Pauline Kale’s unique style and loud opinions won her a long-time job as lead movie critic at the New Yorker for more than twenty years. From this post she and her work became influential in the world of film critique. Her love for movies drove a storied career that built up her sense authority on the subject as well as people’s acceptance of that authority.
A major pitfall in the creation of her argumentation, though, comes in her sense of authority on the subject. This authority comes, in large part, from the successful release of her first book I Lost It at the Movies. The result of such success was to create a voice of Kale that assumed authority over what was and wasn’t good movie making.
This authority, though, was often a false authority and Kale often proved to be largely uninformed. As Renata Adler points out in her article “House Critic,” Kale once made bold statements about the indoor shooting of Cutch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid only to find out that the film was shot outdoors by the demand of director George Roy Hill. “When informed of such errors, Ms. Kael never acknowledged or rectified them,” the article goes on to explain.
Instead of searching for some sort of objective truth about why the movie is good or bad she draws from her own authority as “Ms. Pauline Kale, lead critic for the New Yorker.” She dosen’t write to prove why the movie is good but to prove why her opinion of the movie is good and well informed. To do this she often uses manipulative tactics. For one, she draws on her previously mentioned authority as a way to make statements like
I walked up to the street, crying blindly, no longer certain whether my tears were for the tragedy on the screen, the hopelessness I felt for myself, or the alienation I felt from those who could not experience the radiance of Shoeshine,
sting line this line does in her review of Vittorio De Sica’s Shoeshine. Certainly no one wants to be unable to experience the radiance of a movie like Ms. Kale does.
Take also, for example, her trademark use of a familiar tone throughout her writing. She talks about the difference between academic English and “the way people spoke about movies” in her interview with Francis Davis chronicled in the book, Afterglow.
Renata Adler also talks about this affect in her overuse of certain fraises. “She also likes words ending in ‘ized’ (‘vegetablized,’ robotized,’ ‘aestheticized,’…) and a kind of slang (‘twerpy,’ ‘dopey,’ ‘dumb,’ …)which amounts, in prose, to an affectation of straigforwardness.” This, though, conflicted with an elevated language in discourse that acted to alienate any readership that was much less educated that that over her New Yorker readership.
These tools fooled many a reader into agreeing with her take on the movie or at least respecting it. I am not so easily fooled. Though. Her increased involvement with movie studios, even taking a position as a consultant to Paramount Pictures, prove to be a conflict of interest in my eyes and further to separate her voice from any objective truth in media critique.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Jon Pareles NYTimes Defense
The Article I'm Defending!
What first struck me about this particular article was the fact that it helped me become interested in a topic that I am normally not particularly interested in. Electronic music, and especially ambient music, is not a genre that I particularly enjoy or find my self interested in. The wording that Jon Pareles uses in this article to describe the sounds of a live ambient show paints a vivid picture. I was curious, though, as to whether or not the picture that I had in my head was actually accurate. To my delight, but not my astonishment, I found a cut down version of the show that Jon Pareles was reviewing on YouTube. What I found was that, amazingly, “background wash of pink noise like interstellar dust and puffy tones, pitched and unpitched, arising out of the static” sounds exactly as one might expect it to sound. What really impressed me about this article, though, was the length. Something that I have been having trouble with in this class has been fitting my reviews into their allotted word-count. Jon Pareles, though, does a good job of accurately describing something that’s very hard to describe in a succinct and straight-forward manner.
What, though, offers a source of authority when talking about what is a good or a bad live music performance? Knowing, inarguably, whether or not the music was on pitch can help and Jon Pareles, using his possession of perfect-pitch, can do this. In an interview with www.rockcriticsarchive.com Pareles recounts his love for music; “I had always been attracted to music—I have perfect pitch---and started playing the piano when I was 6.” This kind of love for music combined with a storied career in rock-n-roll critique gives Pareles this very authority. He speaks in such a matter-of-fact tone in his article and this sense of authority is, I think, where it comes from – and it makes it believable. Another thing that gave Pareles this authority came from my research in his past. His experience originates in Rock-n-roll music critique yet here he is talking coherently about ambient electronic music. Again, pointing to his long-time interest in music, with involvement in his college radio-station, and even a degree in music from Yale gives him a ground on which to stand on.
