David Lean's Reaction to Pauline Kael: WHY??!
Bob Morris
of entertainment-orientated TV shows, we are used to seeing an
interesting phenomenon: no-one who worked on a film has anything but
good things to say about their comrades, and very few put anthing critical
into print about any person they might potentially have to work with.
So, can you believe that anything genuine is ever said or printed, these days?
If you can't, then why bother listening to, or being affected by,
what is being said? The answer is that you don't: it's called Entertainment
Weekly. It's called Entertainment Tonight. It's not called Criticism:
it's called Entertainment!
At the AFI Life Achievement Award for Sir David Lean, televised, he gushed
about how wonderful the Americans had been to him. He had done this in
print before. Yah, yah, yah, I had always said to myself. What else is new?
As noted above, *everyone* gushes over everyone else these days!
However, that is now: there was a then.
After Lean died, some archives were made available, but not widely known.
They contained *very* intimate letters sent to Lean's mistress Barbara Cole,
who was continuity person on "Lawrence of Arabia". They had an affair from
1962 to about 1966. This was written about by Adrian Turner in the
Saturday Times Magazine a couple of years ago. At that time, Turner, Brownlow,
Lawrie Raskin (my co-author) and myself were the only ones who had seen these
letters. Also included were incredible letters between Lean and Bolt written
while they planned Zhivago. They also reflected on Lawrence.
We made use of much of these letters, with Cole's implicit (she put the letters
in the archives) and Bolt's explicit permission, in our book.
We could have used anything in the Cole-Lean letters but decided that because
our book was not a Lean bio, and because Brownlow was working on such a book,
that he should have first dibs on revealing Lean's "secret life".
However, among the parts we printed in our book were Lean's reactions to
his peers: mainly American directors like Wilder, Zinneman, Selznick.
They were awestruck by Lawrence of Arabia. They made jokes like "we are
going to get the Director's Guild to pass a motion never allowing you to work
again!
Wilder tells Lean that he's in the "Sistine Chapel" ballpark with Lawrence.
Selznick tells Lean that everyone's going to tell him to cut the film but
not to do it cause Selznick didn't cut Gone With the Wind when everyone
told him it was too long. (Lean doesn't listen.)
Zinneman's comment struck us as the most insiteful, and we used
it in our book: "You don't know you've done", he said to Lean. And Zinneman
was right. Lawrence to Lean, at that time in history, was just his current
picture premiering, and it was soon to be on to the next. Nothing else mattered
to Lean except his next picture. On his deathbed he was still planning
Nostromo! In 1989, Lean sort of appreciated that Lawrence was a pretty good
film. He used words to that effect in the Today Show and Charlie Rose (Night-
watch) interviews done at the time. (I'm sure he'd enjoy he Variety poll's
singling out Lawrence as "The Best of the Best" almost as much as his
knighthood.)
So, in 1963, in intimate letters to his mistress, Lean tells of being
flattered by his American peer's comments about his film.
So, I reasoned, that what I'd seen in the AFI show and what I'd read
about Lean's reaction to his peer's criticism of his films must be true.
It seems that (a) Lean doesn't gush, he tells the truth, and (b) he
is highly interested in his peer's reactions. The theme of
"the Americans in particular are very kind to me" was one he mentioned
often in his life. And it would seem to be genuine. (The British have never
**really** liked Lean, and they've made it very clear.)
So, finally, here's his years-later retelling (to Brownlow) of reaction
to Kael:
"The critics are intellectuals. I'm always frightened of intellectuals.
I don't know, I think one tends to take the critics too seriously. I suppose
we're all terribly sensitive about critics. Because you can't, as it were,
meet the general public, and if your mother or aunt tells you the movie
is great, you say, "Yes, very sweet of you, but you would.' The only
people who really don't give a damn, who are out there giving their opinions,
are the critics. They are the only people, as it were, you can believe. You
read it there in black and white and think it must be true.
The trouble with me is that I'm what is known as 'commericial.'
I'm too popular and thus highly suspect with the highbrows. After *Ryan's
Daughter*, I didn't like going out to a restaurant because I thought I'd
be pointed out as the chap who made that disastrous, terrible, horrible
film. I felt very ashamed.
I thought 'What the hell am I doing if my work is as bad as this?'
I didn't want to do another film. I thought 'I'll do domething else.'
and I went travelling round the world and I didn't make a film for fourteen
years. I thought, 'What's the point?'"
So, Lean genuinely believed (I suggest) that you're only as good as (and
remembered for) your last film (hey: no videos then: perhaps he was right, at
the time) and that fact that he had made some of the greatest films of all
time prior to 1970 didn't carry much internal weight with him. He was,
I believe, simply that kind of person. Someone with a different pyschological
makeup would have retorted to Kael and Schickel, "Yes, I *am* the guy who
made Great Expectations, Brief Encounter, Sound Barrier, Kwai, and Lawrence.
I'm David Lean, and you're not! So my next film will be better. F*** you all!"
As we see from the above, that was not Lean. His past "didn't count" and he
believed that you could believe the critics. I suggest that the critics
betrayed him and his sin was to believe he was as bad as they said he was.
As Shickel said, Frankenheimer was a pugilist -- and Lean was jet-lagged,
a gentleman, and (I suggest) an easy target for Keal and her gang.
Hey, it's well known that some people can survive the greatest of catastrophes
and begin again, and some people commit suicide if their "pet" number wins the
multi-million dollar lottery and they forgot to buy their ticket last week!
(That actually happened recently!)
Bob Morris
Jordan Chodorow
Take out the third of Bob Morris' postings devoted to telling us how great
David Lean is (we know how you feel about him, Bob; you did your picture
book on him and he _is_ one of the cinema's most celebrated directors), and
take out the third devoted to surreal portrayals of the frail Pauline Kael
and "her gang," and there has been a fair amount of "insite." Lean comes
off as a pathetic figure with deep mental and emotional problems, and Kael
comes off as someone who had a bad day and took her wit out on a throwback
who couldn't handle it--hardly fodder for a federal case. I'm not
interested in assassinating Mr. Lean's character--why kick a man when he's
down?--but with this material, Bob may have become the star witness for
the defense.
