subscribe to this page
Kael, Pauline. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. New York: Bantom Books, 1968
Pauline Kael’s review of Bonnie and Clyde in The New Yorker represented every critic that believed that the movie achieved greatness. In stark contrast with the opinions of Bosley Crowther, Kael admired Bonnie and Clyde for the mentality it portrayed and the style it functioned with. She admits that the movie doesn’t present anything new in its narrative, being a direct descendent of the French New Wave films such as Breathless, but that its success comes from its capturing of youth society.
Pauline Kael article not only represented the positive side of the debate surrounding Bonnie and Clyde, but was her most famous essay and catapulted her to journalistic relevance. Indeed, Kael made her entire career, and quite a good one at that, by covering Bonnie and Clyde. Her original positive review is what established her as the critical face of the film, but she continued to write about and defend the film for years to come, developing a relationship with both Beatty and the writers of the film, Benton and Newman.
Her review was the exact opposite of Crowther’s, extolling the virtues of youth rebellion as part of her generation. The two critics dueled over the subject of the film, which eventually led to the rise of her career and the demise of Crowther’s. The effect of the move can be seen simply by the success of the critics that covered it. Kael, representing the positive, acceptance of the film and all it represented became a prominent film critic. While Crowter rejected it and the youth counterculture it represented and was subsequently removed as the head of the New York Times film review section.
Pauline Kael article not only represented the positive side of the debate surrounding Bonnie and Clyde, but was her most famous essay and catapulted her to journalistic relevance. Indeed, Kael made her entire career, and quite a good one at that, by covering Bonnie and Clyde. Her original positive review is what established her as the critical face of the film, but she continued to write about and defend the film for years to come, developing a relationship with both Beatty and the writers of the film, Benton and Newman.
Her review was the exact opposite of Crowther’s, extolling the virtues of youth rebellion as part of her generation. The two critics dueled over the subject of the film, which eventually led to the rise of her career and the demise of Crowther’s. The effect of the move can be seen simply by the success of the critics that covered it. Kael, representing the positive, acceptance of the film and all it represented became a prominent film critic. While Crowter rejected it and the youth counterculture it represented and was subsequently removed as the head of the New York Times film review section.
Crowther, Bosley. "The Ambiguous ‘Citizen Kane’ :Orson Welles, in His First Motion Picture, Creates a Titanic Character Which Does Everything but Explain Itself ." New York Times (1857-Current file) [New York, N.Y.] 4 May 1941, X5. ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2004). ProQuest. Van Pelt Library University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 9 Apr 2008 http://proxy.library.upenn.edu:2100/
Bosley Crowther was a film critic for the New York Times. He is one of the first critics to call Citizen Kane the best movie of all time.
Crowther wrote a glowing review of Citizen Kane on May 2nd, 1941, the day after the premiere in New York. He was so impressed with the film that four days after the premiere, he wrote in this article that Orson Welles’s Citizen Kane could be the greatest movie of all time. He conceded that he might have been going out on a limb and that the felt slightly uneasy about this bold declaration, but that he knew that the film was vastly superior to average film of the day. He wrote that because the film maker was so young – only 25 –he was not sure how the future would fare for Welles. He commented about the movie’s hyped-up release and stated that at the premiere, the film was “riding the crest of the most provocative publicity wave ever to float a motion picture.” This wave of publicity was caused by Hearst’s insistence that the film be taken off of the market before it was even released. Crowther wrote about the viewers reactions to the portrayal of the media tycoon. Even though not a single “black mark” is made against the character, the audience still walked away with a vague idea of the rash techniques used by ruthless publishers. This juxtaposes the films portrayal of Kane as an honest publisher. Crowther then wrote about the ending of the film and how he felt that it increased the complexity of the film because the ending didn’t explain itself. He was of the opinion that Welles was a brilliant filmmaker, but because he was so young, he would need more experience in the discipline.
This article is groundbreaking with respect to the fact that it is one of the first to hail Welles’s movie as a masterpiece and one of the greatest movies ever made. In the years after the film, its popularity waned at first but then began to increase with time. When one looks today at various organization’s rankings of the best movies of all time (eg Time, AFI, IMDB), usually Citizen Kane tops the list. One might think that Crowther’s positive reviews of the film would inspire more viewership, however the film was not a blockbuster and it seems that Hearst’s attempts at suppressing it were effective.
Bosley Crowther was a film critic for the New York Times. He is one of the first critics to call Citizen Kane the best movie of all time.
Crowther wrote a glowing review of Citizen Kane on May 2nd, 1941, the day after the premiere in New York. He was so impressed with the film that four days after the premiere, he wrote in this article that Orson Welles’s Citizen Kane could be the greatest movie of all time. He conceded that he might have been going out on a limb and that the felt slightly uneasy about this bold declaration, but that he knew that the film was vastly superior to average film of the day. He wrote that because the film maker was so young – only 25 –he was not sure how the future would fare for Welles. He commented about the movie’s hyped-up release and stated that at the premiere, the film was “riding the crest of the most provocative publicity wave ever to float a motion picture.” This wave of publicity was caused by Hearst’s insistence that the film be taken off of the market before it was even released. Crowther wrote about the viewers reactions to the portrayal of the media tycoon. Even though not a single “black mark” is made against the character, the audience still walked away with a vague idea of the rash techniques used by ruthless publishers. This juxtaposes the films portrayal of Kane as an honest publisher. Crowther then wrote about the ending of the film and how he felt that it increased the complexity of the film because the ending didn’t explain itself. He was of the opinion that Welles was a brilliant filmmaker, but because he was so young, he would need more experience in the discipline.
This article is groundbreaking with respect to the fact that it is one of the first to hail Welles’s movie as a masterpiece and one of the greatest movies ever made. In the years after the film, its popularity waned at first but then began to increase with time. When one looks today at various organization’s rankings of the best movies of all time (eg Time, AFI, IMDB), usually Citizen Kane tops the list. One might think that Crowther’s positive reviews of the film would inspire more viewership, however the film was not a blockbuster and it seems that Hearst’s attempts at suppressing it were effective.
belongs to Citizen Kane, A Closer Look project
tagged 1941 best_movie_of_all_time citizen hearst influence kane movie premiere review supression by andersjc ...on 10-APR-08
tagged 1941 best_movie_of_all_time citizen hearst influence kane movie premiere review supression by andersjc ...on 10-APR-08