The show he reviewed.
A list of other reviews by Jon Pareles.
An interview with Jon Pareles.
What first struck me about this particular article was the fact that it helped me become interested in a topic that I am normally not particularly interested in. Electronic music, and especially ambient music, is not a genre that I particularly enjoy or find my self interested in. The wording that Jon Pareles uses in this article to describe the sounds of a live ambient show paints a vivid picture. I was curious, though, as to whether or not the picture that I had in my head was actually accurate. To my delight, but not my astonishment, I found a cut down version of the show that Jon Pareles was reviewing on YouTube. What I found was that, amazingly, “background wash of pink noise like interstellar dust and puffy tones, pitched and unpitched, arising out of the static” sounds exactly as one might expect it to sound. What really impressed me about this article, though, was the length. Something that I have been having trouble with in this class has been fitting my reviews into their allotted word-count. Jon Pareles, though, does a good job of accurately describing something that’s very hard to describe in a succinct and straight-forward manner.
What, though, offers a source of authority when talking about what is a good or a bad live music performance? Knowing, inarguably, whether or not the music was on pitch can help and Jon Pareles, using his possession of perfect-pitch, can do this. In an interview with www.rockcriticsarchive.com Pareles recounts his love for music; “I had always been attracted to music—I have perfect pitch---and started playing the piano when I was 6.” This kind of love for music combined with a storied career in rock-n-roll critique gives Pareles this very authority. He speaks in such a matter-of-fact tone in his article and this sense of authority is, I think, where it comes from – and it makes it believable. Another thing that gave Pareles this authority came from my research in his past. His experience originates in Rock-n-roll music critique yet here he is talking coherently about ambient electronic music. Again, pointing to his long-time interest in music, with involvement in his college radio-station, and even a degree in music from Yale gives him a ground on which to stand on.
The show he reviewed.
A list of other reviews by Jon Pareles.
An interview with Jon Pareles.
Connecting Narrative with Arts Review
"Venus in Fur" Review
Story of Wes Bentley
Hey all,
Here are two articles I found especially interesting in this week's arts section of the times. First is a piece on Wes Bentley who played Ricky Fits in American Beauty. The story chronicles Bentley's fall from grace and inability to cope stardom after the release, and craze, of American Beauty.
The second is a review of the new play he is in, in NYC. These two pieces work to complement each other extremely well. This is possibly one of the most interesting parts of the Arts section in the New York Times to me; the pieces that report on more timely news maters and the way they connect to opinion pieces throughout the week.
Story of Wes Bentley
Hey all,
Here are two articles I found especially interesting in this week's arts section of the times. First is a piece on Wes Bentley who played Ricky Fits in American Beauty. The story chronicles Bentley's fall from grace and inability to cope stardom after the release, and craze, of American Beauty.
The second is a review of the new play he is in, in NYC. These two pieces work to complement each other extremely well. This is possibly one of the most interesting parts of the Arts section in the New York Times to me; the pieces that report on more timely news maters and the way they connect to opinion pieces throughout the week.
English Facult Reading: Fostering a Sense of Family
The last Wednesday in January marked this year’s English faculty reading at Kalamazoo College. The ceremony was sited by Gail Griffin, who opened the reading, as being an event that aimed to “generate a little light” during this long, gloomy Michigan winter. She then introduced two visiting members of the English faculty, welcoming them to their first faculty reading at K. This immediately worked to establish a sense of family within the department. A jam-packed family it was indeed as the Olmstead Room of Mandelle Hall was filled with students and friends of the faculty– there was only standing room available for the last few arrivals of the nearly 100 audience members. Dr. Griffin then passed off the microphone to the department’s “fearless leader,” Andy Mozina.