- jordan
Peter Reiher
>
>Lean comes
>off as a pathetic figure with deep mental and emotional problems, and Kael
>comes off as someone who had a bad day and took her wit out on a throwback
>who couldn't handle it--hardly fodder for a federal case. I'm not
>interested in assassinating Mr. Lean's character--why kick a man when he's
>down?
Since when has it been a major crime for an artist to be sensitive?
I'm kind of tired of the egomanaical breed of artists, myself. Maybe
Mr. Lean was too sensitive, but I hardly regard a session whose result
was that Lean made fewer films a shining moment in the history of cinema.
Personally, I wish Ms. Kael and the other critics present had had a few
more drinks before his arrival and reduced themselves to total insensibility.
As far as kicking Mr. Lean while he's down, well, his current reputation
is as one of the top filmmakers of all times. You'll need some pretty
nifty kung fu moves to kick high enough to touch him at all. Some folks
think that Ms. Kael is a fine critic. Most folks think Mr. Lean was a
great filmmaker. Personally, I'd be willing to trade the world's best
critic for the world's 100th (or even 1000th) best filmmaker any day of
the week.
--
Peter Reiher
rei...@wells.cs.ucla.edu
<http://ficus-www.cs.ucla.edu/project-members/reiher/home_page.html>
Michael Levy
Jordan Chodorow <jcho...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
>Take out the third of Bob Morris' postings devoted to telling us how great
>David Lean is (we know how you feel about him, Bob; you did your picture
>book on him and he _is_ one of the cinema's most celebrated directors), and
>take out the third devoted to surreal portrayals of the frail Pauline Kael
>off as a pathetic figure with deep mental and emotional problems, and Kael
>comes off as someone who had a bad day and took her wit out on a throwback
>who couldn't handle it--hardly fodder for a federal case. I'm not
>interested in assassinating Mr. Lean's character--why kick a man when he's
>the defense.
Having a fragile ego is far from a "deep mental and emotional problem".
Lean decided, more or less, to hell with it, and went off and did other
things besides making movies. Now, in my opinion, Kael is not responsible
for Lean's reaction. But it reflects poorly on her character that she takes
so much delight in being mean-spirited, not just in this incident, but
throughout her written record. Ridiculing someone who has made an honest
attempt to create something worthwhile may be bankable, but it isn't a
good trait in a human being.
--
-- Michael Levy
mle...@umbc8.umbc.edu
Brian Siano
: Take out the third of Bob Morris' postings devoted to telling us how great
: David Lean is (we know how you feel about him, Bob; you did your picture
: book on him and he _is_ one of the cinema's most celebrated directors), and
: take out the third devoted to surreal portrayals of the frail Pauline Kael
: and "her gang," and there has been a fair amount of "insite." Lean comes
: off as a pathetic figure with deep mental and emotional problems, and Kael
: comes off as someone who had a bad day and took her wit out on a throwback
: who couldn't handle it--hardly fodder for a federal case. I'm not
: interested in assassinating Mr. Lean's character--why kick a man when he's
: down?--but with this material, Bob may have become the star witness for
: the defense.
Not interested in assassinating David Lean's character-- yeah,
right, after you characterize him (on very limited evidence) as a
"pathetic figure with deep mental and emotional problems."
Just what evidence could you base this on? Judging from ther
post about Lean's letters, I didn't see anything that would remotely
suppoort such a thesis. Lean had a mistress-- well, good for him,
actually. (I;m speaking as someone who once had a wonderful
relationship with a married lady, with her husband's consent, and
we're still very close friends.) Lean was flattered by everyone's
reaction to his film-- who wouldn't? Lean had a rough time at Pauline
Kael's critics retreat-- look, we can't all be imperious gods or
tough-guy directors.
Brian Siano - si...@cceb.med.upenn.edu
"There are four things required for the nourishment of the soul:
passion, delight, stability, and meaning. So just _why_ are all four
considered 'marketable products?'"
Jordan Chodorow
Peter Reiher <rei...@ficus.cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
>In article <3p7obn$j...@elaine50.Stanford.EDU> jcho...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jordan Chodorow) writes:
>>
>>off as a pathetic figure with deep mental and emotional problems, and Kael
>>comes off as someone who had a bad day and took her wit out on a throwback
>>who couldn't handle it--hardly fodder for a federal case. I'm not
>>interested in assassinating Mr. Lean's character--why kick a man when he's
>
>Since when has it been a major crime for an artist to be sensitive?
"Sensitive," Peter? The man must have been so thin-skinned that just
breathing on him would fell him. I'm not saying that Pauline Kael
deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for her behavior that night, but good god!
If there's something that would make a well person go into exile for
fifteen years (so much for the love of the craft), I haven't read it in
any of Bob Morris' postings.
>I'm kind of tired of the egomanaical breed of artists, myself. Maybe
>Mr. Lean was too sensitive, but I hardly regard a session whose result
>was that Lean made fewer films a shining moment in the history of cinema.
-----> Agreed. Is anybody saying it was?
>Personally, I wish Ms. Kael and the other critics present had had a few
>more drinks before his arrival and reduced themselves to total
insensibility.
-----> Probably a lot of them do too. People blame themselves all the
time for bizarre developments beyond their control.
>As far as kicking Mr. Lean while he's down, well, his current reputation
>is as one of the top filmmakers of all times. You'll need some pretty
>nifty kung fu moves to kick high enough to touch him at all. Some folks
-----> I'm not out to discredit David Lean the way the Lean-istas are out
to discredit Pauline Kael.
>think that Ms. Kael is a fine critic. Most folks think Mr. Lean was a
>great filmmaker.
-----> No, "most folks" are utterly unfamiliar with both. Among the
subset of folks with any interest in the movies, it is of course true that
David Lean is a bigger name. Among those who are very familiar with both,
I'd wager that Pauline Kael would place higher on a best-critics list than
Lean would on a best-directors list.
Personally, I'd be willing to trade the world's best
>critic for the world's 100th (or even 1000th) best filmmaker any day of
>the week.
-----> This statement is a bit hard to swallow, since your love for film
seems informed by a love for film criticism, but hey--different strokes.
- jordan
Ceon Ramon
>As far as kicking Mr. Lean while he's down, well, his current reputation
>is as one of the top filmmakers of all times. You'll need some pretty
>nifty kung fu moves to kick high enough to touch him at all. Some folks
>think that Ms. Kael is a fine critic.
