Kurosawa: The Most Versatile Director of All Time

Really, Lightwizard, if we are going to use polls to prove these matters then I can "prove" to you that Dubya is a better President than Jimmy Carter! Certainly any poll which puts Scorsese in the same class with Kurosawa, Fellini, and Bergman--three supreme artists of the 20th century-- is not to be taken seriously. And as far as Kubrick goes, no, I don't think he belongs in the same class as those men either. He made too many films I dislike such as THE SHINING, EYES WIDE SHUT, and FULL METAL JACKET. Not to mention the fact that CLOCKWORK ORANGE is a travesty of the novel and, basically, pornographic (as Pauline Kael pointed out when she reviewed it). I do like PATHS OF GLORY, but it is hardly a breakthrough on any level, certainly not of technique. Kubrick did not invent tracking shots. 2001 is a bore, plain and simple. There is no excuse for dullness.

The Sight and Sound poll is of film critics and not the usual group of weekly periodical critics whose opinions one can usually discount. I'm not the only one who would disagree as to Kubrick's stature and do not find "2001" to be a bore at all. Certainly you have a right to your opinion -- I completely disagree.

And "Clockwork Orange" is not pornographic. Good grief, Larry. Sometimes less is more when you're trying to make a point...

Kael's review contains this sentence in her unmistakingly glib style:

"It might be the work of a strict and exacting German professor who set out to make a porno violent sci-fi comedy."

It's funny how films can age and the time transpires to where calling a film like "A Clockwork Orange" pornographic is what is outdated! She didn't particularly care for this Kubrick outing although she does compliment the original writing and then, curiously, notes that Kubrick follows the book extremely close. It's one of her really length essays that I didn't get much out of -- she didn't like "2001" either.

Another curiousity that not only Sight and Sounds list of ten best films of all times as voted by film critics and then by directors contains "2001" but not one Kurosawa film. Other polls even apologize that Kurosawa is not there. The Japanese film "Tokyo Story" appears on this list. "Dr. Strangelove" appears on the director's list but not on the film critic's list. I realized this is may not impress those who have their own ideas of what the best films and who the best directors are and there is obviously films that are left off the best list and directors left off the directors list that I would vote for.

I remember Kael's review of A Clockwork Orange as one of the reasons to mistrust her (even if I always respected her).
I remember thinking she didn't understand Burguess' novel, and that she didn't recognize how fundamental were, to the story, the Catholic concepts about free will.
But that was so long ago...

Her critique kind of reads like the criticism of Mozart -- "too many notes." It's just too obvious, fbaezer, that the film went right over her head and in analyzing it, she came off as pretentious when she was making the effort to label the film as pretentious.

If we're going to use Kael in any way as a criteria, her reviews of Scorcese makes it look like she was sleeping with him.

Lightwizard, you are way off base about Kael and Scorsese. She disliked NEW YORK, NEW YORK, RAGING BULL, and GOODFELLAS. In fact she didn't like anything he did post-TAXI DRIVER except for the short movie in NEW YORK STORIES. There is no need to slur Kael just because she didn't like Kubrick. If you are going to cite a critic, be accurate about it.

I don't know what Paulene Kael you're reading but in "For Keeps" she is favorable to both "Raging Bull" and "Goodfellas," even with some reservations. "New York, New York" is a given -- virtually no critic likes that film. Kael seldom gave a what can be called a rave review, she analysed what was good and bad about each film and often the bad came off as panning a film. "Sleeping with him" is an innocent euphemism -- not meant literally and this would be obvious to almost anyone.

Pardon my mistaken memory, but she did essentially like "Goodfellas" but not "Raging Bull." Her review of "Raging Bull" is a bit overblown but it's never been one of my favorites purely for the fact that I'm not into prize fighting. I'm trying to remember if she was into prize fighting at all. I would love to read her review of "Gangs" which is now impossible but then she didn't review "Casino," "Kundun" or any of the post "Goodfellas" films. I believe I did read a favorable review of "After Hours," but I'd have to research that.