Dr. Mozina started off the night with a calm and collective account of his “Non-sexual affair,” an excerpt from one of his short stories. His coherent and honest tone highlighted similar aspects of his teaching style known well by his students. He spoke with great dignity of the most mundane and even goofy details of a heated, yet platonic ice-cream date. A strong decision as an opener for this event, Dr. Mozina’s reading set the stage for what would prove to be a most enjoyable evening.
Similarly, Bruce Mills signified a strong choice as an ending point to the event with his reading from his upcoming book An Archaeology of Yearning, an exploration of autism and his interactions with his son who is affected by Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD.) He and Dr. Mozina shared a sense of dignity and honesty during their readings. The fact that Dr. Mills spoke from experience, sharing intimate details of his life with the audience, made this a very powerful reading.
In between these two readings came a plethora of different texts from the other eight members of the English department at K. These ranged from excerpts from dense, theory-based papers, to moving personal accounts, to vibrant creative responses. Di Seuss showed why her creative writing classes are often difficult to get into. She read with inspired gusto in her response to a poem entitled “I Dreamed I Knew William Burroughs.” She painted a picture of a powerful woman who slang hash as well as words. Seuss was the only presenter who read from more than one text that she is working on or has published. This gave her reading more depth. An engaging reader Seuss, writer in residence in Kalamazoo College’s English Department, captivated the audience.
The event as a whole certainly had its high points and its low points, and the value of each are debatable. The debate, though, is the true value of Wednesday’s reading. Forming a sense of community between students, and specifically English majors, is a worthy goal; and a goal achieved by this year’s faculty reading. Conversation continues to roam halls and classrooms of the school about the event. The English department invited one and all into their visibly tight-knit family and as students exited Mandelle Hall into the frigid night of January 27th they carried a little bit of light with them into the rest of the week.
Dr. Mozina started off the night with a calm and collective account of his “Non-sexual affair,” an excerpt from one of his short stories. His coherent and honest tone highlighted similar aspects of his teaching style known well by his students. He spoke with great dignity of the most mundane and even goofy details of a heated, yet platonic ice-cream date. A strong decision as an opener for this event, Dr. Mozina’s reading set the stage for what would prove to be a most enjoyable evening.
Similarly, Bruce Mills signified a strong choice as an ending point to the event with his reading from his upcoming book An Archaeology of Yearning, an exploration of autism and his interactions with his son who is affected by Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD.) He and Dr. Mozina shared a sense of dignity and honesty during their readings. The fact that Dr. Mills spoke from experience, sharing intimate details of his life with the audience, made this a very powerful reading.
In between these two readings came a plethora of different texts from the other eight members of the English department at K. These ranged from excerpts from dense, theory-based papers, to moving personal accounts, to vibrant creative responses. Di Seuss showed why her creative writing classes are often difficult to get into. She read with inspired gusto in her response to a poem entitled “I Dreamed I Knew William Burroughs.” She painted a picture of a powerful woman who slang hash as well as words. Seuss was the only presenter who read from more than one text that she is working on or has published. This gave her reading more depth. An engaging reader Seuss, writer in residence in Kalamazoo College’s English Department, captivated the audience.
The event as a whole certainly had its high points and its low points, and the value of each are debatable. The debate, though, is the true value of Wednesday’s reading. Forming a sense of community between students, and specifically English majors, is a worthy goal; and a goal achieved by this year’s faculty reading. Conversation continues to roam halls and classrooms of the school about the event. The English department invited one and all into their visibly tight-knit family and as students exited Mandelle Hall into the frigid night of January 27th they carried a little bit of light with them into the rest of the week.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Velvet Goldmine is a Wild Ride
Todd Haynes’ film, “Velvet Goldmine,” is a loud, glitz-filled, rollercoaster full of free loving, girthy live shows, and more story line than most minds can handle. Parallels of this movie and the lives of David Bowie and Iggy Pop are clear for those who are familiar; but for those who are not this film can easily become too much too quickly.
These viewers become unfortunate casualties to too much happening in the plot, unfortunate because the artistic direction in this film is something worth seeing. The concert-scenes pop and the musical score is a work within itself.