I think she's one of the most interesting film critics I've ever read,
even though I agree with her assessments maybe 30% of the time. She
always has something to offer that enlarges and enriches my understanding
and pleasure in a film.
Most folks think Mr. Lean was a
>great filmmaker.
I certainly do. The only time I've ever been tempted to write to a
director to express my excitement and joy in his work was after seeing A
PASSAGE TO INDIA on TV in 1991. I didn't write the letter, and I
regret it.
Personally, I'd be willing to trade the world's best
>critic for the world's 100th (or even 1000th) best filmmaker any day of
>the week.
Well... you may mean this, but I think you're feeling cranky about the
rude and insensitive statements about David Lean.
Myself, I like both David Lean and PAULINe KAEl (SORRY, my shift key is
sticking), and I think they not only practice different forms of art, but
that KAEL WOULD acknowledge that Lean's art will outlive hers.
IF PAULINE KAEL [remember: STICKy shift key; sorry again] was
instrumental in preventing David LEAN FROM making pictures, I THINK that's
a terrible thing. HOWEver, I DON"T believe she was responsible for that.
She was one of a panel of high-octane critics, some of whom might have
meant more to LEAN than KAel did.
Kael will stand as a essayist and commentator on films that people
continue to watch; LEAN will survive as a great film-maker, regardless of
his politics, his war service, his religion, or any other personal
beliefs that will fade away as the art moves into the foreground.
Who remembers Michaelangelo's synchophancy and greed while looking at the
ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?
wHO remembers that Cellini was an assassin, exiled and imprisoned by two
POPes, when you look at his beautiful work?
YOu put together the spirit, the flesh, and the irritating emotions that
accompany them in the world, and you get artists who are not perfect.
And critics whose writing verges on art who are also not perfect.
Why bash them? Let'S JUST celebrate them and their achievements.
--Barbara
Peter Reiher
>In article <3p85q3$6...@saba.info.ucla.edu>,
>Peter Reiher <rei...@ficus.cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
>-----> Ah, the lost art (on the Internet, anyway) of understatement.
>"Sensitive," Peter? The man must have been so thin-skinned that just
>breathing on him would fell him.
When you go into a room of people you expect to be pleasant and
collegial, and instead find them attacking you and what matters most
to you pretty savagely, you'd have to be very thick-skinned indeed not
to take it to heart, particularly when the folks in question are widely
viewed as some of the most perceptive and intelligent critics in your
field. At the very, very best, Ms. Kael and her colleagues behaved like
a bunch of rude, mannerless, arrogant assholes. Maybe they didn't intend
the consequences, and clearly they don't get full blame, but they have no
right to complain when people criticize them for stupid, irresponsible
behavior.
>>think that Ms. Kael is a fine critic. Most folks think Mr. Lean was a
>>great filmmaker.
>-----> No, "most folks" are utterly unfamiliar with both. Among the
>subset of folks with any interest in the movies, it is of course true that
>David Lean is a bigger name. Among those who are very familiar with both,
>I'd wager that Pauline Kael would place higher on a best-critics list than
>Lean would on a best-directors list.
You yourself are probably fairly high on the list of Internet critics.
However, sorry Jordan, but I'd happily trade your total body of criticism
for the works of Richard Fleischer, not exactly one of the great artists
in film history. Any five minute clip from "The Vikings" is worth far
more to me than everything you've ever written. You're a big fish in a
tiny, irrelevant pond. Ms. Kael is a big fish in a small, rather unimportant
pond. Mr. Lean is a pretty damned big fish in my favorite pond.
> Personally, I'd be willing to trade the world's best
>>critic for the world's 100th (or even 1000th) best filmmaker any day of
>>the week.
>-----> This statement is a bit hard to swallow, since your love for film
>seems informed by a love for film criticism, but hey--different strokes.
This is absolutely how I feel about it, and how can anyone seriously
feel otherwise who truly loves film? Let's say that James Agee or
Andre Bazin is the top writer of criticism in history. They're plausible
candidates, though feel free to substitute another if you'd like. Now,
if you had to consign their complete works to the fire, or, instead,
burn up every print of every film by, say, Jacques Tourneur, or Jan Troell,
or Rene Clair (all plausible candidates for being somewhere between the
100th and 1000th best directors), really, which would you choose? For me,
Agee and Bazin would be kindling in an instant. I love films. I'm only
interested in film criticism to the extent that it helps me appreciate
films. I would never read film criticism for its own sake, but I would
readily go see "Cat People," or "The Emigrants," or "Under the Roofs
of Paris" for their own sakes.
The idea of burning one set of works or another is artificial, of course,
but it's a good shorthand for what you value more. I value the primary
sources over secondary sources. Now, if we get down to the level of saving
Ed Wood's outtakes over Agee's finest essay on film, perhaps I'll deviate
a bit, but the films are the important thing, for me. I find it very hard
to understand someone who would claim to love film who wouldn't agree.
Jeffrey Davis
[deleted: an account of what led up to David Lean's dropping films
after criticism by Pauline Kael et al]
+
+So, Lean genuinely believed (I suggest) that you're only as good as (and
+remembered for) your last film (hey: no videos then: perhaps he was right, at
+the time) and that fact that he had made some of the greatest films of all
+time prior to 1970 didn't carry much internal weight with him. He was,
+I believe, simply that kind of person. Someone with a different pyschological
+makeup would have retorted to Kael and Schickel, "Yes, I *am* the guy who
+made Great Expectations, Brief Encounter, Sound Barrier, Kwai, and Lawrence.
+I'm David Lean, and you're not! So my next film will be better. F*** you all!"
+
+As we see from the above, that was not Lean. His past "didn't count" and he
+believed that you could believe the critics. I suggest that the critics
+betrayed him and his sin was to believe he was as bad as they said he was.
+
+As Shickel said, Frankenheimer was a pugilist -- and Lean was jet-lagged,
+a gentleman, and (I suggest) an easy target for Keal and her gang.
A nice bit of reporting except that the rhetorical "Kael and her gang"
just doesn't hold up. There's no "gang" involved at all. If Kael was
abrupt in expressing her opinion, so what?
--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu>
This flying is amazing. Those people down there look just like aunts.
