'What She Said: The Art of Pauline Kael'
Interesting documentary by Rob Garver on the famous film critic, Pauline Kael, that charts her journey from its humble start (a negative review of Chaplin's 'Limelight') to writing often controversial reviews for the New Yorker. Always a divisive figure in film criticism, and one who possessed a razor ship tongue, Kael at her height could slice one movie in half and help generate an audience for another. She could, at times, be absolutely merciless even about directors she liked and she had an impact that couldn't be underestimated. But she always remained an interesting read, even for people who vehemently disagreed with her opinion even if her opinions could often draw the most venomous flak - she was absurdly called an anti Semite because she said that Claude Lanzmann's interminable 'Shoah' was "bad filmmaking and bad history". She regularly affected film makers in a very real way too, as evidenced by David Lean's shell shocked aftermath from meeting her in a round table discussion of his films, who went on think question why he was even making films in the first place.
But Kael was far from being a snipe-style critic. She never set out to specifically destroy a film, just because, and likewise didn't shill for any particular studio either, despite (I'm sure) being approached to do so in the way that so many critics are. But she could be lethal about a film she didn't like or that didn't resonate with her to some degree.
It often appeared, too, that she was incapable of getting to grips with certain genres which was definitely one of her limitations and, aside from 1978's 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers', I cannot immediately recall many favourable Sci-Fi or Horror movie reviews from her, although I'm sure there must be some. But, for instance, she was, at best, middling about 'Star Wars', didn't like '2001 A Space Odyssey', and loathed 'The Exorcist' (which I think mostly stemmed from her distaste of William Peter Blatty's book). All three examples are, rightly in my opinion, lauded today as great examples of cinema for various reasons. At the same time, though, she championed trashy movies and said that they had their place, which other (more lofty) critics often just dismissed without a single thought.
She would, as well, offer praise to films that were generally despised at the time. Her review of 'Bonnie and Clyde' genuinely helped make that film attain the classic status it enjoys today. Likewise, her positivity about 'Last Tango in Paris' was responsible for getting many bums on seats that would otherwise have not bothered.
Even today in the sea of Tom Dick and Harry film criticism that the web has allowed, or maybe even because of it, her reviews offer an important insight into alternative contemplations on the art form and they often challenge you to have a rethink about that classic movie you hold dear.
9/10
'Dracula' Some spoilers ahead...
Never has a book or character been so wildly abused as poor old Bram Stoker's late 19th Century creation and this effort from last year sees yet another attempt to mangle the author's classic for the screen. Shot as a miniseries, where each episode is about 90 minutes long, it runs the gamut of the (nearly) sublime to the catastrophically ridiculous and it's very hard to remember anything that starts out so, so, well and then shits the bed so badly it can only be cleansed by fire.
This BBC/Netflix production of 'Dracula' kicks off, as most adaptations do, with Jonathan Harker (John Heffernan) and his misadventure with the titular Count (Claes Bang) and it's easy to see that this particular episode is where the bulk of effort went into. Drawing on the novel's best section, its opening, the series does an admirable job of front loading itself with tons of creepy atmosphere and a real sense of dread as Harker stumbles around Dracula's artistically designed castle where each turn leads to an M.C. Escher like confusion. Not giving anything away, Harker escapes Dracula's clutches and winds up in a nunnery where he meets, probably, the series most interesting character, Sister Agatha Van Helsing, a straight talking, no nonsense, member of the cloth played excellently by Dolly Wells who gets all the best lines. There numerous liberties taken with Stoker's work here, but this miniseries is not alone in doing that, and it's certainly by no means perfect. But it's still an entertaining 90 minutes and helped no end by a decent cast and pretty formidable go at set design.
Part 2 sees everything set aboard the Demeter, the ship that brings Dracula to England. However, in this adaptation, we're presented with something more akin to an anaemic Agatha Christie tale than anything Bram Stoker may have imagined, as the crew and guest travellers are picked off by the vampiric aristocrat and the captain and his mates have to solve the mystery. A mystery that remains a non-starter to the audience, of course, because we all know who's doing the killing and it's a mystery that sort of gets tossed aside in any case. It's a nice idea in some ways, but it was always going to be scuppered. But in it's own right, it was middling entertainment and it kept the attention for its runtime, although it was quite poor in comparison to the preceding entry. The ending, however, foreshadowed a deep, deep, drop off in quality that Part 3 was to present.
And what can I say about Part 3, other than it's something that takes a 90 mile an hour run at a cliff edge and jumps gleefully over it, crashing to the bottom in a shapeless mess. Dracula, who escaped the sinking Demeter at the end of Episode 2, now finds himself a prisoner of some shadowy 21st century NGO headed up by the descendent of the Van Helsing we previously encountered, which allows Dolly Wells to also be transported forward. But he doesn't stay a prisoner for long as certain (ridiculous) legal loopholes allow him his freedom, where he goes on to discover the wonders of smart phones and mingles among some deeply unpleasant late millennial yawn infested arseholes. Part 3 of this Dracula and its rocketing into the modern day fails spectacularly, as do all efforts to do this with the Count, it must be said. But whereas the 70's Hammer efforts to update Dracula to the "modern day" have a certain WTF charm to them, here the failure of the timeshift is complete. Absolutely nothing works here and the shift in tone, as well as the leap in time, destroys any of the charm that the first two episodes had. To say it's a disappointment of staggering levels is to give understatement a whole new definition.
2020's 'Dracula' could have been great which, in the end, is probably its biggest let down, which is a shame as there's a great lead in the shape of Danish actor Claes Bang and good support, too, from the likes of Heffernan and Wells. Some of the effects are excellent, as well, and the series manages to make old bloodsucker kinda creepy again. So a lot of the ingredients are actually there. But the unnecessary need to do something different just makes the whole thing come undone at the seams and everything ends up at naught in the end because the writing choices by Stephen Moffat and The League of Gentlemen's Mark Gatiss vary in quality to such enormous lengths.
Part One - 8/10
Part Two - 5/10
Part Three - 1/10
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. [click for more]
Posting Permissions
So yeah, an okay movie ... really just watching it so I can get more out of the 'How Did This Get Made?' podcast episode about this movie.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Mike70
Bookmarks