The movie begins with the hoax-killing of rock-star Brian Slade, played by James Lyons. From there the plot tries to take on all-too-much at once. The story line tries to delve into Slade’s relationship with American-rocker Curt Wild, played by Ewan McGregor; as well as with many other of his personal relationships.
All the while we have Christian Bale playing the character of Arthur Stuart, an investigative journalist trying to uncover the truth behind the hoax-death of his former favorite rock star. Still following? Good, now you have to deal with confusing voice-over that lends itself to the style of an old-timey detective flick, mixed with unexplained interviews between Stuart and people of Slade’s past, wrapped in a plethora of flash-back scenes that leave the audience visually and mentally disoriented.
The unfortunate fact of this effect is it takes away from some great aspects of the movie. The sound track, for example, is a wonderful mix of heavy hitters from the era that put us in the period. The effect of this soundtrack combines with the use of pseudo-news scenes and rocking live concert scenes that make the world of the sexual revolution more relatable to the audience. Brian Eno, Lou Reed, and Steve Harley round out an exceptional soundtrack that really draws you to the movie despite the confusing plot’s attempt to boot you out.
Other pluses to the movie are its artistic direction. The costumes are elaborate in this film; hat’s off to Sandy Powell for that. These, mixed with the elaborate sets of Slade’s sex palaces work to connect you to the glamorous and outrageous world of Slade’s glam rock.
Furthermore, the acting job by all of the big-names in the film are great. Ewan McGregor and James Lyons actually have some great on-screen chemistry and the acting of the entire cast works to bring this otherwise unfamiliar world to life. These performances work with the above-mentioned scenes of fake news-casts to make this world real.
Overall, the good aspects of this movie out way the bad. Word of caution to the wise, though: do some research before you go see this film. With a little extra scope into what this movie is actually about you are free to focus in on the outstanding art-direction in this movie.
My target audience are people who have not seen this movie before and, specifically, people who are not too familiar with David Bowie's Life
These viewers become unfortunate casualties to too much happening in the plot, unfortunate because the artistic direction in this film is something worth seeing. The concert-scenes pop and the musical score is a work within itself.
The movie begins with the hoax-killing of rock-star Brian Slade, played by James Lyons. From there the plot tries to take on all-too-much at once. The story line tries to delve into Slade’s relationship with American-rocker Curt Wild, played by Ewan McGregor; as well as with many other of his personal relationships.
All the while we have Christian Bale playing the character of Arthur Stuart, an investigative journalist trying to uncover the truth behind the hoax-death of his former favorite rock star. Still following? Good, now you have to deal with confusing voice-over that lends itself to the style of an old-timey detective flick, mixed with unexplained interviews between Stuart and people of Slade’s past, wrapped in a plethora of flash-back scenes that leave the audience visually and mentally disoriented.
The unfortunate fact of this effect is it takes away from some great aspects of the movie. The sound track, for example, is a wonderful mix of heavy hitters from the era that put us in the period. The effect of this soundtrack combines with the use of pseudo-news scenes and rocking live concert scenes that make the world of the sexual revolution more relatable to the audience. Brian Eno, Lou Reed, and Steve Harley round out an exceptional soundtrack that really draws you to the movie despite the confusing plot’s attempt to boot you out.
Other pluses to the movie are its artistic direction. The costumes are elaborate in this film; hat’s off to Sandy Powell for that. These, mixed with the elaborate sets of Slade’s sex palaces work to connect you to the glamorous and outrageous world of Slade’s glam rock.
Furthermore, the acting job by all of the big-names in the film are great. Ewan McGregor and James Lyons actually have some great on-screen chemistry and the acting of the entire cast works to bring this otherwise unfamiliar world to life. These performances work with the above-mentioned scenes of fake news-casts to make this world real.
Overall, the good aspects of this movie out way the bad. Word of caution to the wise, though: do some research before you go see this film. With a little extra scope into what this movie is actually about you are free to focus in on the outstanding art-direction in this movie.