Jordan Chodorow
Peter Reiher <rei...@ficus.cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
>In article <3p8fls$7...@elaine6.Stanford.EDU> jcho...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jordan Chodorow) writes:
>>In article <3p85q3$6...@saba.info.ucla.edu>,
>>Peter Reiher <rei...@ficus.cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
>>>Since when has it been a major crime for an artist to be sensitive?
>>-----> Ah, the lost art (on the Internet, anyway) of understatement.
>>"Sensitive," Peter? The man must have been so thin-skinned that just
>>breathing on him would fell him.
>
>When you go into a room of people you expect to be pleasant and
>collegial, and instead find them attacking you and what matters most
>to you pretty savagely, you'd have to be very thick-skinned indeed not
>to take it to heart, particularly when the folks in question are widely
>viewed as some of the most perceptive and intelligent critics in your
>field. At the very, very best, Ms. Kael and her colleagues behaved like
>a bunch of rude, mannerless, arrogant assholes. Maybe they didn't intend
>the consequences, and clearly they don't get full blame, but they have no
>right to complain when people criticize them for stupid, irresponsible
>behavior.
reminds me of the Big Hates in "1984," with Lean as Big Brother and Kael
as--oh dear, what is the man's name?--"1984's" version of Saddam Hussein.
Is this Big Hate--which has reduced some of the newsgroup's finest to
unseemly vituperation--therapeutic? Cathartic?
My main question is how much hate Bob Morris expects to arouse by
recounting the details of Pauline Kael's bad day. If he were showing a
lifetime pattern of such behavior, I might understand better what's
motivating this frenzied, crusade that has Bob so high right now.
>>>think that Ms. Kael is a fine critic. Most folks think Mr. Lean was a
>>>great filmmaker.
>>-----> No, "most folks" are utterly unfamiliar with both. Among the
>>subset of folks with any interest in the movies, it is of course true that
>>David Lean is a bigger name. Among those who are very familiar with both,
>>I'd wager that Pauline Kael would place higher on a best-critics list than
>>Lean would on a best-directors list.
>
>You yourself are probably fairly high on the list of Internet critics.
>However, sorry Jordan, but I'd happily trade your total body of criticism
>for the works of Richard Fleischer, not exactly one of the great artists
>in film history.
-----> Look, I'm no Pauline Kael and I'm certainly not claiming to be.
(Reading bits and pieces from "For Keeps" at odd times this week has
convinced me more than ever of her greatness.) I'd gladly trade all my
writing for any movie from a long, long list: "The Secret of Roan Inish,"
say (a plug for my favorite movie so far this year).
Any five minute clip from "The Vikings" is worth far
>more to me than everything you've ever written. You're a big fish in a
>tiny, irrelevant pond. Ms. Kael is a big fish in a small, rather unimportant
>pond. Mr. Lean is a pretty damned big fish in my favorite pond.
-----> Well, no, the Internet is not where I made my living in film
writing. As the film and television critic for a major alternative-press
paper, I was a tiny fish in a small, rather unimportant pond.
>> Personally, I'd be willing to trade the world's best
>>>critic for the world's 100th (or even 1000th) best filmmaker any day of
>>>the week.
>>-----> This statement is a bit hard to swallow, since your love for film
>>seems informed by a love for film criticism, but hey--different strokes.
>
>This is absolutely how I feel about it, and how can anyone seriously
>feel otherwise who truly loves film? Let's say that James Agee or
>Andre Bazin is the top writer of criticism in history. They're plausible
>candidates, though feel free to substitute another if you'd like. Now,
>if you had to consign their complete works to the fire, or, instead,
>burn up every print of every film by, say, Jacques Tourneur, or Jan Troell,
>or Rene Clair (all plausible candidates for being somewhere between the
>100th and 1000th best directors), really, which would you choose? For me,
>Agee and Bazin would be kindling in an instant. I love films. I'm only
>interested in film criticism to the extent that it helps me appreciate
>films. I would never read film criticism for its own sake, but I would
>readily go see "Cat People," or "The Emigrants," or "Under the Roofs
>of Paris" for their own sakes.
>
>The idea of burning one set of works or another is artificial, of course,
>but it's a good shorthand for what you value more. I value the primary
>sources over secondary sources. Now, if we get down to the level of saving
>Ed Wood's outtakes over Agee's finest essay on film, perhaps I'll deviate
>a bit, but the films are the important thing, for me. I find it very hard
>to understand someone who would claim to love film who wouldn't agree.
-----> Well, of course, I don't. While it's true that I would go out and
see a movie for which I had very little hope--"House Party," say, or
"Gleaming the Cube" (and I didn't like the way Kael limited herself to
those films for which she had hope: you miss too many small wonders that
way)-- but not read a bad critic, I certainly would rather have Kael on
"Rain Man" than "Rain Man," or Kael on "Amadeus" than "Amadeus." (Or
Roger Ebert on "Priest" than "Preist.") Those who love film enough to see
hundreds of movies a year see LOTS and LOTS of unwatchable garbage. The
idea that any of these pictures is worth more than Kael's oeuvre is what's
inexplicable to me. Film writing is a different artistic genre from film,
of course, but since when does love of film (which really means a love of
those films one loves, and those parts of other films one loves) imply
that no work in genres B,...,Z should be worth more to the film-lover than
any work in genre A? You get down to #1000 on the list of film directors
and you're talking about a good number of terrible, terrible movies along
with the good (this is, of course, true to a lesser extent at the highest
levels). How does someone who loves both film and music equally fit into
your worldview?
- jordan
Bob Morris
I didn't start the present one either.
I just happened, in the present case, to have some important new information
on a subject that had been reported on in print well before I knew of it.
Sure I have strong feelings on the incident: and anyone who reads the
information I've posted (especially the letter from Schickel to Brownlow)
realizes that the incident was an unfortunate one that did happen and
-- according to Schickel -- there is blame to be apportioned.
Again, we're not talking about the guy who sent 1000s of Canadians
on a suicide mission to Dieppe, or any number of truly great tragedies
in the last 50 years. But (for example) Keal herself, or other critics will
take a single scene that exists *only* in a film and analyze it to death,
so there's been nothing wrong with this discussion of one incident that
*really* happened and DID affect film history.
There might have been the great two part Lean-Bolt Bounty.
There was nearly an Empire of the Sun directed by Lean and produced
by Spielberg. Lean had been interested in Nostromo for a very long time
and there probably would have been a Bolt-Lean Nostromo. (The finished scripts
for both of these projects exist.)
Now Spielberg has finally shown what he can do and I think a lot of people
respect him. So when he says ("The Club") that Lawrence and The Godfather
were the two best films of the last 25 years, and (March issue of French
Studio) that Bolt's Lawrence is the best screenplay ever written, and when
a Variety producers' poll (Jan 1995) says that Lawrence is the best
film ever to win a best picture Oscar, I think that we're talking
about an incident that probably resulted in at least two or three
lost potential masterpieces.
Not how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, just about a couple
of missing films!
We're all interested in films and film history and this incident
can not be shoved under some rug.
Bob Morris
Darrell Raymond
"Voltaire's Bastards", looking for a quote I thought I remembered:
As Ford Madox Ford described the growing professionalism
required by all this: "If you had told Flaubert or
Conrad...that you were not convinced of the reality of
Homais or Tuan Jim, as like as not they would have called
you out and shot you."
By the "growing professionalism required by all this", Ford is referring
to the critical industry that eventually throttled novel-writing.
This quote just about sums up the Lean-Kael dispute for me. It's bad
when someone whose career is parasitical on your work pisses all over you,
but the correct response is not to crawl back in your hole and die. Lean
should have shot her. He'd have felt much better. And just think of the
moderating influence on future critics!
Cheers,
Darrell.
Bob Morris
> The discussion of critic vs. artist sent me to John Ralston Saul's book,
>"Voltaire's Bastards", looking for a quote I thought I remembered:
> As Ford Madox Ford described the growing professionalism
> required by all this: "If you had told Flaubert or
> Conrad...that you were not convinced of the reality of
> Homais or Tuan Jim, as like as not they would have called
> you out and shot you."
> By the "growing professionalism required by all this", Ford is referring
>to the critical industry that eventually throttled novel-writing.
>
> This quote just about sums up the Lean-Kael dispute for me. It's bad
>when someone whose career is parasitical on your work pisses all over you,
>but the correct response is not to crawl back in your hole and die. Lean
>should have shot her.
Or the verbal equivalent, as I mentioned! However, as long as Kael is alive
and refuses to speak to Lean's distinguished biographer, it's unfinished
business. Schickel took the responsible approach, and illuminated the
incident, and partially recanted (as I said) by virtue of the Time cover
story on Lean in '85 and by some of his words in his letter to Brownlow
(which I posted).
If Robert MacNamara can come to terms with sending tens of thousands to their
death, breaking all sorts of (at least implied) confidences (including
those with JFK), then how can we accord any credibility to Kael's excuses
for not talking to Brownlow? The Algonquin group has a greater moral right
to silence than JFKs former cabinet? Give me a break!
>He'd have felt much better. And just think of the
>moderating influence on future critics!
Hmm. A passing resemblance to the Rushdie scenario I suggest.
Bob Morris
Peter Reiher
>In article <3pal49$d...@saba.info.ucla.edu>,
>Peter Reiher <rei...@ficus.cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
>>In article <3p8fls$7...@elaine6.Stanford.EDU> jcho...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jordan Chodorow) writes:
>>>In article <3p85q3$6...@saba.info.ucla.edu>,
>>>Peter Reiher <rei...@ficus.cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
>>At the very, very best, Ms. Kael and her colleagues behaved like
>>a bunch of rude, mannerless, arrogant assholes.
Presumably to set the record straight. If it is indeed true that Ms.
Kael has a primary responsibility for Lean not making any films for
over a decade, that would be a pretty black mark against her. I don't
find the arguments in favor fully persuasive, actually, but I do believe
she played an utterly unnecessary role in Lean's dry period. At any
rate, it shows that on certain occasions Ms. Kael can be a very unpleasant
person. So can most of us. The more mature among us tend to apologize
for such behavior, when it's caused particular hurt. I believe Ms. Kael
has never apologize, which suggests to me she thinks her behavior was
acceptable, or that it didn't hurt Mr. Lean. I don't believe either, myself,
and that colors my perceptions of Ms. Kael.
Personal perceptions, only, though. Michael Curtiz was, by all accounts,
one of the greatest assholes ever to stand behind a camera and shout
"Action" (in bizarrely accented English). But he directed some really great
films. Similarly, any character flaws Ms. Kael may have do not invalidate
the quality of her criticism.
>>> Personally, I'd be willing to trade the world's best
>>>>critic for the world's 100th (or even 1000th) best filmmaker any day of
>>>>the week.
>>>-----> This statement is a bit hard to swallow, since your love for film
>>>seems informed by a love for film criticism, but hey--different strokes.
>>
>>This is absolutely how I feel about it, and how can anyone seriously
>>feel otherwise who truly loves film?
>>
>> I find it very hard
>>to understand someone who would claim to love film who wouldn't agree.
>-----> Well, of course, I don't.
. . .
>I certainly would rather have Kael on
>"Rain Man" than "Rain Man," or Kael on "Amadeus" than "Amadeus." (Or
>Roger Ebert on "Priest" than "Preist.")
. . .
>Film writing is a different artistic genre from film,
>of course,
Here's a point we fundamentally differ on. I do not see film criticism
as an independent art. It is derivative. I doubt if there's a single
person in the world whose a fan of film criticism, yet has no interest
at all in film. On the other hand, there are plenty of music fans who
have no use for film, opera fans who find sculpture boring, literature
fans who couldn't care less about ballet. Those are independent arts.
Film and film criticism and analysis are not.
For me, film criticism is almost entirely tied to the films being discussed.
Particularly witty critics may be able to entertain us with their reviews
of films we haven't seen and never will, but great criticism cannot be
understood without having seen the film in question. Otherwise, how can
you possibly validate, or even understand, the points the critic makes?
I'm not a big fan of "Amadeus," but Ms. Kael's review of that film would
be of no value to me whatsoever without the film.
>How does someone who loves both film and music equally fit into
>your worldview?
