Talk:Pauline Kael

message: Why oh why is Armond White mentioned first among her followers? And in the introduction? She was a huge influence, so why not just jump straight ahead to the Roger Ebert quote?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.155.23 (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armond White 

message: Seems to have been excised in July 2008, with no explanation. The quote is frequently cited in the mainstream press, and IMO it is valuable for Wikipedia to provide a reference explaining the actual quote. It should be restored.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.64.162 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The very first thing that came to mind after reading this entry was "Where is the mention of the famous Nixon quote"?  Given that this is Wikipedia, and "editors" tend to remove information that is less-than-flattering to the subjects they worship, it seems fairly obvious why any mention of the "Nixon quote" was removed.72.49.235.222 (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I added information about the attributed quote, the actual quote, and its use, all with citations, including author with their own Wikipedia articles. The attributed quotation is too often used to be left out of the article but the discussion must be neutral and have citations, and should be focused more on how the supposed quote is used rather than its accuracy or meaning.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was "Nixon quote" removed? 

message: Britannica Online says:
: She was the regular film reviewer for McCall's for some months in 1966 and for the New Republic in 1967, and in 1968 she joined The New Yorker. She reviewed films for that magazine until her retirement in 1991. [] --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 17:22, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Magazines she worked for

message: Considering that she's one of the most influential film critics of her era, I think it's probably right to add some more sections on her work. I can't really be trusted with the exact details behind all these, but all of them are important, both in terms of her development as a critic and in American film criticism in general
*Her "war" with Andrew Sarris over the Auteur theory. Hugely significant in critical though, essentially the two foremost American film critics going toe-for-toe over the premise of the "auteur theory." An expurgated version is included in her Circles & Squares essay, which can be found in her first collection, I Lost it At the Movies
*Her sabbatical at the beginning of the 1980s. It's significant because she was (slightly) less productive subsequently, and also became quite disillusioned with the subsequent failures of Coppola, Scorsese, etc. Not sure how to include this, but the "Why Are Movies So Bad? Or: the Numbers" essay is a decent starting point. Later on she championed directors such as Demme, David Lynch, etc
Also do we have to get premission to remote link to other sites? I'm new to Wikipedia, so I was just curious. If so Paul Rossen's webpage  has  material relating to Kael, including the full "Raising Kane" essay
*Actually that's another point, there needs to be something on her booklength "Raising Kane" essay (if there isn't already), it was unique at the time because it gave a hell of a lot of credit to the co-screenwriter, Herman Mancweicz (some argue at the expense of Welles)
Anyway, that's enough for one 'post,' any suggestions? I think the difficult would be getting the facts right and comforming to the NPOV standards of Wikipedia
--Matt Dunedin 11:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it! That all sounds like important stuff to add, so have at it. And yes, adding informative, non-commercial external links is fine as long as it's kept under control. —Chowbok 03:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some topics to consdier for Pauline Kael 

message: I've placed this article's Good Article nomination on hold because of a number of minor issues.  I believe these could be fixed within the seven-day hold period.
First, it's rather light on citations.  The lead and "Style and Influences" are well-referenced, but there are few references in the "Biography" section, and none in the "Nixon 'quote'" section.  Considering some of the claims being made ("infamously negative review", "she liked to boast", "greatest prominence as a critic", "her opinion... was seen... as blasphemous", "Kael is frequently quoted as saying..."), they need to be cited.  Some of these actually do have sources called out in the text, but no accompanying footnotes.
Second, it would be nice to have a picture of Kael.  This isn't a requirement and wouldn't stand in the way of the article becoming a GA, but it would be a general improvement.
Third, some of the text appears to tread close to POV.  While the writing is definitely not bland, it shouldn't overstep neutrality.  For instance, do her reviews really need to be described as "erudite, eloquent, esoteric, emphatic"?  Wouldn't one of those adjectives suffice?  (If that's a quote from one of the cited sources, on the other hand, that's acceptable, but quotation marks should be used to indicate that we are in fact quoting someone else's opinion, not presenting our own.) Shimeru 23:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been improvement over the past week, particularly with the NPOV concerns.  However, the citations requested are still needed, so I cannot currently pass this article.  Please feel free to reapply once those citations are in place. Shimeru 22:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination on hold 