My target audience are people who have not seen this movie before and, specifically, people who are not too familiar with David Bowie's Life
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Sherlock Holmes Doesnt Dissapoint (Revised)
Based on the existing collection of video adaptations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s “Sherlock Holmes” one might not expect to see many explosions or extreme violence in a Sherlock Holmes movie. Guy Ritchie (Snatch, Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels) provides plenty of both, though, in his new adaptation of the old detective novels. Not surprisingly, Ritchie brings a lot of bang into a character not usually connected with the pop of a Hollywood blockbuster.
The plot of this film, though, does a good job of outshining all of that glitz and glam of Hollywood with an excellent storyline. Meanwhile, Robert Downing Jr. (Sherlock Holmes) and Jude Law (Dr. John Watson) have great on-screen chemistry. As they stumble through a spectacularly gloomy set of the grimy London streets, their witty banter keeps you laughing while a super natural plot line keeps you on the edge of your seat.
The gloomy set contrasts nicely with the bright, posh wardrobes of the two leading ladies in the film, who work to tear Homes and Watson from their case as well as their friendship. Rachel McAdams does a better job than expected at her character, Irene Adler’s, devious nature while she seduces the audience in her attempts to capture Sherlock Holmesis heart.
Kelly Reilly’s performance as Watson’s fiancé-to-be, on the other hand, is flat and her scenes generally fall short of the film’s otherwise witty flow. Certainly her character calls for a certain lack of depth but her dull tone detracted from scenes in which Downing Jr. dazzled. At best her role and performance can be described as mildly annoying and lends itself to the assumption of a general miscasting.
Writers Anthony Peckham, Michael Robert Johnson and Simon Kinberg work well with the team of Ritchie and Downing Jr. in adapting Holmesis character while remaining true to the gloriously sublte details of Doyle’s makeup of Holmes. With a violin and a pipe as his vices, Downing Jr. stumbles through the chaos of his bedroom with his own unique sense of order. With a number of striking close-ups in Holmesis bedroom the production team does a great job of keeping Doyle’s key character traits intact while taking advantage of the intimacy film can provide an audience with a character. The audience’s eyes burn along with Holmes as Watson pulls back the blinds to reveal a perfect attention to detail in Holmesis Lair. Such effects allow the audience to truly connect with the character, deepening their connection to the movie.
Huge explosions and well-done, slow-motion fight scenes add to a successful set of special effects and help to realize a long awaited devotion of a real budget to this long-time idled character. The film’s 90 million dollar budget goes a long way as this beloved story is finally realized in a true blockbuster. The intricacies of the set draw the audience to the movie for a whopping 128 minutes. At first glance this two-hour-plus run time seems daunting but it flies by as the twists of the plot take you through the twists of the Thames and to the top of record-breaking bridge heights.
And just when one might start to worry that they left out the most important part, Moriarti makes a guest appearance just long enough to give you a glint of what is sure to be a disappointing sequel. Robert Downing Jr. and Jude Law may prove otherwise, though, as their great success in this movie had me brimming from ear to ear when I left the theatre.
The plot of this film, though, does a good job of outshining all of that glitz and glam of Hollywood with an excellent storyline. Meanwhile, Robert Downing Jr. (Sherlock Holmes) and Jude Law (Dr. John Watson) have great on-screen chemistry. As they stumble through a spectacularly gloomy set of the grimy London streets, their witty banter keeps you laughing while a super natural plot line keeps you on the edge of your seat.
The gloomy set contrasts nicely with the bright, posh wardrobes of the two leading ladies in the film, who work to tear Homes and Watson from their case as well as their friendship. Rachel McAdams does a better job than expected at her character, Irene Adler’s, devious nature while she seduces the audience in her attempts to capture Sherlock Holmesis heart.
Kelly Reilly’s performance as Watson’s fiancé-to-be, on the other hand, is flat and her scenes generally fall short of the film’s otherwise witty flow. Certainly her character calls for a certain lack of depth but her dull tone detracted from scenes in which Downing Jr. dazzled. At best her role and performance can be described as mildly annoying and lends itself to the assumption of a general miscasting.