Film and music are entirely separate arts, for the most part. Beethoven's
9th Symphony is not a commentary on "Citizen Kane," nor is "Citizen Kane"
a commentary on Beethoven's 9th. Because the works are independent,
they clearly can be appreciated separately. There are tricky cases, of
course. To what extent, for example, is Prokofiev's famous score for
"Alexander Nevsky" completely separate from the film? At any rate, the
choice of the Pieta versus "King Lear," or one of Van Gogh's sunflower
paintings against "David Copperfield" is a choice that can only be based
on personal preference. Kael on "Amadeus" versus "Amadeus" is another
matter, though.
James Meek
(after making excellent points about the differences between artists'
personalities and their works, among other things)
>I do not see film criticism
>as an independent art. It is derivative. I doubt if there's a single
>person in the world whose a fan of film criticism, yet has no interest
>at all in film. On the other hand, there are plenty of music fans who
>have no use for film, opera fans who find sculpture boring, literature
>fans who couldn't care less about ballet. Those are independent arts.
>Film and film criticism and analysis are not.
I would have to argue, however, that film criticism/analysis is a
particular genre of essay writing, which is a particular genre of The Art
of Writing. It doesn't seem fair to weigh one subset of a larger artform
against the entire gamut of art known as film. Film criticism appeals to
people who enjoy both film and writing (written film criticism does,
anyway). And here, I make a distinction between film criticism, a longer
and more thorough analysis of movies, and film reviews, the "thumbs
up/thumbs down or four-star" quickie recommendations. The two are
different formats and serve different purposes.
>For me, film criticism is almost entirely tied to the films being discussed.
>Particularly witty critics may be able to entertain us with their reviews
>of films we haven't seen and never will, but great criticism cannot be
>understood without having seen the film in question. Otherwise, how can
>you possibly validate, or even understand, the points the critic makes?
>I'm not a big fan of "Amadeus," but Ms. Kael's review of that film would
>be of no value to me whatsoever without the film.
I must confess to enjoying well written film criticism whether or not
I've seen the movie in question, or intend to. I realize that I am in
the minority here, but I do enjoy criticism as an artistic genre in its
own right (although I prefer film as an art form, and criticism is an
unusually dependent genre of writing). Pauline Kael, whatever her
personal flaws (and boy, does she have 'em), is a wonderful prose writer
(value judgements like these are, of course, my opinion) in her own
right, who happens to work in a genre dependent upon the existence of a
distinct art form. I would argue that Kael and Annie Dillard are (were,
since Kael's retired) perhaps the two greatest practitioners of the art
of the personal essay, and I cannot claim to make a decision based in
anything other than personal bias to value Kael's work over, say, David
Lean's. Put Kael's work up against the art form of film, and I'd choose
the art form, but I'd curse the malevolent diety that put me in that
position.
>Film and music are entirely separate arts, for the most part. Beethoven's
>9th Symphony is not a commentary on "Citizen Kane," nor is "Citizen Kane"
>a commentary on Beethoven's 9th. Because the works are independent,
>they clearly can be appreciated separately. There are tricky cases, of
>course. To what extent, for example, is Prokofiev's famous score for
>"Alexander Nevsky" completely separate from the film? At any rate, the
>choice of the Pieta versus "King Lear," or one of Van Gogh's sunflower
>paintings against "David Copperfield" is a choice that can only be based
>on personal preference. Kael on "Amadeus" versus "Amadeus" is another
>matter, though.
Kael on "Amadeus" versus "Amadeus" becomes purely a matter of personal
preference, however, rather than an indictment of film criticism the
genre versus film the art form. An illustration of the rather lopsided comparison of film criticism
versus film would be to take a wholly dependent genre like the concert
film and weigh it against the art form of music (even just pop music).
There are probably few if any people who enjoy concert films without
enjoying music. Does that make concert films an inferior art form, or a
particular genre, dependent upon the existence of another art form, of a
larger art form.
Now I feel like I've written myself in circles, and I hope that what
I've written makes sense to others. To put my $.02 in on the issue
spawning this debate: Kael acted poorly, and continues to act poorly by
not making any kind of public explanation or apology. Kael has a habit,
however, of making grand statements and never retracting them. It's a
personality trait or flaw for which she is responsible, and she
apparently is comfortable with the fallout arising from her habit. Lean,
however, is ultimately the one responsible for his decision not to make
films. Kael was a contributing factor, perhaps the overriding factor,
but Lean was the man making (or not) movies, and the one person
ultimately responsible for his choices in that regard.
I'm not apologizing for Kael, or making any kind of judgement against
Lean. I have immense respect for the artistic capabilities of both
individuals, and I don't believe either individual handled the incident
well in the following years. Kael bears responsibility for her atrocious
behaviour, but Lean bears responsibility for his reactions.
Okay, $.12 or so.
James Meek
j...@u.washington.edu
Charles Herold
>for the works of Richard Fleischer, not exactly one of the great artists
>more to me than everything you've ever written. You're a big fish in a
>tiny, irrelevant pond. Ms. Kael is a big fish in a small, rather unimportant
>pond. Mr. Lean is a pretty damned big fish in my favorite pond.
Your entire reply to the despicable Mr. Chodorow was excellent,
intelligent, well laid out, and essentially unarguable. I'm sure Jordan
will be coming after you with his meat cleaver shortly (perhaps he has
already, I'm always a day behind on Usenet). The above is my favorite
part of your essay. Bravo!
---
* SLMR 2.1a * I'm not tense, just terribly alert.
Darrell Raymond
>
> >He'd have felt much better. And just think of the
> >moderating influence on future critics!
>
> Hmm. A passing resemblance to the Rushdie scenario I suggest.
I agree, but I expect we have different things in mind. The resemblance
I see is that both Rushdie and Lean were cowed by their attackers into
thinking that maybe they had done something wrong, and thus both lost the
critical battle. It was because Lean gave too much credence to the views
of Kael & Co. that he so easily became their victim. Similarly, Rushdie
was cowed into thinking that he actually had offended without cause, instead
of realizing that a totalitarian regime was simply using him as a tool to
irritate the West. His position wavered between apologizing and denying
any offense, a process that inevitably dissipated much of his moral capital.
Darrell Raymond
Paul Penna
mor...@altair.sce.carleton.ca (Bob Morris) wrote:
> Again, we're not talking about the guy who sent 1000s of Canadians
> on a suicide mission to Dieppe, or any number of truly great tragedies
> in the last 50 years. But (for example) Keal herself, or other critics will
> take a single scene that exists *only* in a film and analyze it to death,
> so there's been nothing wrong with this discussion of one incident that
> *really* happened and DID affect film history.
