What do you think?
Rate this book
The Film Writings #5
Reeling: Film Writings, 1972-1975
Reeling is Pauline Kael's fifth collection of movie reviews, covering the years 1972 through 1975. First published in 1976 by Little Brown, the book is largely composed of movie reviews, ranging from her famous review of Last Tango in Paris to her review of A Woman Under the Influence, but it also contains a longer essay entitled "On the Future of Movies" as well as a book review of The Fred Astaire & Ginger Rogers Book, by fellow The New Yorker dance critic Arlene Croce. In 2010, four film critics polled by the British Film Institute listed Reeling among their favorite books related to cinema.
47 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1976
About the author
Pauline Kael
57 books167 followersPauline Kael was an American film critic who wrote for The New Yorker magazine from 1968 to 1991. She was known for her "witty, biting, highly opinionated, and sharply focused" movie reviews. She approached movies emotionally, with a strongly colloquial writing style. She is often regarded as the most influential American film critic of her day and made a lasting impression on other major critics including Armond White and Roger Ebert, who has said that Kael "had a more positive influence on the climate for film in America than any other single person over the last three decades."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
February 13, 2014
Pauline Kael was a 'new journalist' disguised as a film critic, disguised as a war reporter, and this gives any collection of her criticism an incredible point of view that was completely unique to her at the time, and I think in the history of film criticism, because she became an artist through the back door, in the sneakiest slyest way imaginable because she used movies as a way to write little stories of her going to the movies, though you rarely if ever got personal anecdotes like you do today when a critic sees fit to tell you every personal problem they are having, and treating the movie as secondary to their neurouses. Pauline Kael treated every movie like it was the last one she might ever see again, so even if they were horrible, they were an opportunity for her to express something on her mind, because she had the uncanny ability to treat every movie like it was the first and to really understand it. I don't think any other critic in modern times has taken on the style of a literary movement and dressed it up as criticism, the way Kael did, and in so doing became an artist through the back door, because many of the reviews in this book are as good as seeing the movie itself, and elucidate culture, and Kael's sensibility, that they are like a fine wine, even if they are shit. I found myself enjoying glowing reviews of movies I hated, or bad reviews of movies I held as sacrosanct, and both freed me. It was great to hear someone be critical of "Sleeper," or to hear her go on about how Ingrid Bergman was like Ibsen, and wasn't contemporary at all, but kind of staid and boring for the most part.
The war quality tone of the book is clear not only from the title, but the way it is presented as dispatches from a hot field of action, :72-,'75, and what many consider the greatest era of American film, bar none. As any sports fan could appreciate, it's exciting to see Kael nailing what have become historic films and I think Kael was really surprised that her talents were allowed to blossom like they did, becuase part of her cleverness was that she was able to review indisputably fine films, and to see the good and bad in them, with the intent of trying to make them better, and that's where the artist in her came out over the critic. She was taking the role of critic very seriously, not just as a gossip hound bent on taking people down, or raising them up, but an actual new journalist disguised as a film critic, going to the movies for material to write about, and to elevate to the point of fiction even though it was criticism. Maybe "Reeling" was the beginning of the new criticism, where she attempted to fictionalize her criticism in a rather intellectual and round about way so that we fell in love with her mind as a moviegoer, rather than aa a character in a plot, because she took on everyone's plot as her character, and that is a very complex portrait. Part of her genius was that Kael was able to expose so much of herself without ever really telling us anything about herself, because we fell in love with her mind, not her actions, but the mind is the most erotic organ of all, so it's no surprise that one of Pauline Kael's biggest unrealized literary ambitions was to write a book about the erotic experience of going to the movies, because in a way that's what "Reeling" is. We read through dozens of reviews of some of the most canonized movies of our time in real time and not only gauge our opinion of them next to hers, and see how the original stands up, but we're also able to see Pauline Kael in the theater, watching the movie alone, probably taking notes for posterity, and are amazed. We actually fall in love with her as a filmgoer more than anything, like Mia Farrow in "The Purple Rose Of Cairo," and Kael manages to make a character of herself, and for this it is a beautiful book to read.
I don't know what to say about her actual taste except that she thought the old fogey critics who thought that movies should have all the attributes of a dramatic play, were completely off base, and that movies encompassed high and low culture. Kael was such a fan that she realized you had to love bad movies, or else you'd never go to the theater, and if you stayed away then you couldn't be the world's biggest fan, and then you'd lose your character entirely. I think she thought that the Seventies movies were real breakthrough becaduse they strayed from formula, and incorporated elements of camp and a certain 'funkiness' that high culture abhorred, and therefore were free of the restraints of clalssic bourgeoise values, and thus free to be art, like Dadaists attacking the bourgeoise collectors in the name of being free. In that way, Pauline Kael was really a revolutionary as a critic by promoting movies that most of her colleagues hated on grounds of good taste, because I think she thought the movies were for the people, and that the people were free. Kael was essentially a pre-postmodernist wanting the movies to mix high and low culture, and to be free to be bad, or irreverent, or just plain goofy, anything but staid and dull, because at heart she didn't believe in films that made one uncomfortable in their seats, but movies that were fun, or crazy sad, but not dull, not real, but like a dream. She wanted to be swept off her feet when she went to the theater and I think it's this side that makes a reader of her work fall in love with her, and be swept off his feet with her, even if the object of attratction is the movie she's talking about, and not actually her.