Kael never reviewed AFTER HOURS. And I don't see how you can say she essentially liked GOODFELLAS when most of her review was an accurate dissection of what was missing from the movie--like a compelling central character and a strong narrative thrust that would have unified the bravura style. You are misreading Kael if you take one sentence of praise as praise for a film in its entirety--she often does this, only to take back the praise in the next paragraph. It's what makes her a compelling and unpredictable critic. Her review of RAGING BULL is an unqualified pan, as I am glad you now acknowledge. Maybe now you will retract your ignorant crack about Kael and Scorsese sleeping together, too.

If you don't know that the phrases akin to "sleeping with the enemy" is not meant seriously, you need to lighten up.

Her carping about a central character in "Goodfellas" was another indication that the honeymoon was over after the direct pan of "Raging Bull" which certainly is outnumbered by the preponderance of great reviews and it's placement on the top ten films of the last twenty five years. I know, you're going to try and devalue a poll that's taken by the most literate and esteemed journals on film but I do give it credence. I disagree about the central character in "Goodfellas" entirely and that's my privelege. The ensemble performances in that film are so great that it does make it difficult to shift attention, especially as I find it one of De Niro's most subtle and insidiously evil performances.

As far as "Raging Bull," it's not on my personal list of best or favorite films of the last 25 years because of the reasons I previously addressed. That it was realistic in showing exactly what she was panning it for is likely off-putting to many and particularly women.

In closing, you've said before that you appreciate Kael but don't agree with all of her reviews. I can see her viewpoint in Scorcese's later films but don't completly agree. In fact, I found I agreed less with her as she became older -- her reviews became more didactic and less enlightening and entertaining. I believe she left "The New Yorker" just in the nick of time and it could have been she was no longer "sleeping with the editor."

Kael left the New Yorker for 2 good reasons--the movies were getting worse, which is indisputable, and she had Parkinson's. I doubt that she disliked RAGING BULL because she was a woman--that is a really dumb sexist remark, Lightwizard. This is a critic who adored Sam Peckinpah and defended the rape scene in STRAW DOGS as erotic, so nothing the puerile imagination of Martin Scorsese could dream up was likely to shock her.

Once again, polls prove nothing. America elected Ronald Reagan twice and would probably have done so a third time in 1988 if it had been possible. Does that make Reagan a great president? By the same token, a hundred critics yammering in unison about the greatness of Scorsese don't impress me. Frankly, you should have more faith in your OWN taste than you seem to and rely less on the opinions of others to validate your preferences.

I remember Kael writing that Peckinpah was a Fascist.
Well, almost everyone was a Fascist, in her opinion.

Boy, this is turning into the Pauline Kael misinformation thread! What she actually said about Peckinpah and STRAW DOGS was that it was a test case because it was "a Fascist work of art"--by no means a simple dismissal. Nor did she indulge in the bad liberal habit of calling anyone whose politics she disliked "Fascist." She used the word for a couple of Clint Eastwood movies like DIRTY HARRY, where she certainly had a point. Honestly, you guys, all of Kael's work is in print, so why don't you pick it up and READ it before slandering her?

Getting back to Kurosawa, I just saw RED BEARD at the Kurosawa retrospective...a major disappointment. It's a medical soap opera about the gruff but kindly head of a clinic for poor patients, Red Beard (Mifune) and the arrogant young intern who finally comes to accept him as a mentor. Three hours long, it is preachy and sentimental, the worst Kurosawa film I've ever seen. Oh well--even a genius can make a dud film. I consoled myself by watching SEVEN SAMURAI again on VCR. Still wonderful, still incredibly dynamic and kinetic. Maybe his masterpiece--what do you guys think?

Maybe I like soap operas. Maybe I'm preachy and sentimental. But I loved Red Beard.

And about Kael.
I admired her. She was the most important American film critic of her time. In fact, I started a thread about her in Abuzz the day of her death.
I agree with her in about 70% of her reviews.
I think she was too easy on words like "Fascist". Fascism is a much more complex thing than vigilante violence or right wing defense of "law and order".

OK, Fbaezer, why don't YOU define the word "Fascist" so we can all use it more precisely?

Larry, I could truly do it.
As an anti-Fascist, I have studied the subject for quite a while. You have to know the enemy in order to fight him.
I could start telling you about the program of the Fasci di combatimento or the Partito Nazionale Fascista, and then go through all the ideology and the history of the different phallanxes (sp?).
I could also point out the very important differences between Fascism and other conservative movements, both in political culture and societal attitudes.
But then, this thread would be really off off course. Don't you think?