>
> There might have been the great two part Lean-Bolt Bounty.
> There was nearly an Empire of the Sun directed by Lean and produced
> by Spielberg. Lean had been interested in Nostromo for a very long time
> and there probably would have been a Bolt-Lean Nostromo. (The finished scripts
> for both of these projects exist.)
[snip]
> We're all interested in films and film history and this incident
> can not be shoved under some rug.
How can anyone be sure that this one incident determined the course of the
rest of Lean's career? How can anyone be sure in what way any one event,
or even a series of events, will affect >anybody's< actions?
Lean was obviously a complex human being (and who isn't?), with a
multitude of feelings and motivations, both toward his work as well as the
rest of his life, that were best known by him alone. About the only thing
which can be stated with absolute certainty, it seems to me, is that the
decision about how Lean went about pursuing or not pursuing his career
after that meeting was in >his< hands, not anybody else's. Certainly, no
one person can make a theatrical film alone, so I'm not talking about
getting financing and all the logistical matters. What I mean is the
>will< to do it, and that's something one should take the responsibility
for oneself.
Jordan Chodorow
idea what Peter was saying here, I'm afraid I've got to be the one to
shatter your illusions. The paragraph above was not a personal attack --
till now only you and a couple of the more lunatic-fringe Kael-bashers
have reduced the level of dialogue to that level. He's making a
point about the relative value to him of film and film criticism. Too bad
you're not intelligent enough to see that. Maybe when you're all caught
up you'll see that I replied in good form to explain that I was an even
smaller fish than Peter suggested. But since you did call me
"despicable," I feel I should share something with you:
I fucked your mother on City Hall; William Penn said, "Don't take it all."
- jordan
Bob Morris
Calm down Jordan: you're beginning to sound like Pauline Kael.
Bob Morris
Charles Herold
>In article <95051820...@tglbbs.com>,
>Charles Herold <charles...@tglbbs.com> wrote:
>>>However, sorry Jordan, but I'd happily trade your total body of criticism
>>>for the works of Richard Fleischer, not exactly one of the great artists
>>>in film history. Any five minute clip from "The Vikings" is worth far
>>>more to me than everything you've ever written. You're a big fish in a
>>>tiny, irrelevant pond. Ms. Kael is a big fish in a small, rather unimportan
>>>pond. Mr. Lean is a pretty damned big fish in my favorite pond.
>>
>>Your entire reply to the despicable Mr. Chodorow was excellent,
>>intelligent, well laid out, and essentially unarguable. I'm sure Jordan
>>will be coming after you with his meat cleaver shortly (perhaps he has
>>already, I'm always a day behind on Usenet). The above is my favorite
>>part of your essay. Bravo!
>-----> So you're not only stupid but clueless as well. Since you have no
>idea what Peter was saying here, I'm afraid I've got to be the one to
>shatter your illusions. The paragraph above was not a personal attack --
I didn't take it as a personal attack on you, I took it as an attack on
your reasoning, and quite an excellent one. Because I believed you
would make a mean-spirited reply does not mean I thought it was a
personal attack, but simply that you have consistently made
mean-spirited replies to all who disagree with you.
>till now only you and a couple of the more lunatic-fringe Kael-bashers
>have reduced the level of dialogue to that level. He's making a
>point about the relative value to him of film and film criticism. Too bad
>you're not intelligent enough to see that. Maybe when you're all caught
>up you'll see that I replied in good form to explain that I was an even
>smaller fish than Peter suggested. But since you did call me
>"despicable," I feel I should share something with you:
>I fucked your mother on City Hall; William Penn said, "Don't take it all."
Reading this little exchange will only show people why I called you
despicable. I used the word precisely because this is the sort
commentary you have been consistently soiling Usenet with. "stupid but
clueless," "not intelligent," "I fucked your mother," all because I
referred to you as despicable. This is typical of the attitude you have
exhibited throughout this Lean-Kael debate. You are nasty and
mean-spirited. While I strongly disagree with, and have argued with,
many of the people in this newsgroup, you are the only person I truly
despise; not for your opinions, but because you are just a nasty little
person. I know I'm not alone in this, I recall someone else posting
that they had your name in their killfile. You're obviously
overcompensating for your poor self image, and I suggest that, instead
of spending your time and energy on the vitriolic flame I'll be
expecting from you shortly, that you GET SOME THERAPY.
---
* SLMR 2.1a * Vegetarians eat vegetables-Beware of humanitarians!!
Jordan Chodorow
Charles Herold <charles...@tglbbs.com> wrote:
>From: jcho...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jordan Chodorow)
>>In article <95051820...@tglbbs.com>,
>>Charles Herold <charles...@tglbbs.com> wrote:
>>>>However, sorry Jordan, but I'd happily trade your total body of criticism
>>>>for the works of Richard Fleischer, not exactly one of the great artists
>>>>in film history. Any five minute clip from "The Vikings" is worth far
>>>>more to me than everything you've ever written. You're a big fish in a
>>>>tiny, irrelevant pond. Ms. Kael is a big fish in a small, rather unimportan
>
>>>>pond. Mr. Lean is a pretty damned big fish in my favorite pond.
>>>
>>>Your entire reply to the despicable Mr. Chodorow was excellent,
>>>intelligent, well laid out, and essentially unarguable. I'm sure Jordan
>>>will be coming after you with his meat cleaver shortly (perhaps he has
>>>already, I'm always a day behind on Usenet). The above is my favorite
>>>part of your essay. Bravo!
>>-----> So you're not only stupid but clueless as well. Since you have no
>>idea what Peter was saying here, I'm afraid I've got to be the one to
>>shatter your illusions. The paragraph above was not a personal attack --
>
>I didn't take it as a personal attack on you, I took it as an attack on
>your reasoning, and quite an excellent one.
thought it was, I'm afraid I have to tell you it wasn't that, either.
Peter was explaining the relative value to him of film and film criticism
generally and the fact that we value them differently does not mean that
his explanation of his valuation is "an attack on [my] reasoning." I know
you're desperate to read it as some kind of attack, but unfortunately the
reality of the thing just doesn't fit.
