always stood up for him. Which is another little issue I have with her. She often stuck by her favorites, as she kept castigating directors she hated. It's ironic, but Casaulties would've never seen the light of day if it wasn't for the success of Platoon, by Oliver Stone. Who she hated! But now, to lead on from my earlier post, Kael once described Stone as a director who "directs as if someone put a gun to the back of his head and said GO!" Which I find incredibly descriptive and more or less accurate. But also key to why I love(d) Stone! BTW it is really refreshing to discuss high-quality film criticisms in forums like this. Thanks for posting!
@@leonvanhuyssteen872 agreed-it’s fun. I know she wasn’t pleased with De Palma’s Bonfire of the Vanities (which only Armond White the Contrarian seemed to enjoy), and if I recall correctly she also didn’t go for Scarface. She’s nothing but honest, I think. I would have enjoyed reading her take on Stone’s JFK and NBK.
"To see a film once and write a review is an absurdity," he said. "Yet very few critics ever see a film twice or write about films from a leisurely, thoughtful perspective. The reviews that distinguish most critics, unfortunately, are those slambang pans which are easy to write and fun to write and absolutely useless. There's not much in a critic showing off how clever he is at writing silly, supercilious gags about something he hates." -Kubrick
If you dont like the shining, then i dont like you lol its one of, if not the greatest movie ever. The scenes with Lloyd and Grady are some of the greatest scenes in movie history. The grady bathrrom scene especially.
Man, I wonder what she would've made of David Fincher or Robert Eggars. I already have an idea of what she'd think of Nolan or Villaneuve.
Please expand on this. I just started reading some of Kael's work, so I'm in no position give an opinion on this.
I'm not a huge fan of Nolan (Dunkirk is my favourite), but I am of Villeneuve (and not because of Dune)
@@racializedkanadian Damn, there was an excellent article on Kael's class issues in a New Yorker from '22 I think that is currently buried in my basement so I can't go into as much detail as I'd like, but shorthand is: she had issues with technical directors who put their energy into spectacle instead of selective qualities of human drama. She thought it was a type of grandstanding to hide their creative deficiencies.
EX: she hated 2001 but loved BLUE VELVET. The last film she critiqued was RUSHMORE and Anderson has been a little meager on the details beyond a firm "well, that was some RUSHMORE Mr. Anderson."
So with Nolan she might've thought that INCEPTION was his most honest big-budget work because it was the pulpiest, but she likely would've shit on the others for small things that added up to something overall dishonest. She might have like THE PRESTIGE because it put a lot of the mystery off for the drama. She might've given DUNKIRK a pass but likely would've excoriated INTERSTELLAR.
Villaneuve she might be more gentle with given that his early work would've impressed her and his take on BLADE RUNNER 2049 might've been 50-50 but she wouldn't have liked DUNE at all for the Nolan-esque quality of spectacle over nuanced exposition. Her take on ARRIVAL in too hard for me to parse.
@@Theomite Thank you for taking the time!
I sometimes think I am more interested in WHY she wrote and said 'certain things' , rather than the actual things she wrote, and said. LOL. Fascinating person. Lots to agree and disagree with it. I did not know she went to Hollywood to try and make films herself. Another piece of the puzzle.
I like the fact that she seems to have been able to express herself unencumbered, and that she was able to use all her knowledge as a foundation for what she wrote in her essays / critiques.
She makes some interesting points, and her review is fascinating. But she has a very old-world view, which was already retreating into the past as she was writing. And she was wrong, I was frightened. I was very frightened. She was, perhaps, too jaded, too in her own head.
Thanks for this video. I'm surprised she spent so much time on it, since she didn't like the movie. I mostly agree with her, especially on the scenes with Lloyd and Grady. I think the theme of the movie is mostly "War", and that is what the river of blood coming out of the elevator means. She thinks that is banal - so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring.
In my opinion, this is a terrible review, on so many levels. I mean, i still gave it the old 👍🏼, because the channel did the work to post it, and I watched it, and I appreciate their time and effort. I just really disagree with the opinions of this presumably respected film critic on just about every point.
@@poutinedream5066 glad you are posting a dissenting voice. I thought she made a good point about Kubrick’s use of Halloran to give Jack a victim. I wouldn’t have thought of that on my own.
Oddly enough, Kael had more positive things to say about "The Shining" than most of Kubrick's later movies. She had praise for the sound effects, the opening aerial shot, the steadicam tracking shot of the boy riding around on his tricycle, and the cleverness of the "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" scene.
I think she really wanted to like the movie, as she was a fan of both Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall, but was disappointed that it wasn't particularly scary and didn't make much sense.
Lmao, that first paragraph literally starts off with a backhanded compliment: "the REAL theme of the movie is Kubrick's technical brilliance". She wasn't even attempting to engage with what Kubrick was trying to do with the film.
If all of this was Kael's review, she missed the mark by a country mile.
Today's internet sleuth could set her straight in a New York minute.
This was all she wrote, yes
A worst critic than Gene Siskel, if that's possible.
I get the feeling you might not have read much of her; that she didn't like one of your favorite movies and you're offended she doesn't agree with you on that film. You mention Gene Siskel, he and Ebert would say something like "Two thumbs up, and they couldn't be held higher!" Kael would get mostly fan mail from her readers, but also some threatening mail for disagreeing with them on , say, Platoon, or Rain Man. Something Siskel, & Ebert and other film writers/critics didn't experience.
@@BobOrrahood-t2w I would be willing to bet money that Siskel & Ebert got WAY more hate mail. They were literally the most popular critcs in America for about 25 years. Nobody knows who Pauline Kael is outside of movie nerd circles.
@@jamesoakes1819 Siskel and Ebert were unlikely to receive hate mail because they wrote what they thought most other critics or audiences would like and agree with. Unlike them, and other TV critics, Kael was indifferent to hype and received opinion; she didn't write reviews as a one to four stars rating consumer guide. She won the National Book Award for her 1973 collection Deeper Into Movies, the first non-fiction book to win. At least Roger Ebert wrote that "Pauline Kael has had a more positive influence on the climate of American film than any other single person." Another writer said "Reading her is better than going to the movies." I don't necessarily agree with that, but think her writing is more illuminating and interesting than likely any other film writer.
Call me a consummate contrarian but- I’m pretty much in agreement with Kael here. The Shining, as adapted by Kubrick, has always felt hollow and cold, empty- and maybe that was his intention; but the end result never satisfied.
I disagree in at least one way with her-I did really care about what might happen to Danny and his mom. The boy wasn’t just Kubrick’s puppet.
@@KaelSalad2024 I agree- and I put a lot of that down to their performances, and their being about the only “heart” in the film left to cling to after Jack goes off the deep end.
"Twin Mount Fuji's", brilliant! I appreciate Kael because I think the primary responsibility of a critic is to be entertaining.
If what I've been told and read is true, Kael was no fan of horror movies at all, which leaves her in no position whatsoever to fairly judge any movie from the genre. To believe she could hate something and at the same time judge it without bias and on its actual merits, is conflictual to say the least. The fact that the movie is still regarded by many as one of the greatest horror films ever made, almost half a century removed, gives credence to her lack of judgement and impaired valuation of both the genre and film.
I saw “The Shining” in its original release. I didn’t dislike it, but I think it’s been fairly overrated. A good film? Yes. A masterpiece? Others will no doubt disagree, but I’d say no.
Kael upsetting the Kubrick fanboys. I saw the movie when it came out and it's about the only scary movie ever that didn't scare me. But the fanboys think it's profound.
That would be kind of like if I shit my pants in public and then claiming all the people around me were being too sensitive by telling me I smelled like shit.
@@jamesoakes1819 ?
You sound like someone who loves jump scares
A lot of very trenchant comments below. Kael was brainy, provocative and a great writer, but she seemed blind to a lot of the ineffable qualities that have given filmmakers like Kubrick and films like The Shining their lasting stature. And her ubiquitous use of the pronoun "we" when describing her personal reaction to movies, as if her subjective responses are automatically assumed to be universal, is really galling to me. Today, at least on TH-cam and podcasts, though not as much in print, there is the ubiquitous use of the term "for me" by reviewers. This can be irritating too, though it's understandable given the trolling culture on the internet.
@@bobkannen4272 You’re not the only one who’s unhappy about her use of “we” But I think it’s a bold choice and reflects her belief that she’s taking the pulse of a theatrical audience and not merely speaking about her own preferences-even if she is doing that often. Like when she quoted an audience member overheard after a screening of Blue Velvet: “Maybe I’m sick, but I wanna see that again.”
"Taking the pulse of an audience". That's an interesting way of looking at it and I'll have to give it some thought. I do have to admit that I was skeptical about The Shining for many years, myself, mostly for the same reasons Stephen King didn't like it. It's only after getting into a lot of the analysis it's had in recent years that I concluded it was one of the great films. I think history hasn't been kind to a lot of Kael's opinions, but I admit it hasn't been kind to many of my initial thoughts either. I guess I'm digressing, but your point is noted..@@KaelSalad2024 "
@@KaelSalad2024 Any professional media critic who claims to speak for "the common man" is a charlatan. Overeducated elites trying to pretend like they weren't overeducated elites.
It's odd that a critic as pretentious as Kael would miss what Kubrick was doing with The Shining.
Kael pretentious? Hmm. Well tell me then a film critic who is unpretentious, please.
This was one of the most positive reviews Kael ever gave a Kubrick movie. As far as I know her one rave review was for 'Lolita'. Otherwise she was suspicious and often downright hostile to Kubrick's intentions, methods, and pretentions. But here with 'The Shining' there is a subtext of disappointment. You get the impression she WANTS to like it and it seems to me that she bends over backwards to point out all the things she does like about it. In any case Ive always loved her writing whether I agree with her or not.
@@Starchdread In addition to Lolita, Kael also wrote positive reviews of Kubrick’s The Killing, Paths of Glory, and Spartacus. She pointed out good things in The Shining and Clockwork Orange. But some Kubrick fans are offended if she doesn’t share their enthusiasm of their favorite.
Lmao. The first paragraph literally starts off with a backhanded compliment: "the REAL theme is Kubrick's technical brilliance". She clearly wasn't attempting to engage with what Kubrick was trying to do with the film at all.
She like Spartacus and PATHS of Glory
She seems jealous because she failed to be a filmmaker and used that jealousy as an unconscious reason to hate a genius like Kubrick. She didn’t even understand the film. Grady and Lloyd the bartender are GHOSTS, they’re not fever dreams. It’s literally a ghost story and Kubrick himself described the film as a ghost story, which means all these people are not imagination fever dreams. She kept saying “we” which is so pretentious. It’s as if she is under the assumption that her beliefs are automatic facts. Basically, she didn’t understand the film on the most basic and fundamental foundational level, so of course she didn’t understand the rest of the film. She sounds butthurt. Just because she is a failure filmmaker, doesn’t mean a beloved movie is bad.
@@madcircle0461 I think she’s not alone in not understanding parts of the movie. She’s famous for only ever watching movies once, so she wrote from her strong emotional reactions (or lack of one), and it seems like what Kubrick believed would scare people didn’t scare her. She thought the insert shots were kind of a cheap way to jolt viewers. On the other hand, she talks about the audience wanting to stand and cheer the exhilarating Steadicam shots and remarks about the beauty of Danny sliding down a snowdrift, which doesn’t sound jealous to me. I believe she just didn’t enjoy most of the movie and gave many interesting reasons to justify her gut reaction. I wouldn’t call her exactly a failed filmmaker because of her consulting ending fast. She just found something she liked better-writing about movies. I don’t always agree, but I sense a human being eager to find something great instead of a critic who loves to dismiss whatever doesn’t meet their high standards (e.g. John Simon)
The review almost perfectly missed the point of the shining
Like going to a hypnotist show and reviewing the watch they swing.
@@mojonojo3 What do you think the movie’s point is?
@@KaelSalad2024 it's a dark fun house mirror (an inverse monolith of 2001 - if that monolith represents the cinema screen) the shining reflects the audience members own personal obsession as back to them - it's why it's simultaneously about the abuse and death of native Indians, the moon landings and child abuse abuse simultaneously.
@@mojonojo3 I think the ending of the movie is a closer indication of Kubrick’s point. By showing photo proof that Torrance is unable to escape his fate to “always” be serving as the caretaker and getting his wish to stay there “forever and ever” Kubrick seems to be communicating that Jack and humans in general are trapped in a never ending cycle. Kael reacted to his metaphysical hypothesis with “God help us…”
Charles and Delbert Grady aren't the same name watch Corn Pone Flicks if you wanna know the real meaning of this film
Who is the guy in the middle of the photo at the end of the film?
As is often the case: she really did understand it, but she didnt like what was there which i (mostly) liked
Lmao, no. She was dead wrong about a lot of things in regards to Kubrick.
The black slab is the Devil, not God. Kubrick said everyone thinks it is God, but it is not God.
February 7, 2024
Kael teaches me how to describe what I'm experiencing in a movie and how to "see" a movie but I can't stand her observations in this review from the Snobbish publication, The New Yorker, she's also writing for a snobbish readership
I don't know what your definition of snob is, but Kael mostly defied the culture of The New Yorker elites and celebrated films deemed "trash" by the upper classes. She wrote "Trash, Art, and the Movies" (a long piece) to explain her position, and she wrote from her gut--refusing to see movies more than once, which also meant she could get a few details wrong.
@@KaelSalad2024 did THE SHINING freak you out when you first saw it?
@@gterrymed my first time was watching some of it on network television so that’s not ideal-especially due to editing out nasty parts. I still haven’t had an immersive cinema experience, so I can’t claim terror.
Screw her, I was frightened; she writes like she's in the Upper Class. People in the Upper Class social stratum are so stoic, I chat with them every so often here in Ithaca and they sound like Pauline Kael's writing.
I am sure you chat with the homeless.
@@DavidBrown-ke8cb you look like you've been homeless, David Sterling! Lose some weight and stop drinking alcohol or whatever you're doing, your life will improve.
A11 work and nobly makes Jack a dull boy.
A11 = Apollo 11
Wow. Genius review.
Shining, zzzzz.
Kubrick is one of those class of directors who are vastly overrated.
I agree w/ you, Jeffrey-I always said, studying film in college, that Kubrick should’ve been a world-class cinematographer rather than a director. His handling of actors was very distant & oftentimes cruel tho his visuals were stunning.