message: Hello, I'm reviewing this article for its' second nomination as a Good Article. As I read the article, I'll be leaving comments here as well as making notes of the edits I make for minor corrections. As this is a GA Review, I will be checking to make sure that the article is well written, properly formatted, adequately referenced, and neutrally covers a broad range of information. I have taken note of the previous discussions on this article, as well as the results of the last GA Review, and will keep them in mind as I read the article. Here goes...
*Your lead sounds good, and if you keep that amount of referencing up throughout the article, I don't expect to have any problems at all with that aspect. Wow.
*San Francisco was spelled wrong in the second paragraph of "Early Life" - fixed that for you.
*The first section of the biography is very good - I'm impressed.
*I'm still not finding anything that needs improvement in the second section here. This is going to be a rather short review if this continues to be the case.
General Comments: What the hell is this doing as a Good Article candidate? This is better than a GA, but that's all I can rate it as because that's all you lot asked for. This article is excellent. You've removed all non-neutral content from this article. It covers a very wide range of information about Kael. It's incredibly well referenced. In fact, about the only suggestion I have to make is to find some more pictures to throw in here. Very well done! I just looked over the criteria for Featured Articles, and from what I've seen here, I think this article would stand a very good chance running for that distinction. This is at least A-Class, and definitely has the potential to be a Featured Article. Keep up the good work! Hersfold (talk/work) 23:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second GA Nomination 

message: In Deeper Into Movies, Kael reviewed the 1970 film The Great White Hope.
Is there anyone out there who has a copy of that book who would be willing to contribute to the article on the film The Great White Hope? On the discussion page of the article is a paraphrase of Kael's review that misses a citation.Fairlane75 20:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kael's review of ''The Great White Hope''

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.
:GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: The lead section of an article this size should be longer than one short paragraph. What is missing is the subject's biography.
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: Sourcing is good throughout, except for the introduction to the "Opinions" section, where there are some direct quotations and potentially controversial statements that ought to be sourced.
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#::  Lampman (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Sweeps 

message: The link to the Pauline Kael A-Z review page seems to have been removed by Yahoo...  ;-(  Fagiolonero (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: At "External links" section: ''Kael reviews A-Z'' gone bad?

message: I read on Yahoo! Answers that Pauline Kael coined the phrase, "Where there's a will there's a way". Is this (verifiably) true? And if so, is it worth mentioning in the article? nagualdesign (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where there's a will there's a way 

message: Alan Parker (Midnight Express, Harry Angel, Evita) mentioned Kael in an interview for the polish "Filmweb" website. While talking about critics he says (my translation) - "[...] for instance Pauline Kael - she was mean and cruel. What she was doing was beyond the competence of her profession [...]". It's been published today and the interview took place during Camerimage festival in Poland. Thought it might be worth mentioning. I'm writing it really quick, got no time to edit it properly myself, sorry about it. Full interview (sadly in polish) can be found here - http://www.filmweb.pl/article/PLUS+CAMERIMAGE%3A+Filmweb+rozmawia+z+Sir+Alanem+Parkerem-91079 --nonameforthistime  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.116.235.115 (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mean and cruel 

message: A line in the "accusations of homophobia" section is quoted horribly out of context. When I read the paraphrase here on Wikipedia:
:her criticism of the 1961 British film Victim was that the film sought to treat gay people "with sympathy and respect—like Negroes and Jews.
I thought it was a quite horrid thing to say, but then I checked out the actual review:
:I'm beginning to long for one of those old-fashioned movie stereotypes—the vicious, bitchy old queen who said mean, funny things. We may never again have those Franklin Pangborn roles, now that homosexuals are going to be treated seriously, with sympathy and respect, like Jews and Negroes. It's difficult to judge how far sensitivities will go: Remembrance of Things Past may soon be frowned upon like Huckleberry Finn and The Merchant of Venice. Social progress makes strange bedfellows.
She is not criticising Victim because it is sympathetic to homosexuals. She is bemoaning the emergence of sanitised cinematic gayness. Here are two quotes where she criticises the film for making its homosexual hero celibate:
:Time [magazine] should really be very happy with the movie, because the hero of the film is a man who has never given way to his homosexual impulses; he has fought them—that’s part of his heroism. Maybe that’s why he seems such a stuffy stock figure of a hero. Oedipus didn’t merely want to sleep with Jocasta; he slept with her.
:In Victim there is so much effort to make us feel sympathetic toward the homosexuals that they are never even allowed to be gay.
She goes on to criticise other publications' (including Times') homophobic reviews of the film:
:A number of the reviewers were uneasy about the thesis that consenting adults should be free from legal prosecution for their sex habits; they felt that if homosexuality were not a crime it would spread. (The assumption seems to be that heterosexuality couldn’t hold its own in a free market.)
I'm not saying there's no criticisms to be made, but the way her review is represented in this article is really unfair and misleading. Maskettaman (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Accusations of homophobia" misquotation