The war quality tone of the book is clear not only from the title, but the way it is presented as dispatches from a hot field of action, :72-,'75, and what many consider the greatest era of American film, bar none. As any sports fan could appreciate, it's exciting to see Kael nailing what have become historic films and I think Kael was really surprised that her talents were allowed to blossom like they did, becuase part of her cleverness was that she was able to review indisputably fine films, and to see the good and bad in them, with the intent of trying to make them better, and that's where the artist in her came out over the critic. She was taking the role of critic very seriously, not just as a gossip hound bent on taking people down, or raising them up, but an actual new journalist disguised as a film critic, going to the movies for material to write about, and to elevate to the point of fiction even though it was criticism. Maybe "Reeling" was the beginning of the new criticism, where she attempted to fictionalize her criticism in a rather intellectual and round about way so that we fell in love with her mind as a moviegoer, rather than aa a character in a plot, because she took on everyone's plot as her character, and that is a very complex portrait. Part of her genius was that Kael was able to expose so much of herself without ever really telling us anything about herself, because we fell in love with her mind, not her actions, but the mind is the most erotic organ of all, so it's no surprise that one of Pauline Kael's biggest unrealized literary ambitions was to write a book about the erotic experience of going to the movies, because in a way that's what "Reeling" is. We read through dozens of reviews of some of the most canonized movies of our time in real time and not only gauge our opinion of them next to hers, and see how the original stands up, but we're also able to see Pauline Kael in the theater, watching the movie alone, probably taking notes for posterity, and are amazed. We actually fall in love with her as a filmgoer more than anything, like Mia Farrow in "The Purple Rose Of Cairo," and Kael manages to make a character of herself, and for this it is a beautiful book to read.
I don't know what to say about her actual taste except that she thought the old fogey critics who thought that movies should have all the attributes of a dramatic play, were completely off base, and that movies encompassed high and low culture. Kael was such a fan that she realized you had to love bad movies, or else you'd never go to the theater, and if you stayed away then you couldn't be the world's biggest fan, and then you'd lose your character entirely. I think she thought that the Seventies movies were real breakthrough becaduse they strayed from formula, and incorporated elements of camp and a certain 'funkiness' that high culture abhorred, and therefore were free of the restraints of clalssic bourgeoise values, and thus free to be art, like Dadaists attacking the bourgeoise collectors in the name of being free. In that way, Pauline Kael was really a revolutionary as a critic by promoting movies that most of her colleagues hated on grounds of good taste, because I think she thought the movies were for the people, and that the people were free. Kael was essentially a pre-postmodernist wanting the movies to mix high and low culture, and to be free to be bad, or irreverent, or just plain goofy, anything but staid and dull, because at heart she didn't believe in films that made one uncomfortable in their seats, but movies that were fun, or crazy sad, but not dull, not real, but like a dream. She wanted to be swept off her feet when she went to the theater and I think it's this side that makes a reader of her work fall in love with her, and be swept off his feet with her, even if the object of attratction is the movie she's talking about, and not actually her.
December 3, 2015
Pauline Kael can be difficult to read because she's so cynical and superior at times. But at her best she's as funny as Dorothy Parker, and her film reviews can really make you laugh.
I especially like this collection because she reviews some of my all time favorite Seventies films, such as ZARDOZ, THE LAST DETAIL, THE STEPFORD WIVES, LENNY, and BLAZING SADDLES. I don't agree with everything she says, but she always says it memorably, like when she describes the characters in THE LAST DETAIL (a fine but almost entirely forgotten Hal Ashby film) as "doomed people who discover their humanity too late."
I especially like this collection because she reviews some of my all time favorite Seventies films, such as ZARDOZ, THE LAST DETAIL, THE STEPFORD WIVES, LENNY, and BLAZING SADDLES. I don't agree with everything she says, but she always says it memorably, like when she describes the characters in THE LAST DETAIL (a fine but almost entirely forgotten Hal Ashby film) as "doomed people who discover their humanity too late."
July 23, 2009
Kael's criticism is essential reading. Erudite but never pretentious, she attacked commercialism, hackwork, and sentimentality with merciless venom. Someone's review complained that she didn't get pulpier fare, but its plain to me that she loved a good bit of shameless entertainment; if you want pulp, you need look no further than the filmography of Brain de Palma, whose films she adored, and the 80's "Flash Gordon" which she also loved. She even delights in the ouevre of Mel Brooks, whose sloppy films have a wonderful contagious energy.