Writers Anthony Peckham, Michael Robert Johnson and Simon Kinberg work well with the team of Ritchie and Downing Jr. in adapting Holmesis character while remaining true to the gloriously sublte details of Doyle’s makeup of Holmes. With a violin and a pipe as his vices, Downing Jr. stumbles through the chaos of his bedroom with his own unique sense of order. With a number of striking close-ups in Holmesis bedroom the production team does a great job of keeping Doyle’s key character traits intact while taking advantage of the intimacy film can provide an audience with a character. The audience’s eyes burn along with Holmes as Watson pulls back the blinds to reveal a perfect attention to detail in Holmesis Lair. Such effects allow the audience to truly connect with the character, deepening their connection to the movie.
Huge explosions and well-done, slow-motion fight scenes add to a successful set of special effects and help to realize a long awaited devotion of a real budget to this long-time idled character. The film’s 90 million dollar budget goes a long way as this beloved story is finally realized in a true blockbuster. The intricacies of the set draw the audience to the movie for a whopping 128 minutes. At first glance this two-hour-plus run time seems daunting but it flies by as the twists of the plot take you through the twists of the Thames and to the top of record-breaking bridge heights.
And just when one might start to worry that they left out the most important part, Moriarti makes a guest appearance just long enough to give you a glint of what is sure to be a disappointing sequel. Robert Downing Jr. and Jude Law may prove otherwise, though, as their great success in this movie had me brimming from ear to ear when I left the theatre.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Sherlock Holmes Dosent Dissapoint
If you’ve ever watched a video adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes you might not expect to see many explosions or extreme violence in a Sherlock Holmes movie. Yet when you go to watch Warner Brother’s new blockbuster adaptation of the old detective novels, that’s exactly what you get; lots of explosions and violent fight scenes. The plot of this film, though, does a good job of outshining all of that glitz and glam of Hollywood with an excellent storyline. Not to mention, Robert Downing Jr. (Sherlock Holmes) and Jude Law (Dr. John Watson) have great on-screen chemistry. As they stumble through a spectacular set of London their witty banter keeps you laughing while a super natural plot line keeps you on the edge of your seat.
As for the leading ladies in this adventure you have two female roles that drive Holmes and Watson away from the pressing nature of their case as well as from the destiny of their friendship. Rachel McAdams does a better job than expected at her character, Irene Adler’s, devious nature as well as seducing the audience in her attempts to capture Sherlock Holme’s heart. Kelly Reilly, on the other hand, keeps me wondering whether or not bad acting was a tool to make her character, Mary Morstar, less likeable. Whatever the case her acting is not very good and makes you aware of her characters expendable nature within the plot. Specifically, her reactions to Holme’s custom to analyze every situation to the last detail, and usually fairly accurately, detract from Downing Jr.’s terrific acting in the shot and make the scene fall short of the films otherwise witty flow.
Writers Anthony Peckham, Michael Robert Johnson and Simon Kinberg do a great job of innovating and exploring Holme’s unique character. With a violin and a pipe as his vices, Downing Jr. stumbles through the chaos of his bedroom with his own unique sense of order. With a number of shots in Holme’s bedroom the writers do a great job of keeping Doyle’s key character traits intact while taking advantage of the intimacy film provides an audience with a character. These shots prove to give Downing Jr.’s character an intriguing mix of old meets new.
Great special effects help to realize a long awaited devotion of a real budget to this long-time idled character. The film’s 90 million dollar budget takes you a long way in this one as a wait that has lasted decades is finally realized in a true blockbuster. The intricacies of the set draw you to the movie for a whopping 128 minutes. At first glance this two hour plus run time seems daunting but it flies by as the twists of the plot take you through the twists of the Thames and to the top of record-breaking bridge heights.
And just when you start to think they left out the most important part, Moriarti makes a guest appearance just long enough to give you a glint of what is sure to be a disappointing sequel. Robert Downing Jr. and Jude Law may prove otherwise, though, as their great success in this movie had me brimming from ear to ear when I left the theatre.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