Because I believed you
>would make a mean-spirited reply does not mean I thought it was a
>personal attack, but simply that you have consistently made
>mean-spirited replies to all who disagree with you.
>
>>till now only you and a couple of the more lunatic-fringe Kael-bashers
>>have reduced the level of dialogue to that level. He's making a
>>point about the relative value to him of film and film criticism. Too bad
>>you're not intelligent enough to see that. Maybe when you're all caught
>>up you'll see that I replied in good form to explain that I was an even
>>smaller fish than Peter suggested. But since you did call me
>>"despicable," I feel I should share something with you:
>
>>I fucked your mother on City Hall; William Penn said, "Don't take it all."
>
>Reading this little exchange will only show people why I called you
>despicable. I used the word precisely because this is the sort
>commentary you have been consistently soiling Usenet with. "stupid but
>clueless," "not intelligent," "I fucked your mother," all because I
>referred to you as despicable. This is typical of the attitude you have
>exhibited throughout this Lean-Kael debate. You are nasty and
>mean-spirited. While I strongly disagree with, and have argued with,
>many of the people in this newsgroup, you are the only person I truly
>despise; not for your opinions, but because you are just a nasty little
>person. I know I'm not alone in this, I recall someone else posting
>that they had your name in their killfile. You're obviously
-----> Who cares? Readers have said this to me for years. And then there
are those who feel differently, and in any case I stopped caring long ago.
One learns not to care much once the checks get cashed. I apologize for
not having had the time to come up with as clever an ad hominem attack as
"despicable." I just went with something I saw on a bathroom wall -- next
to her phone number.
- jordan
Charles Herold
>In article <95052020...@tglbbs.com>,
>Charles Herold <charles...@tglbbs.com> wrote:
>>From: jcho...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jordan Chodorow)
>>>In article <95051820...@tglbbs.com>,
>>>Charles Herold <charles...@tglbbs.com> wrote:
>>>>Your entire reply to the despicable Mr. Chodorow was excellent,
>>>-----> So you're not only stupid but clueless as well. Since you have no
>>>idea what Peter was saying here, I'm afraid I've got to be the one to
>>>shatter your illusions. The paragraph above was not a personal attack --
>>
>>I didn't take it as a personal attack on you, I took it as an attack on
>>your reasoning, and quite an excellent one.
>>>till now only you and a couple of the more lunatic-fringe Kael-bashers
>>>have reduced the level of dialogue to that level. He's making a
>>>point about the relative value to him of film and film criticism. Too bad
>>>you're not intelligent enough to see that. Maybe when you're all caught
>>>up you'll see that I replied in good form to explain that I was an even
>>>smaller fish than Peter suggested. But since you did call me
>>>"despicable," I feel I should share something with you:
>>
>>>I fucked your mother on City Hall; William Penn said, "Don't take it all."
>>
>>Reading this little exchange will only show people why I called you
>>despicable. I used the word precisely because this is the sort
>>commentary you have been consistently soiling Usenet with. "stupid but
>>clueless," "not intelligent," "I fucked your mother," all because I
>>referred to you as despicable. This is typical of the attitude you have
>-----> Who cares? Readers have said this to me for years. And then there
>are those who feel differently, and in any case I stopped caring long ago.
>One learns not to care much once the checks get cashed. I apologize for
>not having had the time to come up with as clever an ad hominem attack as
>"despicable." I just went with something I saw on a bathroom wall -- next
>to her phone number.
If you didn't care, you wouldn't bother replying. And I assure you I
never expected you to say anything clever, so don't feel bad that you
couldn't manage it. But if you can't see the difference between
describing someone who has been spewing out vicious commentary as
"despicable" and saying "I fucked your mother," then, well -- we've had
enough insults.
---
* SLMR 2.1a * Canadians are just Americans without guns.
Jeffrey Davis
+
+However, as long as Kael is alive and refuses to speak to Lean's
+distinguished biographer, it's unfinished business.
Why the h should she & how does one become a "distinguished biographer"?
+Schickel took the responsible approach, and illuminated the
+incident, and partially recanted (as I said)
"Recanted"? He's guilty of the 'einous sin of 'eresy?
+If Robert MacNamara can come to terms with sending tens of thousands to their
+death, breaking all sorts of (at least implied) confidences (including
+those with JFK), then how can we accord any credibility to Kael's excuses
+for not talking to Brownlow?
And the proper medicine to take for lack of perspective would
be what?
Jordan Chodorow
playground remarks were just for fun. (There are worse ways to relieve
finals-induced stress, I'm sure.) Of course, your posting conveniently
ignores the substantive point, namely that after two chances to explain
how you read Peter's posting as some kind of attack on me or my reasoning,
neither of them has been seen to comport with reality. At this point,
it's probably all you could do to look as though you had the righteous
upper hand -- isn't it a little hypocritical, though, to insult someone
and then say "we've had enough" insults?
- jordan
Bob Morris
No, Mr. Lean, I only replied to address the substantive points--the
playground remarks were just for fun.
"Pauline Kael" :-)
Jordan Chodorow
th-th-th-think I'll go s-s-s-suck my th-th-th-thumb.
David Lean
>
>
arm...@delphi.com
others could have a crack at her abilities.
Charles Herold
First you stated that I was wrong in believing Peter was attacking you
personally, and I replied that I never believed Peter was attacking you
personally but was attacking your viewpoint. Then you said he wasn't.
He was certainly *disagreeing* with you, and disproving your position,
so I suppose you simply objected to the word *attack*. I do not
a minor semantical disagreement to be a "substantive point," which is
why I didn't bother to reply to your quibble.
---
* SLMR 2.1a * "Good morning" is an opinion, not a greeting.
Jordan Chodorow
-----> You're still looking for things that aren't there (and in June, no
less). No matter how eloquently expressed, Peter's relative valuation of
film and film criticism doesn't "disprove" my position any more than "I
prefer green to orange" disproves "I prefer orange to green." Or in this
case "I much prefer green to orange" versus "I prefer green to orange so
much they're not on the same scale."
- jordan
mor...@usa1.com
>film and film criticism doesn't "disprove" my position any more than "I
>prefer green to orange" disproves "I prefer orange to green." Or in this
>case "I much prefer green to orange" versus "I prefer green to orange so
>much they're not on the same scale."
>
film-making what one color is to another? How loony.