For more serious fare, her criticism is less forgiving. With the benefit of decades of hindsight, we may look down on her for "not getting" Cassavetes and Antonioni, whose films, now canonical, one can't critique without being made to feel the fool. But the wealth of understanding she brings to her dismissal of "A Woman Under the Influence", say, demonstrates that she knows what Cassavetes is on about (perhaps better than he does), recognizes his strengths as a director and the talents of the cast, yet she can see the flawed forest of the film through these towering trees.
For more serious fare, her criticism is less forgiving. With the benefit of decades of hindsight, we may look down on her for "not getting" Cassavetes and Antonioni, whose films, now canonical, one can't critique without being made to feel the fool. But the wealth of understanding she brings to her dismissal of "A Woman Under the Influence", say, demonstrates that she knows what Cassavetes is on about (perhaps better than he does), recognizes his strengths as a director and the talents of the cast, yet she can see the flawed forest of the film through these towering trees.
March 17, 2024
No one quite does it like Pauline Kael. After reading through somewhere in the range of two hundred reviews and essays in this book, I came away thinking that for better or worse this is a true critic. Whether she liked a film or not (and she rarely had nothing negative to say), her ability to break a movie down to its spare parts and contextualise it as part of a larger movement is nothing short of breathtaking. I didn't always agree with her opinions but I always admired her brilliant, oftentimes merciless analyses of whatever was playing in the cinema. She refused to kowtow to the trends of the day (sometimes flirting with contrarianism) and that's why her writings have lasted through the ages.
A one of a kind.
A one of a kind.
January 1, 2017
Its not just that she is a great writer and critic, it sthat the movies she was writing about were also worth writing about (even if she didnt like them).
March 28, 2017
Pauline Kael was a respected film critic who was most active during the 1960s- 1980s. She's a sassy, opinionated woman, and for the most part her reviews are fun to read. The book that I checked out from the library includes her reviews from 1972-75. In my opinion, a pretty good time for American films especially. I'm into a lot of what Kael says because she expects movies to be thought-provoking, and has a strong aversion to the saccharine. However, she doesn't seem to understand pulpier fare. I also found her focusing too much on acting and casting...I watch a lot of films, and would say that unless the acting is so bad that it's distracting, then I really don't think much about it or whether the person was a good choice for the role.
I wasn't expecting too much out of a book like this, and overall it is an entertaining read if one jumps around and picks out the movies that are familiar or that one has been wanting to watch anyway...it's also fun to read about some movies that I have never even heard of before. Mrs. Kael made me want to watch a lot more Altman films than I had already planned on, however, she talked some shit about "Closely Watched Trains" (and other Czech New Wave) and Nathanael West, so for that, she gets knocked down a notch...
I wasn't expecting too much out of a book like this, and overall it is an entertaining read if one jumps around and picks out the movies that are familiar or that one has been wanting to watch anyway...it's also fun to read about some movies that I have never even heard of before. Mrs. Kael made me want to watch a lot more Altman films than I had already planned on, however, she talked some shit about "Closely Watched Trains" (and other Czech New Wave) and Nathanael West, so for that, she gets knocked down a notch...
April 1, 2016
Not a lot to say about a book like this - it's as the title says a collection of her film reviews from 1972-1975. I've been meaning to read more Pauline Kael (I've read the odd review of hers over the years, mainly back when Microsoft were releasing those Cinemania CD-ROMs in the late 90s) for a long time, and I started with this one because it's one of my favourite periods in cinema. I read it very slowly, I think I started nearly a year ago, because I wanted to take in every word. She's as great as I've always heard, really, and her approach has affected my own way of writing about film - she understood how to write seriously about the art without forgetting to confront and explore its shallower, seedier appeal. I've already lined up a couple more of her books (about the 50s and 60s) and can't wait to get into them.
January 29, 2009
Kael loved movies but hated the business of movie making. Nothing brought out the anger in her vibrant prose as much as money making producers. This is evident thru this as well as many other books she has written. She loved movies with her heart on her sleeve. She could wither like no other with just a little of her pen. She could use sarcasm like a sharp bullet and yet when her praise was won, nothing in life was ever truer. When she hated a film, you could see all the reasons why. She rarely ever got details wrong. You may disagree with her opinions, but you can't dismiss how she got them. If criticism is an art form, she was its best performer.
February 27, 2016
Pauline Kael was a compelling reason to subscribe to "The New Yorker". Like Dorothy Parker, she would skewer her subjects with exquisite wordage - famously, of Katherine Hepburn's acting, "She ran the gamut of emotions, from A to B".
This is a compendium of her New Yorker reviews from the 70s: fun to read her appraisals/ dissections of films seen long ago.
For dipping-into, rather than a straight read.
This is a compendium of her New Yorker reviews from the 70s: fun to read her appraisals/ dissections of films seen long ago.
For dipping-into, rather than a straight read.
July 10, 2012
Kael is the best film critic I've ever read; I don't always agree with her, but she was unmatched. This may be her best collection - it contains her famous review of "Last Tango in Paris," and her article on "Nashville," the best movie review I've ever read.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews