Pauline Kael, dead at 82
Opus the Penguin
--
Opus the Penguin
Boron Elgar
<opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote:
>Just thought you'd all like to know. I'm bummed.
Me, too.
Boron
GrapeApe
I have been surprised by the amount of negativism towards Kael I have noticed
on usenet the past couple of years. I always found her reviews useful.
Amy Austin
Dare I even ask?
Ok, according to Salon she was a movie critic. What did she do that was
so important to the two of you? I mean, assuming that you weren't friends
with her or something.
L & k,
Amy
Boron Elgar
wrote:
She was quite well known & influential in the field of film criticism.
She wrote for the "New Yorker" for many years and was the author of
several books.
If you want to learn more, you'll probably find a few obits still
online. 9/3/01.
Boron
Amy Austin
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 11:31:27 -0500, Amy Austin <glea...@purdue.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Boron Elgar wrote:
> >
> >> On 5 Sep 2001 10:03:36 GMT, Opus the Penguin
> >> <opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Just thought you'd all like to know. I'm bummed.
> >>
> >> Me, too.
> >
> >Dare I even ask?
> >
> >Ok, according to Salon she was a movie critic. What did she do that was
> >so important to the two of you? I mean, assuming that you weren't friends
> >with her or something.
>
> She was quite well known & influential in the field of film criticism.
> She wrote for the "New Yorker" for many years and was the author of
> several books.
>
> If you want to learn more, you'll probably find a few obits still
> online. 9/3/01.
Ok, thanks. I read about her. I was just more interested in why she was
important to you (and Opus, it was Opus, right?).
I mean, I was sad when I realized that Harry Chapin was no longer alive (I
grew up listening to his music, and my parents never mentioned that he
had been killed), but it was more because of one particular song, and what
it meant to me, and how it helped me get through a hard time than it was
about his biography (even though he did a lot of great charity work,
etc.). I sometimes just think it's interesting to find out why certain
celebrities are important to people. The reasons often vary in unexpected
ways.
L & k,
Amy (but after the whole Ch** At**** thing, I wanted to be careful how I
phrased it)
UFO_Charlie
>Just thought you'd all like to know. I'm bummed.
Worst. Loss. Ever.
--
***UFO_Charlie***
Random Neural Firings - http://www.thernf.com
"There's no problems, only solutions." -- John Lennon
[Discombobulate my email address to reply.]
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>
>> >with her or something.
>>
>> She was quite well known & influential in the field of film criticism.
>> She wrote for the "New Yorker" for many years and was the author of
>> several books.
>>
>> If you want to learn more, you'll probably find a few obits still
>> online. 9/3/01.
>
>Ok, thanks. I read about her. I was just more interested in why she was
>important to you (and Opus, it was Opus, right?).
>
>I mean, I was sad when I realized that Harry Chapin was no longer alive (I
>grew up listening to his music, and my parents never mentioned that he
>had been killed), but it was more because of one particular song, and what
>it meant to me, and how it helped me get through a hard time than it was
>about his biography (even though he did a lot of great charity work,
>etc.). I sometimes just think it's interesting to find out why certain
>celebrities are important to people. The reasons often vary in unexpected
>ways.
For many years when she wrote for the "New Yorker" I lived in
Manhattan & went to the movies maybe 3-4 times a week. I lived next
door to a quad theater. I loved to read what she had to say about
movies that I had seen as I didn't read reviews before going to a
film. Even if I disagreed with her overall opinion of something, I
still got valuable insights from what she read. She was well versed in
film history & by teaching me appreciate such things as editing &
cinematography, I was able to appreciate films on several levels and
trained myself to study them. She inspired me to take several film
classes.
Boron
Amy Austin
> For many years when she wrote for the "New Yorker" I lived in
> Manhattan & went to the movies maybe 3-4 times a week. I lived next
> door to a quad theater. I loved to read what she had to say about
> movies that I had seen as I didn't read reviews before going to a
> film. Even if I disagreed with her overall opinion of something, I
> still got valuable insights from what she read. She was well versed in
> film history & by teaching me appreciate such things as editing &
> cinematography, I was able to appreciate films on several levels and
> trained myself to study them. She inspired me to take several film
> classes.
Cool, that's exactly the kind of answer I was looking for. I'm sorry I
missed her, and I'm sorry for your loss.
L & k,
Amy
GrapeApe
>>
>> Me, too.
>
>Dare I even ask?
>
>Ok, according to Salon she was a movie critic. What did she do that was
>so important to the two of you? I mean, assuming that you weren't friends
>with her or something.
Its more like losing a friend of 30 years, than some bimbo you just found out
about on Salon. I've been reading Kael almost as long as I have been reading
Dr. Suess. I'd still like to get her book on Citizen Kane. Well to be honest,
I probably haven't read her in nearly 20 years- but I did respect her opinion.
The first two film crtics that ever caught my attention were Kael, who wrote
for the New Yorker, and John Simon, who absolutely hated everything it seemed.
Just remarkable enough to remember his name. Then that Richard Schnickel or
whatever guy who wrote for Time and loved everything Disney. Later you run
into more of your lighter or purely informational fluff, Maltins, Siskel and
Eberts, Rex Reeds, of greatly variable oomphitude in importance of opinion.
But if she were on BookNotes, or on Charlie Rose or such, would I listen? Sure!
Dana Carpender
UFO_Charlie wrote:
>
> Opus the Penguin <opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> >Just thought you'd all like to know. I'm bummed.
>
> Worst. Loss. Ever.
No, no, Charlie. That would be Chet Atkins.
--
Dana W."Who, me, stir up trouble?" Carpender
Author, How I Gave Up My Low Fat Diet -- And Lost Forty Pounds!
http://www.holdthetoast.com
Check out our FREE Low Carb Ezine!
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Boron Elgar wrote:
Why thank you, Amy. If you have a chance, check out a book or two
from the library & see what I mean.
Boron
Amy Austin
I was thinking about checking out the back issues of the New Yorker
tonight (I tutor a 7th grader at the library on Wednesdays and Fridays).
Are there any film reviews, in particular, that you remember that I should
look for? (I was thinking the Wizard of Oz, but only because of that
other recent thread... :) ). I must admit, I'm not really a film buff,
so I really wouldn't know what to look for.
L & k,
Amy
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>> >Cool, that's exactly the kind of answer I was looking for. I'm sorry I
>> >missed her, and I'm sorry for your loss.
>>
>> Why thank you, Amy. If you have a chance, check out a book or two
>> from the library & see what I mean.
>
>I was thinking about checking out the back issues of the New Yorker
>tonight (I tutor a 7th grader at the library on Wednesdays and Fridays).
>Are there any film reviews, in particular, that you remember that I should
>look for? (I was thinking the Wizard of Oz, but only because of that
>other recent thread... :) ). I must admit, I'm not really a film buff,
>so I really wouldn't know what to look for.
>
The articles/reviews are collected in the books. Try "5001 Nights at
the Movies" or "Going Steady : Film Writings 1968-1969"
For other first rate film critics, look for writings by James Agee or
Andrew Sarris.
Boron
Nick Spalding
<Pine.SOL.4.33.01090...@herald.cc.purdue.edu>:
> I was thinking about checking out the back issues of the New Yorker
> tonight (I tutor a 7th grader at the library on Wednesdays and Fridays).
> Are there any film reviews, in particular, that you remember that I should
> look for? (I was thinking the Wizard of Oz, but only because of that
> other recent thread... :) ). I must admit, I'm not really a film buff,
> so I really wouldn't know what to look for.
According to her obituary in The Times today she started writing for the
New Yorker about 1965.
--
Nick Spalding
Boron Elgar
wrote:
To me, that is yesterday...to Amy, who is so much younger, it seems
like 1939.
Boron
Al Yellon
news:d4mcptk2omaeumcmj...@4ax.com...
This is likely to get me in trouble, but I see some NY/East Coast bias here.
Kael was well known for writing reviews, as you say, in the New Yorker. But
most Midwesterners (as Amy so neatly showed us) have barely heard of her.
For people in the Midwest, I'd say Roger Ebert was much more influential.
Michael
> This is likely to get me in trouble, but I see some NY/East Coast bias here.
> Kael was well known for writing reviews, as you say, in the New Yorker. But
> most Midwesterners (as Amy so neatly showed us) have barely heard of her.
>
> For people in the Midwest, I'd say Roger Ebert was much more influential.
Actually I am from the Midwest and subscribed to the New Yorker. It has
a national appeal. Jeeze, it spawned authors from John Cheever to John
Updike. Anybody who was anybody wrote for the New Yorker!
Kael will go down as one of the top five---and I did not always agree
with her. There isn't time to discuss how she changed the style of
revewing---prolly influenced Ebert. She was one of a kind that made a
break with the *then current* style of movie reviews. When you got done
with her review, you knew the guts of a movie--from director to
cinematographer. She was a true student of the art.
There is no regional bias---she was one of the best. (period). Amy is
simply a bit too young to appreciate her golden years. She retired in
'92.
--
Michael
I have three e-mail addresses :
mitc...@image-link.com mitc...@att.net mitc...@home.com
If one doesn't work, well...
GrapeApe
>revewing---prolly influenced Ebert.
If you have Roger Ebert's Book of Film, you can probably read Eberts own
discussions on how he may have influenced her.
Michael
Well, wouldn't that be big of him.
Bosh, she was cranking out her best stuff before Ebert had a job.
Amy Austin
When I see "1965" I think, "Ok, so Mom and Dad were 14..."
L & k,
Amy
GrapeApe
>> discussions on how he may have influenced her.
>
>Well, wouldn't that be big of him.
Oops, I mean her influenced him. Some of the writings compiled within are not
that easy to find anymore.
Lord Jubjub
<Pine.SOL.4.33.01090...@herald.cc.purdue.edu>,
Amy Austin <glea...@purdue.edu> wrote:
I was born that year.
--
Lord Jubjub
Ruler of the Jabberwocky, Guardian of the Wabe, Prince of the Slithy Toves,
Leader of the raths, Keeper of the Bandersnatch
Lalbert1
>>> If you have Roger Ebert's Book of Film, you can probably read Eberts own
>>> discussions on how he may have influenced her.
Sumuthagai responded:
>>Well, wouldn't that be big of him.
"A critic is a legless person who teaches running." - Anon.
Les
(I know, I know - it's a rotten job but somone has to do it)
Opus the Penguin
Wait! Strike that! Reverse it.
--
Opus the Penguin
Opus the Penguin
>Boron Elgar wrote:
>>Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>
>> >Just thought you'd all like to know. I'm bummed.
>>
>> Me, too.
>
> Dare I even ask?
>
> Ok, according to Salon she was a movie critic. What did she do
> that was so important to the two of you? I mean, assuming that you
> weren't friends with her or something.
It felt like we were friends. She took you into her confidence in her
reviews, holding nothing back.
Here is the famous introduction to her 1961 review of the movie
_Shoeshine_:
---------
When _Shoeshine_ opened in 1947, I went to see it alone after one of
those terrible lovers' quarrels that leave one in a state of
incomprehensible despair. I came out of the theater, tears streaming,
and overheard the petulant voice of a college girl complaining to her
boyfriend, "Well I don't see what was so special about that movie." I
walked up 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_. For if people cannot feel _Shoeshine_,
what *can* they feel? My identification with those two lost boys had
become so strong that I did not feel simply a mixture of pity and
disgust toward this dissatisfied customer but an intensified
hopelessness about everything ... Later I learned that the man with
whom I had quarreled had gone the same night and had also emerged in
tears. Yet our tears for each other and for _Shoeshine_ did not bring
us together. Life, as _Shoeshine_ demonstrates, is too complex for
facile endings.
---------
Her reviews were not always that personal, but there was always that
human connection. You felt you knew her.
She was also, as Boron mentioned, a teacher. She taught you how to look
at films and understand what was going on at all the different levels,
plot and character, writing, acting, direction, cinematography,
lighting, sound, editing. Even if you disagreed with her (and you'd
have to be a total doormat never to disagree with her) you still came
away knowing better how to understand the way a movie works and how it
affects you.
If you let her, she also taught you how to write, how to think, and
sometimes even how to live.
We actually lost dear Ms. Kael to Parkinson's 10 years ago. There's
hardly a movie that goes by that I haven't wished I could "discuss"
with her (by reading her review and carrying on a conversation in my
head). The death is just the final stage in the loss of that
irreplaceable voice.
--
Opus the Penguin
Opus the Penguin
> The articles/reviews are collected in the books. Try "5001 Nights
> at the Movies" or "Going Steady : Film Writings 1968-1969"
I wouldn't recommend _5001 Nights_ for a first look at Kael. It's a
compilation of *short* reviews, so Kael doesn't really get to shine.
_For Keeps_ is the best single volume. _Movie Love_ might be the one
Amy finds most accessible since it deals with movies she's more likely
to have seen.
--
Opus the Penguin
GrapeApe
>
>Sumuthagai responded:
>
>>>Well, wouldn't that be big of him.
>
>
>"A critic is a legless person who teaches running." - Anon.
>
>Les
>(I know, I know - it's a rotten job but somone has to do it)
You notice who wrote that quote don't you?
Not only is it critical itself, but the guy is hiding behind a Pseudonym, the
bastard.
Anyway, as I said earlier, I meant Kael influenced Ebert. At least enough for
him to pop her in a volume he was selling.
Boron Elgar
<aye...@REMOVETHIScolgatealumni.org> wrote:
>"
>>
>> She was quite well known & influential in the field of film criticism.
>> She wrote for the "New Yorker" for many years and was the author of
>> several books.
>>
>> If you want to learn more, you'll probably find a few obits still
>> online. 9/3/01.
>
>This is likely to get me in trouble, but I see some NY/East Coast bias here.
>Kael was well known for writing reviews, as you say, in the New Yorker. But
>most Midwesterners (as Amy so neatly showed us) have barely heard of her.
>
>For people in the Midwest, I'd say Roger Ebert was much more influential.
I subscribed to the New Yorker before I moved to NY. I got it in high
school.
Boron
>
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>GrapeApe wrote:
>>
>> > There isn't time to discuss how she changed the style of
>> >revewing---prolly influenced Ebert.
>>
>> If you have Roger Ebert's Book of Film, you can probably read Eberts own
>> discussions on how he may have influenced her.
>
>Well, wouldn't that be big of him.
>
Like that's hard.
Boron
Boron Elgar
<opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote:
>Boron Elgar wrote:
>> The articles/reviews are collected in the books. Try "5001 Nights
>> at the Movies" or "Going Steady : Film Writings 1968-1969"
>
>I wouldn't recommend _5001 Nights_ for a first look at Kael. It's a
>compilation of *short* reviews, so Kael doesn't really get to shine.
I thought that may be a quick intro for Amy, before she got into any
of the lengthier stuff.
>
>_For Keeps_ is the best single volume. _Movie Love_ might be the one
>Amy finds most accessible since it deals with movies she's more likely
>to have seen.
Hard to find much of any of it in print, I'd bet & I wonder what the
libraries have around.
Boron
Opus the Penguin
sharing. I got as far as the end of the '70s before this got too long.
I may key in more later. (And if anyone has Kael's review of _The
Stepford Wives_, post some generous excerpts. That review isn't in this
book and it's one of her best.)
===========
Trash, Art, and the Movies - 1969 (essay)
A good movie can take you out of your dull funk and the hopelessness
that so often goes with slipping into a theatre; a good movie can make
you feel alive again, in contact, not just lost in another city. Good
movies make you care, make you believe in possibilities again. If
somewhere in the Hollywood-entertainment world someone has managed to
break through with something that speaks to you, then it isn't *all*
corruption. The movie doesn't have to be great; it can be stupid and
empty and you can still have the joy of a good performance, or the joy
in just a good line. an actor's scowl, a small subversive gesture, a
dirty remark that someone tosses off with a mock-innocent face, and the
world makes a little bit of sense
...
Let's clear away a few misconceptions. Movies make hash out of the
schoolmarm's approach of how well the artist fulfilled his intentions.
Whatever the original intention of the writers and director, it is
usually supplanted, as the production gets under way, by the intention
to make money--and the industry judges the film by how well it fulfills
that intention. But if you could see the "artist's intentions" you'd
probably wish you couldn't anyway. Nothing is so deathly to enjoyment
as the relentless march of a movie to fulfill its obvious purpose.
...
At the moview we get low life and high life, while David Susskind and
the moralistic reviewers chastise us for not patronizing what they
think we should, "realistic" movies that ould be good for us--like _A
Raisin in the Sun_, where we could learn the lesson that a Negro family
can be as dreary as a white family. Movie audiences will take a lot of
garbage, but it's pretty hard to make us queue up for pedagogy. At the
moview we want a different kind of truth, something that surprises us
and registers with us as funny or accurate or maybe amazing, maybe even
amazingly beautiful.
...
_The Thomas Crown Affair_ is pretty good trash, but we shouldn't covert
what we enjoy it for into false terms derived from our study of the
other arts. That's being false to what we enjoy.
...
Does trash corrupt? A nutty Puritanism still fluorishes in the arts,
not just in the schoolteachers' approach of wanting art to be
"worthwhile," but in the higher reaches of the academic life with those
ideologues who denounce us for enjoying trash as if this enjoyment took
us away from the really disturbing, angry new art of our time and
somehow destroyed us.
...
When you're young the odds are very good that you'll find something to
enjoy in almost any movie. But as you grow more experienced, the odds
change. I saw a picture a few years ago that was the sixth version of
material that wasn't much to start with. Unless you're feebleminded,
the odds get worse and worse.
===========
Dirty Harry - 1972
The movie opens on a memorial plaque in the lobby of the San Francisco
Hall of Justice, and we read the words "In Tribute to the Police
Officers of San Francisco Who Gave Their Lives in the Line of Duty,"
and then the beginning of a list of names. This is a rather strange
opening for _Dirty Harry_ since it isn't about the death of a police
officer. The tribute, however, puts the viewer in a respectful frame of
mind; we all kno that many police are losing their lives. The movie
then proceeds to offer a magically simple culprit for their deaths: the
liberals. Actually, the opening is strange for other reasons, too. I
grew up in San Francisco, and one of the soundest pieces of folk wisdom
my mother gave me was "If you're ever in trouble, don't go to the
cops." I remember a high-school teacher telling me that it never ceased
to amaze him that his worst students--the sadists and the bullies--
landed not in jail but on the police force, though sometimes on the
police force and then in jail.
===========
The Godfather - 1972
In general, [Coppola] tries not to fix the images. In _Sunday Bloody
Sunday_, John Schlesinger showed a messy knocked-over ashtray being
picked up in closeup, so that there was nothing to perceive in the shot
but the significance of the messiness. Coppola, I think, would have
kept the camera on the room in which the woman bent over to retrieve
the ashtray, and the messiness would have been just one element among
many to be observed--perhaps the curve of her body could have told us
much more than the actual picking-up motion.
...
In _The Godfather_ we see organized crime as an obscene symbolic
extension of free enterprise and government policy, an extension of the
worst in America--its feudal ruthlessness. Organized crime is not a
rejection of Americanism, it's what we fear Americanism to be. It's our
nightmare of the American system. When "Americanism" was a form of
cheerful, bland official optimism, the gangster used to be destroyed at
the end of the movie and our feelings resolved.
===========
The Exorcist - 1974
[Friedkin] has himself said that Blatty's book took hold of him and
made him physically ill. That's the problem with moviemakers who aren't
thinkers: they're mentally unprotected. A book like Blatty's makes them
sick, and they think this means they should make everybody sick.
Probably Friedkin really believes he is communicating an important idea
to us. And the only way he knows how to do it is by surface punch; he's
a true commercial director--he confuses blatancy with power.
===========
On Gene Wilder in _Young Frankenstein_ - 1974
Gene Wilder stares at the world with nearsighted, pale-blue-eyed
wonder; he was born with a comic's flyblown wig and the look of a
reddish creature from outer space. His features aren't distinct; his
personality lacks definition. His whole appearance is so fuzzy and weak
he's like mist on the lens. Yet since his first screen appearance, as
the mortician in _Bonnie and Clyde_, he's made his presence felt each
time. He's a magnetic blur. It's easy to imagine him as a frizzy-haired
fiddler-clown in a college production of _A Midsummer Night's Dream_,
until he slides over into that hysteria which is his dazzling
specialty. As a hysteric, he's funnier even that Peter Sellers. For
Sellers, hysteria is just one more weapon in his comic arsenal--his
hysteria mocks hysteria--but Wilder's hysteria seems perfectly natural.
You never question what's driving him to it; his fits are lucid and
total. They take him into a different dimension--he delivers what Harpo
promised.
Wilder is clearly an actor who can play serious roles as well as comic
ones, and he's a superb technician. Yet he also seems an inspired
original, as peculiarly, elusively demented in his own way as the
greatest original of them all, Jonathan Winters.... Like Winters,
Wilder taps a private madness. In _Start the Revolution Without Me_, he
played a French nobleman who was offering a tidbit to the falcon on his
wrist when his wife pointed out that the falcon was dead. With the calm
of the utterly insane, he said to her, "Repeat that." Reality is what
Wilder's weak stare doesn't take in.
===========
On Spielberg's direction of _Jaws_ - 1976
In _Jaws_, which may be the most cheerfully perverse scare movie ever
made, the disasters don't come on schedule the way they do in most
disaster pictures, and your guts never settle down on a timetable. Even
while you're convulsed with laughter, you're still apprehensive,
because the editing rhyths are very tricky, and the shock images loom
up huge, right on top of you. There are parts of _Jaws_ that suggest
what Eisenstein might have done if he hadn't intellectualized himself
out of reach--if he'd given in to the bourgeois child in himself. While
having a drink with an older Hollywood director, I said that I'd been
amazed by the assurance with which Steven Spielberg, the young director
of _Jaws_, had toyed with the film frame. The older director said, "He
must never have seen a play; he's the first one of us who doesn't think
in terms of the proscenium arch. With him, there's nothing but the
camera lens.
[My note: There's a whole darn education in understanding film in that
one paragraph.]
===========
--
Opus the Penguin
Boron Elgar
<opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote:
>Here are some excerpts from Kael's book _For Keeps_. I just felt like
>sharing. I got as far as the end of the '70s before this got too long.
>I may key in more later. (And if anyone has Kael's review of _The
>Stepford Wives_, post some generous excerpts. That review isn't in this
>book and it's one of her best.)
How about Susan Brownmiller *about* Kael's review???
"Rattling her sabers in the New Yorker, the rambunctious film critic
Pauline Kael, no friend of feminism, took an opposite tack and
eviscerated "Stepford" with words like "boobish" and "cruddy" in a
passionate defense of hardworking, misunderstood men. "
Boron
GrapeApe
>Pauline Kael, no friend of feminism, took an opposite tack and
>eviscerated "Stepford" with words like "boobish" and "cruddy" in a
>passionate defense of hardworking, misunderstood men. "
Would you consider the men in Stepford Wives villianous, or merely pathetic? I
mean after all, if they would be just as happy with robots, they may not be as
evil as they are sick. So I wouldn't see the movie as a slam against women or
feminism as much as it is a portrayal of some lost self-deluded souls.
Boron Elgar
I recall little of the film, having seen it only once, and at that, on
a plane returning from Greece. I can say that it caused me no end of
grief, though. I had been given a piece of 3rd century BC pottery by
an archaeologist & stashed it in the case for my glasses and when the
movie came on, I put on my glasses & somehow the pottery shard slipped
out and was lost.
I hate that movie.
Boron
Opus the Penguin
That was part of Kael's point, which Brownmiller apparently
misinterpret as being anti-feminism. She said that _Stepford Wives_ was
really anti-men.
--
Opus the Penguin
Opus the Penguin
>Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>Here are some excerpts from Kael's book _For Keeps_. I just felt
>>like sharing. I got as far as the end of the '70s before this got
>>too long. I may key in more later. (And if anyone has Kael's review
>>of _The Stepford Wives_, post some generous excerpts. That review
>>isn't in this book and it's one of her best.)
>
> How about Susan Brownmiller *about* Kael's review???
>
> "Rattling her sabers in the New Yorker, the rambunctious film
> critic Pauline Kael, no friend of feminism, took an opposite tack
> and eviscerated "Stepford" with words like "boobish" and "cruddy"
> in a passionate defense of hardworking, misunderstood men. "
Yeah, I read that too. When Brownmiller dies, we'll print it.
It's well-written, I'll grant, but I rather take issue with
Brownmiller's point. The "no friend of feminism" jab seems particularly
indefensible.
--
Opus the Penguin
Opus the Penguin
>Michael wrote:
>>GrapeApe wrote:
>>>
>>> > There isn't time to discuss how she changed the style of
>>> > revewing---prolly influenced Ebert.
>>>
>>> If you have Roger Ebert's Book of Film, you can probably read
>>> Eberts own discussions on how he may have influenced her.
>>
>>Well, wouldn't that be big of him.
>>
> Like that's hard.
I cannot *believe* I missed this straight line! Thanks, Boron.
--
Opus the Penguin
Brettster
live to see "Dude, Where's My Car 2."
Briar Rose
>This is likely to get me in trouble, but I see some NY/East Coast bias here.
>Kael was well known for writing reviews, as you say, in the New Yorker. But
>most Midwesterners (as Amy so neatly showed us) have barely heard of her.
I dunno; Amy's unaware of a lot of things. Huey
and Dana both knew who Kael was, and they're both
just as Midwestern as Amy.
:) Connie-Lynne
--
"I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch
of tax-dodging professional whiners."
--Berkeley Breathed
Dana Carpender
Briar Rose wrote:
>
> Al Yellon <aye...@REMOVETHIScolgatealumni.org> wrote:
> >This is likely to get me in trouble, but I see some NY/East Coast bias here.
> >Kael was well known for writing reviews, as you say, in the New Yorker. But
> >most Midwesterners (as Amy so neatly showed us) have barely heard of her.
>
> I dunno; Amy's unaware of a lot of things. Huey
> and Dana both knew who Kael was, and they're both
> just as Midwestern as Amy.
>
Nah. I grew up for 17 years just outside of NYC, and my folks are from
the Tri-State Metropolitan Area all their lives (and my dad lived in
Greenwich Village for over a decade, until he moved to San Diego a
couple of years back. Then I lived in Chicago for 17 years, which may
be midwestern, but trust me, it ain't as midwestern as Valparaiso or
Lafeyette.
I'm far more a transplant than a Midwesterner.
--
Dana W. Carpender
Author, How I Gave Up My Low Fat Diet -- And Lost Forty Pounds!
http://www.holdthetoast.com
Check out our FREE Low Carb Ezine!
Kim
"Brettster" <bret...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010905234706...@mb-fe.aol.com...
> How utterly tragic that Kael will never
> live to see "Dude, Where's My Car 2."
Let's hope none of us live that long.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Boron Elgar
<opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote:
I concur on this. Kael was an odd bird, but not anti-feminist.
I looked all over online for the original review & found only phrase
snippets, all of them negative, many of them rather funny.
Boron
N Jill Marsh
>Al Yellon <aye...@REMOVETHIScolgatealumni.org> wrote:
>>This is likely to get me in trouble, but I see some NY/East Coast bias here.
>>Kael was well known for writing reviews, as you say, in the New Yorker. But
>>most Midwesterners (as Amy so neatly showed us) have barely heard of her.
>
>I dunno; Amy's unaware of a lot of things. Huey
>and Dana both knew who Kael was, and they're both
>just as Midwestern as Amy.
I think it's more of a generational thing than regional. She retired
about ten years ago, didn't she? And kept an understandably low
profile since, due to her illness. It's not likely that a person in
their 20s would have had much exposure to her unless they were
interested in the medium.
I have never even seen a copy of The New Yorker, but I have known who
she was, and read some of her stuff, for many years. It's always been
available through books and other venues, and she used to promote her
writings on film quite a bit. However, I'm interested a little bit in
film (definitely not a buff, though).
It's not hard to have heard of her, but it's not a given either.
nj"though she's regularly been spoken of in this group, no?"m
"Do not talk about love, however. That
makes Canadians uncomfortable."
GrapeApe
>snippets, all of them negative, many of them rather funny.
Most of my exposure to Kael on the web has surprised me in its negativity. Of
course, people with a beef are the squeekiest wheels, but it surprised me that
she actually offended some people so.
I think the video industry has created too many self proclaimed 'experts' of
opinion on film. I might know a bit about film, used to be an AFI member for
the longest time and all that, but I have never gotten off in rubbing the shit
I know in other peoples noses the way some folks seem to do.
Michael
Well, Kael was pretty tough. Even on the movies that came out positive.
As I wrote, she covered all phases of a production---albeit in a
conversational manner which made her in depth style accessable to the
average viewer.
She did more than *review*...she "critiqued". You'd get done with a
seemingly negative piece, then she'd recommend it! Some couldn't see
the forest for the trees. Plus, she stepped on a lot of toes. She
became very jaded by the '80's with the promising group of talent that
broke out of the late 60's and early 70's. Some of her darlings ran
into a brick wall near the end.
--
Michael
I have three e-mail addresses :
mitc...@image-link.com mitc...@att.net mitc...@home.com
If one doesn't work, well...
Amy Austin
<snip a beautiful summary of her life's work>
Wow. I'm sorry I missed out on her when she was alive. Unfortunately
last night's tutoring ended in chaos (long story), so I didn't get a
chance to look anything up. I ended up at Walmart instead (when did they
stop making graph paper, anyway?).
Thanks for explaining. From the brief paragraph you quoted, I can tell I
would have loved her columns.
L & k,
Amy
Amy Austin
> Al Yellon <aye...@REMOVETHIScolgatealumni.org> wrote:
> >This is likely to get me in trouble, but I see some NY/East Coast bias here.
> >Kael was well known for writing reviews, as you say, in the New Yorker. But
> >most Midwesterners (as Amy so neatly showed us) have barely heard of her.
>
> I dunno; Amy's unaware of a lot of things. Huey
> and Dana both knew who Kael was, and they're both
> just as Midwestern as Amy.
Amy also happens to be 10 years younger than them. Her influences are
different.
L & k,
Amy (and she hates it when people talk about her in the third person)
Margaret Kane
"N Jill Marsh" <njm...@storm.ca> wrote in message
news:33pept8cegbe5inpq...@4ax.com...
> On 6 Sep 2001 04:34:12 GMT, cly...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Briar Rose)wrote:
>
> >Al Yellon <aye...@REMOVETHIScolgatealumni.org> wrote:
> >>This is likely to get me in trouble, but I see some NY/East Coast bias
here.
> >>Kael was well known for writing reviews, as you say, in the New Yorker.
But
> >>most Midwesterners (as Amy so neatly showed us) have barely heard of
her.
> >
> >I dunno; Amy's unaware of a lot of things. Huey
> >and Dana both knew who Kael was, and they're both
> >just as Midwestern as Amy.
>
> I think it's more of a generational thing than regional. She retired
> about ten years ago, didn't she? And kept an understandably low
> profile since, due to her illness. It's not likely that a person in
> their 20s would have had much exposure to her unless they were
> interested in the medium.
>
> I have never even seen a copy of The New Yorker, but I have known who
> she was, and read some of her stuff, for many years. It's always been
> available through books and other venues, and she used to promote her
> writings on film quite a bit. However, I'm interested a little bit in
> film (definitely not a buff, though).
>
> It's not hard to have heard of her, but it's not a given either.
>
Please stop using Amy as an example of my generation. I most certainly have
heard of Pauline Kael. I've heard of Chet Atkins and Bob Jones University,
too.
Margaret
Lalbert1
Rose) writes:
>I dunno; Amy's unaware of a lot of things.
MOTTO!!!!!
Les
Amy Austin
> Please stop using Amy as an example of my generation. I most certainly have
> heard of Pauline Kael. I've heard of Chet Atkins and Bob Jones University,
> too.
Oooohhh, aren't you special? I've seen Yo Yo Ma and Itzhak Perlman each
twice in concert (and I would've met Mr. Perlman, but he was sick that
night and not receiving guests). I have had dinner with 24 astronauts
(simultaneously). I've delivered a pizza to one of the Colts.
TWIAVBP, and we all focus on different things. I've obviously just
focused on different activities than you have.
Besides, I'm nicer.
L & k,
Amy
Amy Austin
Fuck off.
Michael
> Please stop using Amy as an example of my generation. I most certainly have
> heard of Pauline Kael. I've heard of Chet Atkins and Bob Jones University,
> too.
>
> Margaret
But you weren't *there* to see the Beatles live on Ed Sullivan? Where
were you November 22nd, 1963? There are certain events that separate
'generations'. *Hearing of* and experiencing are two different things.
I've heard about Pearl Harbor or the death of FDR. Wasn't around, then.
Those events had a different impact on my parents.
I *remember* awaiting the delivery of the New Yorker---yep, out here in
the Midwest. So, yes, reading a review of a current release by PK did
have a different impact on one as opposed to one who *simply* knows of
the existence of a person or their works.
Not to lump you in with Amy who knew not a lot about PK, but impact of
one's death varies on the attachment they had to that figure. So, well,
your are part of *some* lump---the pre-PK lump. Many experiences are
generational. I am a big WWII buff, I wouldn't claim to compare to a
veteran.
I won't claim to be grieving (after all she quit writing ten years
ago)----But many experiences are generational and you may share more
with Amy than you realize---surely more with her than myself. Amy is an
example of a generation who (probably) didn't go to the back of the New
Yorker to read what movie PK was reviewing as it was on the screens.
That matters! I did----not so with you or your generation.
Briar Rose
>Please stop using Amy as an example of my generation. I most certainly have
>heard of Pauline Kael. I've heard of Chet Atkins and Bob Jones University,
>too.
Ditto. Every time Amy makes another ignorant statement,
and then defends it by citing her age, I hope and pray
that she is the exception for our generation, not the
norm.
kay w
Margaret:
>> Please stop using Amy as an example of my generation. I most certainly have
>> heard of Pauline Kael. I've heard of Chet Atkins and Bob Jones University,
>> too.
Michael:
>But you weren't *there* to see the Beatles live on Ed Sullivan? Where
>were you November 22nd, 1963? There are certain events that separate
>'generations'. *Hearing of* and experiencing are two different things.
Yes, but Margaret doesn't seem to be asking to be classified in "our"
generation, just for folks to quit assuming her information parameters are the
same as Amy's only because they are roughly the same age. (I tried to phrase
that nicely.)
kay w
Address munged. AOL isn't necessarily comatose, evidence to the contrary not
withstanding.
N Jill Marsh
<margar...@zdnet.com>wrote:
>Please stop using Amy as an example of my generation. I most certainly have
>heard of Pauline Kael. I've heard of Chet Atkins and Bob Jones University,
>too.
Oh Margaret, I most humbly apologize if that's the way my writing
sounded at all. Rather, I was using Amy's age as a possible
explanation for her lack of awareness, rather than her region of
residence. I really do think that for anyone under 30 or so, maybe
even older, it takes a relatively well-read, broad-minded and
intellectually curious person to have heard of Pauline Kael, assuming
that they don't have a specific interest in film.
nj"serious New Yorkers excepted"m
Margaret Kane
> sounded at all. Rather, I was using Amy's age as a possible
> explanation for her lack of awareness, rather than her region of
> residence. I really do think that for anyone under 30 or so, maybe
> even older, it takes a relatively well-read, broad-minded and
> intellectually curious person to have heard of Pauline Kael, assuming
> that they don't have a specific interest in film.
>
Stop, you're making me blush.
Hm, specific interest in film. Does an Entertainment Weekly subscription
count?
Margaret
Amy Austin
> Margaret Kane <margar...@zdnet.com> wrote:
> >Please stop using Amy as an example of my generation. I most certainly have
> >heard of Pauline Kael. I've heard of Chet Atkins and Bob Jones University,
> >too.
>
> Ditto. Every time Amy makes another ignorant statement,
> and then defends it by citing her age, I hope and pray
> that she is the exception for our generation, not the
> norm.
It's ignorant to not have been exposed to something? To want to find out
more about a certain person or topic? REALLY? And all along I thought we
were all here to learn from each other. It seems that your sole purpose
is intellectual masturbation.
Have fun, try not to get any on the keyboard.
L & k,
Amy
Michael
Seems like some folks have a bad day and have to take it out on a
target? I wouldn't worry about it, Amy. Personally, I take that stuff
to e-mail and am breaking my rule here because it is already in the
public domain.
Face it, not knowing who PK is, is not a mortal sin. Amy has a
personality that seems to rub a few people the wrong way, but flaming
seems to be out of proportion to her foibles. She's *all out
there*-----deal with it or get some meds. I rile pretty easily and can
take her outspokeness with a grain of salt. Once you know what a
personality is like and can't deal with it on USEnet---well, the problem
is with you, not them. I think Amy has earned her stripes at AFC-A and
doesn't deserve some of the abuse that's been heaped upon her.
Is there something I'm missing?
Briar Rose
>On 6 Sep 2001, Briar Rose wrote:
>> Ditto. Every time Amy makes another ignorant statement,
>> and then defends it by citing her age, I hope and pray
>> that she is the exception for our generation, not the
>> norm.
>It's ignorant to not have been exposed to something? To want to find out
>more about a certain person or topic? REALLY? And all along I thought we
>were all here to learn from each other.
No, it's ignorant to crack jokes about things that you
know nothing about, and then not apologize when people
are offended. It's ignorant to claim that because
something happened before you were born, you care nothing
about it -- and claiming that is a good excuse for knowing
nothing about it. It's ignorant to insist, repeatedly,
that hearsay from your relatives is sufficient knowledge
of a subject to refute information of those educated in
the subject. It's ignorant to revel in your lack of
knowledge rather than attempting to find out more. It's
ignorant to use pejorative terms and descriptions of people
who disagree with your personal view of the world, and then,
over and over again, claim that you were "joking" or "didn't
mean it bad," and to not learn from your own frequent mistakes
that you should maybe not crack jokes about things until you
understand them better.
It's ignorant to care more about who will sue you, than
about the safety of others. It's ignorant to assume that
the reason hordes of people are offended by you is because
THEY are having a bad day, not because YOU have problems.
:) Connie-Lynne
PS - Would someone with knowledge about STRN killfiling
email me? I'm clearly having difficulties getting
this set up.
N Jill Marsh
<margar...@zdnet.com>wrote:
>> even older, it takes a relatively well-read, broad-minded and
>> intellectually curious person to have heard of Pauline Kael, assuming
>> that they don't have a specific interest in film.
>>
>count?
Nope. You must be in the former group.
nj"face red yet?"m
N Jill Marsh
<glea...@purdue.edu>wrote:
>On 6 Sep 2001, Briar Rose wrote:
>> Ditto. Every time Amy makes another ignorant statement,
>> and then defends it by citing her age, I hope and pray
>> that she is the exception for our generation, not the
>> norm.
>
>It's ignorant to not have been exposed to something?
Yeppers. See? You learn something new every post. Though I think
it's being used with another, more common meaning, up there. Do you
wanna guess which one? Would examples help?
nj"EV index skyrocketing"m
Al Yellon
news:95jdptka5u7oigas0...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 15:26:57 -0500, "Al Yellon"
> <aye...@REMOVETHIScolgatealumni.org> wrote:
>
> >"
> >>
> >> She was quite well known & influential in the field of film criticism.
> >> She wrote for the "New Yorker" for many years and was the author of
> >> several books.
> >>
> >> If you want to learn more, you'll probably find a few obits still
> >> online. 9/3/01.
> >
> >This is likely to get me in trouble, but I see some NY/East Coast bias
here.
> >Kael was well known for writing reviews, as you say, in the New Yorker.
But
> >most Midwesterners (as Amy so neatly showed us) have barely heard of her.
> >
>
> I subscribed to the New Yorker before I moved to NY. I got it in high
> school.
Well, I have to admit this. My dad subscribed, but when I was a kid, I just
liked reading the cartoons.
kay w
>It's ignorant to not have been exposed to something?
Well, yes.
kay w
>Seems like some folks have a bad day and have to take it out on a
>target?
Yes, it does seem that way, but Amy's just like that...she gets all pissy when
anyone expresses anything other than fondness for her and whatever she says.
If you can get her to quit, that would be helpful. If you can also get her to
quit making excuses for being offensive, especially after it's been pointed
out, that would be helpful, too.
If you could also get her to offer up a fact occasionally, in accordance with
that "learn from each other" thing she mentioned, rather than lame quotes from
father/husband/buddy, that would be helpful, too.
Michael
I was lucky to be a subscriber. My wife's parents got it for us. When
we did the little survey of what people were reading, I don't remember
anyone reading the New Yorker. I dare say that ten people here couldn't
relate ten reviews from PK. She was great, but I don't count her as one
of my life forming experiences. Yeah, I think one could get throgh life
without reading PK and be no worse for it.
Again, hate mail is best left to e-mail. Unless one demands in
upbraiding for some *public* delight. Which is a differnet matter than
general discussion (as I understand USEnet to be).
--
Michael "Stop pickin' on people" Glaser
Michael
Sorry, I generally find her delightful. Again, she may lack restraint
and shoot from the hip, but I find her good hearted and generally
thoughtful---that seems to be different than some of the more malicious
traits that have been attached to her.
I'm gettin' to be old guy (at least I can see an entire generation
behind be and try to extend patience) and probably have grown more
sensitive to particualar personality traits. In other words, I don't
sweat the small stuff.
She seems to hit your buttons, Kay (as I have). Why can't we all jus'
get along?
Justin Hiltscher
Austin wrote:
>On 6 Sep 2001, Briar Rose wrote:
>
>> Margaret Kane <margar...@zdnet.com> wrote:
>> >Please stop using Amy as an example of my generation. I most certainly have
>> >heard of Pauline Kael. I've heard of Chet Atkins and Bob Jones University,
>> >too.
>>
>> Ditto. Every time Amy makes another ignorant statement,
>> and then defends it by citing her age, I hope and pray
>> that she is the exception for our generation, not the
>> norm.
>
>It's ignorant to not have been exposed to something?
Hmm. That seems like a workable definition of ignorance, ya. Whether or
not that's what Connie was refering to, is a different question.
>To want to find out
>more about a certain person or topic? REALLY? And all along I thought we
I don't think any of us object to someone inquiring in the spirit of
curiosity. That's probably one of the common factors of this group,
we can all relate to feeling more curious about things in general than
we see 'in the wild' from other people.
But there are limits. One of those is that a joke has less weight
than a sincere statement. If that joke rubs someone the wrong way,
that's no biggie. Bringing one's own weight to bear to defend that
only reflects poorly on one. If it cost so little to say, it doesn't
cost that much to take responsibility for it, and it's consequenses.
You can call it bossiness, if you like, or you can see that it's part
of the answer that you saught after.
Justin Hiltscher
Bob Ward
wrote:
>Margaret Kane <margar...@zdnet.com> wrote:
>>Please stop using Amy as an example of my generation. I most certainly have
>>heard of Pauline Kael. I've heard of Chet Atkins and Bob Jones University,
>>too.
>
>Ditto. Every time Amy makes another ignorant statement,
>and then defends it by citing her age, I hope and pray
>that she is the exception for our generation, not the
>norm.
>
>:) Connie-Lynne
Watching the lot of you bicker makes me thankful I'm not a member
either.
Mirhanda Sarko
>
> Oh Margaret, I most humbly apologize if that's the way my writing
> sounded at all. Rather, I was using Amy's age as a possible
> explanation for her lack of awareness, rather than her region of
> residence. I really do think that for anyone under 30 or so, maybe
> even older, it takes a relatively well-read, broad-minded and
> intellectually curious person to have heard of Pauline Kael, assuming
> that they don't have a specific interest in film.
So you are saying that if someone has never heard of PK they are not well-
read, broad-minded nor intellectually curious? Those who haven't heard of
her are illiterate, narrow-minded dullards?
Mirhanda
--
Decapitate my addy to email me
I know who you are!! You are the character who occasionally appears in the
comic strip "Sylvia", as "The Woman Who Does Everything More Beautifully
Than You Do".
Les, speaking of me!
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>
>I was lucky to be a subscriber. My wife's parents got it for us. When
>we did the little survey of what people were reading, I don't remember
>anyone reading the New Yorker.
Ahem...I mentioned it first on my list on August 14th.
>I dare say that ten people here couldn't
>relate ten reviews from PK. She was great, but I don't count her as one
>of my life forming experiences. Yeah, I think one could get throgh life
>without reading PK and be no worse for it.
Anyone to whom film is important will be familiar with her work. What
would relating 10 reviews indicate? Can you relate 10 critical reviews
in any other literary or art form?
It could be said that one could get through life without reading
Shakespeare and be no worse for it, either. I would say that most
folks get through life without PK or WS.
She was a famous critic & she died. Lack of knowledge of her
accomplishments is no crime, nor necessarily an indication of being
uneducated. Defending ignorance is silly, though.
>Again, hate mail is best left to e-mail. Unless one demands in
>upbraiding for some *public* delight. Which is a differnet matter than
>general discussion (as I understand USEnet to be).
I didn't find C-L's post to be hate mail in the least, nor under the
circumstances, something that should have been left unsaid within the
group.
Boron
GrapeApe
>read, broad-minded nor intellectually curious? Those who haven't heard
>of
>her are illiterate, narrow-minded dullards?
Quick, name a well known magazine writer from the 1950's....
C. L. Villani
I'm learning slrn right now, and I accidentally find
myself in vi rather than emacs.)
Bob Ward writes:
>On 6 Sep 2001 18:16:02 GMT, cly...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Briar Rose)
>>Margaret Kane <margar...@zdnet.com> wrote:
>>>Please stop using Amy as an example of my generation. I most certainly have
>>>heard of Pauline Kael. I've heard of Chet Atkins and Bob Jones University,
>>>too.
>>Ditto. Every time Amy makes another ignorant statement,
>>and then defends it by citing her age, I hope and pray
>>that she is the exception for our generation, not the
>>norm.
>
>Watching the lot of you bicker makes me thankful I'm not a member
>either.
Sorry. I was trying a new tactic; it failed utterly.
I'll do my best to just ignore her until I get my
killfile working.
:) Connie-LynneZZ
ZZ
ZZ argh, stupid vi...
--
"There exists X such that the answer to the question 'How
many members of the group X does it take to change a lightbulb'
is 'One, but the member in question may need to stand or a
chair or something.'" -- The Brunching Shuttlecocks
N Jill Marsh
(Mirhanda Sarko)wrote:
>N Jill Marsh <njm...@storm.ca> wrote in alt.fan.cecil-adams:
>
>>
>> Oh Margaret, I most humbly apologize if that's the way my writing
>> sounded at all. Rather, I was using Amy's age as a possible
>> explanation for her lack of awareness, rather than her region of
>> residence. I really do think that for anyone under 30 or so, maybe
>> even older, it takes a relatively well-read, broad-minded and
>> intellectually curious person to have heard of Pauline Kael, assuming
>> that they don't have a specific interest in film.
>
>So you are saying that if someone has never heard of PK they are not well-
>read, broad-minded nor intellectually curious? Those who haven't heard of
>her are illiterate, narrow-minded dullards?
Not at all. Rather, I wouldn't expect anyone of a certain age (i.e.
coming into adulthood after she retired) to have particularly heard of
Pauline Kael unless they had either (1) read an awful lot or (2) been
particularly interested in film criticism.
Did you miss that "under 30 or so" there, Mirhanda?
nj"the egg must have been released"m
Mirhanda Sarko
> Not at all. Rather, I wouldn't expect anyone of a certain age (i.e.
> coming into adulthood after she retired) to have particularly heard of
> Pauline Kael unless they had either (1) read an awful lot or (2) been
> particularly interested in film criticism.
>
> Did you miss that "under 30 or so" there, Mirhanda?
So they are only illiterate, narrow-minded dullards if they are *over*
thirty then. Gotcha.
Tease he us
>Please stop using Amy as an example of my generation.
You're more my generation, anyway. Amy is one of those "kids today" we shake
our fists at.
> I most certainly have
>heard of Pauline Kael.
I think you could make a good case sufficiently well-informed or otherwise
culturally literate people transcend "my generation." I've heard of Goethe and
Scipio and Shaka Zulu and Mishima Yukio. I think Aristotle has more to say to
me than Kurt Cobain.
> I've heard of Chet Atkins and Bob Jones University,
>too.
>
>Margaret
Careful, you're veering dangerously close to "know-it-all bitch."
Hmmm, what would the warning signs be?
-"Ain't gonna hang no picture, ain't gonna hang no picture frame
ain't gonna hang no picture, ain't gonna hang no picture frame
Well, I might look like Robert Ford, but I feel just like Jesse James"
Tease he us
Date: 9/6/2001 4:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>Amy Austin <glea...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>No, it's ignorant to crack jokes about things that you
>know nothing about,
Ehhh...that Atkins amphiboly was pretty funny. I thought it evoked to Lenny
Bruce's "wow, poor Vaughn Meader."
>and then not apologize when people
>are offended.
Amy gets defensive, you know, sure.
>It's ignorant to assume that
>the reason hordes of people are offended by you is because
>THEY are having a bad day, not because YOU have problems.
It's probably not the summit of the superman, being all you can be, to act like
Amy or whoever is the worst sort of person because they only care to know about
the things they have to know about, and are otherwise ordinarily ordinary.
Tease he us
Date: 9/6/2001 1:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>Oooohhh, aren't you special?
You're acting like Shawn.
> I've seen Yo Yo Ma and Itzhak Perlman each
>twice in concert (and I would've met Mr. Perlman, but he was sick that
>night and not receiving guests).
Okay, so you can lord it over people who go "huh?" and "well, why would I know
stupid things like that?" when "violinists and cellists of reknown" come up.
>I have had dinner with 24 astronauts
>(simultaneously).
"Pass the salt, Buzz"
"Roger that, Coop, passing the salt."
"now deploying the salt, Buzz."
"Nice work, Coop, that's a big ten-four."
> I've delivered a pizza to one of the Colts.
Do you know who Johnny Unitas is, or what his major moment of cultural
signifigance is?
>
>TWIAVBP, and we all focus on different things. I've obviously just
>focused on different activities than you have.
Well, not obviously, since it's at least possible you've focused on fewer
things.
>Besides, I'm nicer.
Not when you're defensive like this.
Jerry Bauer
Amy Austin <glea...@purdue.edu> wrote:
<<<...>>>
>L & k,
>Amy (and she hates it when people talk about her in the third person)
So how should I/we/he/she/they/it talk about it/you/her?
Jerry Randal Bauer
N Jill Marsh
(Mirhanda Sarko)wrote:
>N Jill Marsh <njm...@storm.ca> wrote in alt.fan.cecil-adams:
>
>> Not at all. Rather, I wouldn't expect anyone of a certain age (i.e.
>> coming into adulthood after she retired) to have particularly heard of
>> Pauline Kael unless they had either (1) read an awful lot or (2) been
>> particularly interested in film criticism.
>>
>> Did you miss that "under 30 or so" there, Mirhanda?
>
>So they are only illiterate, narrow-minded dullards if they are *over*
>thirty then. Gotcha.
Nope. Never addressed what I thought of peeps over thirty who hadn't
heard of her.
nj"hormone levels falling"m
Amy Austin
> Amy Austin glea...@purdue.edu
> Date: 9/6/2001 1:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>
> >Oooohhh, aren't you special?
>
> You're acting like Shawn.
No, I haven't once claimed to be an economist.
> > I've seen Yo Yo Ma and Itzhak Perlman each
> >twice in concert (and I would've met Mr. Perlman, but he was sick that
> >night and not receiving guests).
>
> Okay, so you can lord it over people who go "huh?" and "well, why would I know
> stupid things like that?" when "violinists and cellists of reknown" come up.
See, that's the thing, though. I never said, "Huh?" I very politely and
respectfully (and carefully, considering the whole Chet Atkins thing)
asked what, exactly, this woman did to make people she'd never met sad
that she had died. Now I understand, thanks to their posts, and so I
guess I'm no longer an ignoramous since I've heard of her, too.
And isn't it the kindest thing, when someone dies, to ask a person who is
mourning, "What are your best memories of [the dead person]?" I mean,
talking about a loss always helps me process things. When my sister's
friend died, we sat up late into the night talking about the good things
she remembered.
> >I have had dinner with 24 astronauts
> >(simultaneously).
>
> "Pass the salt, Buzz"
> "Roger that, Coop, passing the salt."
> "now deploying the salt, Buzz."
> "Nice work, Coop, that's a big ten-four."
:)
> > I've delivered a pizza to one of the Colts.
>
> Do you know who Johnny Unitas is, or what his major moment of cultural
> signifigance is?
He was a quarterback for the Colts in Baltimore (before I was born,
incidentally :) ), and he was "player of the year", MVP 3 times, "player
of the decade", and "greatest player in the first 50 years of pro
football". But if he died, I'd still have to ask you what he did that was
important to YOU, and I'll bet you would tell me some charming story about
your dad and a game, and your first beer or something.
> >TWIAVBP, and we all focus on different things. I've obviously just
> >focused on different activities than you have.
>
> Well, not obviously, since it's at least possible you've focused on fewer
> things.
Or maybe just different things.
> >Besides, I'm nicer.
>
> Not when you're defensive like this.
Ok, but I give better head. :)
I'll quit now, I'm bored with it anyway.
L & k,
Amy (could suck Johnny Unitas's football through a garden hose)
Jerry Bauer
Margaret Kane <margar...@zdnet.com> wrote:
<<<...>>>
>
>I've heard of Chet Atkins and Bob Jones University, too.
That would be _some_ school, wouldn't it?
Jerry Randal Bauer
Amy Austin
"Her royal highness" will do, for now. :)
L & k,
Amy
Jerry Bauer
Amy Austin <glea...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Jerry Bauer wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.SOL.4.33.010906...@herald.cc.purdue.edu>,
>> Amy Austin <glea...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>> <<<...>>>
>> >L & k,
>> >Amy (and she hates it when people talk about her in the third person)
>>
>> So how should I/we/he/she/they/it talk about it/you/her?
>
>"Her royal highness" will do, for now. :)
>
Ah, I see. Third-person regal.
Jerry Randal Bauer
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Jerry Bauer wrote:
Princess Amy...hmmm...doesn't fall trippingly from the tongue, but not
bad....
Boron
Tease he us
>He was a quarterback for the Colts in Baltimore (before I was born,
>incidentally :) ),
I really hope your heuristic for "worthwhile" isn't "happened after I was
born," since, you know, most things happened before.
> and he was "player of the year", MVP 3 times, "player
>of the decade", and "greatest player in the first 50 years of pro
>football". But if he died, I'd still have to ask you what he did that was
>important to YOU, and I'll bet you would tell me some charming story about
>your dad and a game, and your first beer or something.
No, he was involved in one of the defining moments of the sixties.
kay w
Amy:
>> >It's ignorant to not have been exposed to something?
Me:
>> Well, yes.
Michael, greatly snipped:
>Again, hate mail is best left to e-mail.
I fail to see anything hateful about agreeing that "being ignorant" rougly
equals "not having been exposed to something". That's almost the definition
of ignorant.
There's nothing inherently shameful about being ignorant. I'm ignorant about,
say, opera (one entry on a long, long list) because I've never been exposed to
it, other than through old Bugs Bunny cartoons. There's nothing shameful about
that, or hateful about saying so.
Lalbert1
>On 6 Sep 2001, Lalbert1 wrote:
>
>> In article <9n6uc4$j...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, cly...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Briar
>> Rose) writes:
>>
>> >I dunno; Amy's unaware of a lot of things.
>>
>> MOTTO!!!!!
>
>Fuck off.
>
>
To paraphrase you, "who pissed in your wheaties, Sunshine?"
You are still the same mean spirited, excuse making, vituperative person as
when you entered this group a couple of years ago under a phoney name.
Les
kay w
njm:
>> Not at all. Rather, I wouldn't expect anyone of a certain age (i.e.
>> coming into adulthood after she retired) to have particularly heard of
>> Pauline Kael unless they had either (1) read an awful lot or (2) been
>> particularly interested in film criticism.
>> Did you miss that "under 30 or so" there, Mirhanda?
Mirhanda:
>So they are only illiterate, narrow-minded dullards if they are *over*
>thirty then. Gotcha.
What Jill said was:
I really do think that for anyone under 30 or so, maybe
>> even older, it takes a relatively well-read, broad-minded and
>> intellectually curious person to have heard of Pauline Kael, assuming
>> that they don't have a specific interest in film.
That's not the same thing at all.
GrapeApe
>>of the decade", and "greatest player in the first 50 years of pro
>>football". But if he died, I'd still have to ask you what he did that
>was
>>important to YOU, and I'll bet you would tell me some charming story about
>>your dad and a game, and your first beer or something.
>
> No, he was involved in one of the defining moments of the sixties.
Johnny Unitas? I saw more jocks on the Tonight Show than I did on Monday Night
Football or Whatever.
Gary S. Callison
: kay w wrote:
: > Previously, Michael said:
: > >Seems like some folks have a bad day and have to take it out on a
: > >target?
: > Yes, it does seem that way, but Amy's just like that...she gets all
: > pissy when anyone expresses anything other than fondness for her and
: > whatever she says. If you can get her to quit, that would be helpful.
: > If you can also get her to quit making excuses for being offensive,
: > especially after it's been pointed out, that would be helpful, too.
: > If you could also get her to offer up a fact occasionally, in
: > accordance with that "learn from each other" thing she mentioned,
: > rather than lame quotes from father/husband/buddy, that would be
: > helpful, too.
: and shoot from the hip, but I find her good hearted and generally
: thoughtful---that seems to be different than some of the more malicious
: traits that have been attached to her.
You misspelt "good-hearted and generally thoughtless". It has to do with
the 'making excuses for being offensive' or, has been mentioned
previously, 'defending ignorance'.
: I'm gettin' to be old guy (at least I can see an entire generation
: behind be and try to extend patience) and probably have grown more
: sensitive to particualar personality traits. In other words, I don't
: sweat the small stuff.
: She seems to hit your buttons, Kay (as I have). Why can't we all jus'
: get along?
Y'know, my divorce was really a coal-shovel-upside-the-head. I had a real
moment of Zen when I realized that I've been a real asshole for a long
time, and it's really difficult to change those stripes- but I'm trying.
And it really is possible to see good in just about anyone, and respect
them- or at least their opinions. Amy can be a wonderful person sometimes-
but she can also be prety self-centered, something I know quite a bit
about. Every now and then she posts something I really appreciate, most of
the time she's just contributing somewhere in the neighborhood of everyone
else's mostly idle banter, and sometimes she's just downright painful to
read.
After getting fed up after the Chet Atkins thing, she went into the 30-day
penalty box. The first post of hers after she came out was "Did you miss
me?", and my first thought was "Well, no, not really." Dutch Freakin'
Roboposter Courage doesn't subtract from the S/N half as much as Amy, but
I give her some slack because she isn't half as offensive- but she CAN be
offensive, as other people have been pointing out. This is not
'dogpiling', this is constructive criticism, although it may seem kind of
coal-shovel-upside-the-head in it's subtlety. I can't attribute this
quote, (a quick google produces two different variations, neither of which
I think is the original source), but someone once said "If one person
calls you an ass, laugh it off. If a whole usenet newsgroup calls you an
ass, it's time to get fitted for a saddle." Amy can choose to learn from
this and possibly alter the behavior that people find inconsiderate or
objectionable, or she can choose to be hurt and think "The mean people
are all ganging up on me!", and fail to learn anything. I can't make this
choice for her, but having made it for myself I can now say in 20/20
hindsight that I wished I'd paid more attention (and sooner!) when people
I respected were telling me that I was being an asshole.
My initial impression of Amy? "Harmless". I am now prepared to revise
that. "Mostly Harmless".
--
Huey
Mirhanda Sarko
>
> What Jill said was:
> I really do think that for anyone under 30 or so, maybe
>>> even older, it takes a relatively well-read, broad-minded and
>>> intellectually curious person to have heard of Pauline Kael, assuming
>>> that they don't have a specific interest in film.
>
> That's not the same thing at all.
So, if they *haven't* heard of her, then we assume, if what N. Jill says is
true, that they are NOT well-read, broad-minded, and intellectually curious.
Opus the Penguin
> Previously, Amy asked:
>
>>It's ignorant to not have been exposed to something?
>
Let's just take care of that right now then.
.'"".
c' )"/
_____ _>__/_ ______
/.. .'` `'. .':B
8; ' . . ' .'|
\ '...'\ __ / '..' _/
| : _ _:_ /
\ ( ) /
\_ .' ' : __/
\_:_ __/
//:____/\\
__|/ |/__
;_._) (,__;
--
Opus the Penguin
Princess Amy
> Amy Austin glea...@purdue.edu
> Date: 9/6/2001 7:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>
> >He was a quarterback for the Colts in Baltimore (before I was born,
> >incidentally :) ),
>
> I really hope your heuristic for "worthwhile" isn't "happened after I was
> born," since, you know, most things happened before.
Really? I hadn't noticed.
> > and he was "player of the year", MVP 3 times, "player
> >of the decade", and "greatest player in the first 50 years of pro
> >football". But if he died, I'd still have to ask you what he did that was
> >important to YOU, and I'll bet you would tell me some charming story about
> >your dad and a game, and your first beer or something.
>
> No, he was involved in one of the defining moments of the sixties.
What was it?
Tell me a story Uncle Dutchie!
L & k,
Amy
Boron Elgar
<opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote:
so...is that...
Northern exposure
Southern exposure
Over exposure
Under exposure
Maximum exposure
Double exposure
Timed exposure
Total exposure
???????????
Boron
Matt Hall
scu...@aol.comatose (kay w) wrote:
> Previously, Michael said:
>
> >Seems like some folks have a bad day and have to take it out on a
> >target?
>
> Yes, it does seem that way, but Amy's just like that...she gets all pissy when
> anyone expresses anything other than fondness for her and whatever she says.
*That's* why I don't know who you're talking about! I killfiled her long
ago.
Matt
31 and intellectual, and haven't read Pauline Kael, but do know who she
was, but don't really care.
Opus the Penguin
Indecent exposure. You need to view it in a fixed-width font to
achieve true enlightenment.
--
Opus the Penguin
Briar Rose
> and shoot from the hip, but I find her good hearted and generally
> thoughtful---that seems to be different than some of the more malicious
> traits that have been attached to her.
I refer you to my previous post for a list of non-good-hearted
and generally unthoughtful things she's done. Or, you could
google on the keywords "weird catholic" or "dog attack," for
starters.
I shoot from the hip, too, but I'm generally a little more restrained
than she is. She occasionally contributes, I'll grant that, but
lately she's gotten nastier and more closed-minded, and more
mouthy about defending that behavior. I saw her briefly reform
after a public dressing-down/plonking, and I was hoping that
another one might cause a repeat reformation on her part.
Although I knew it was probably futile, I was hoping there was a
chance that my first killfiling ever - after 10 years on usenet -
would
have a positive effect. She appears to have completely missed
the point. I think I've made mine adequately to the group: that I
firmly and emphatically disagree with the prejudiced and proudly
ignorant thinking she regularly displays, and that I can no longer
civilly participate with her, on the topics we DO agree on, because
that would imply tacit acceptance of her other behavior.
:) Connie-Lynne
Tease he us
>scu...@aol.comatose (kay w) wrote in alt.fan.cecil-adams:
>
>>
>> What Jill said was:
>> I really do think that for anyone under 30 or so, maybe
>>>> even older, it takes a relatively well-read, broad-minded and
>>>> intellectually curious person to have heard of Pauline Kael, assuming
>>>> that they don't have a specific interest in film.
>>
>> That's not the same thing at all.
>
>So, if they *haven't* heard of her, then we assume, if what N. Jill says is
>true, that they are NOT well-read, broad-minded, and intellectually curious.
invalid contrapositive.
"You have to be in good physical condition to play professional sports"
"Oh, so does that mean that everyone else is a bunch of couch potatoes?"
Someone get Mir to look into the difference between "necessary" and
"sufficient."
RM Mentock
>
> azz...@bellsouthCAPITATE.net (Mirhanda Sarko) writes:
> >So, if they *haven't* heard of her, then we assume, if what N. Jill says is
> >true, that they are NOT well-read, broad-minded, and intellectually curious.
>
> invalid contrapositive.
migod, I gotta get that book
--
RM Mentock
Prosperity gives people time to think. There are a lot of downsides
to prosperity, and that is one of them. -- Rush Limbaugh 9/4/2001