Pauline Kyle did the most famous for him New YorkerHa The famous review From “Bonnie and Claide”, from October 1967, it was the second piece that I wrote to the magazine. The first, from June of that year, did not make a similar splash but had a much wider access, and includes an essential topic for the world of the movie as it was at that time. Entitled “TV movies“It chronicles the Kael movies experience at home, on cable TV, before the appearance of VCRS and the video rental. It also goes beyond its own viewing, mainly with pessimism, and the phenomenon of viewing at home in general. With regard to movies.
A long time before the appearance of a home video, in the 1980s, most people watched many films at home more than the movie theater. Films were a major form of local entertainment from the fifties, when the basic pillar of Boom Boom times on TV. The stations had many broadcasting hours to fill them, and film studios had a lot of the rear cabin titles sitting in a cellar. Thus, as Kyle confirms in “Films on TV”, the films that appear on TV were “old” – all that she cited in her article in 1967 at least a decade ago, and most of them were from the thirties and forty quarter. It considers the influence of the TV mediator on the art experience, and its rulings are not surprising: it believes that the heavy movies of the dialogue (including those written by Preston Stores and Joseph L To suit the square coordination almost the TV screens in the afternoon, the discounts are often running to suit them in time holes, and the interruptions caused by commercial ads. (Kyle was not alone in this last complaint: Otto Bremenger Laying a lawsuit on commercial interruptions to broadcast his 1959 movie, “Anatomy of the Killing”, and became the basis for ingenuity New Yorker Preminger file by Lillian Ross.)
The most surprising thing about Kyle’s article is her description of her life from cinema and emotions habits, and how she intersects with the collection of films chosen for broadcasting. For the largest part, studios sold films for networks and television stations in large packages. With the exception of a few shows known to Prestige, the TV films were not programmed selectively on the basis of merit but purchased and sold by the batch. Thus, TV channels apparently presented a random sample of films that Kyle reminded of a few deserved, displayed, and re -watched or even monitored for the first time – you remember a broadcast from some films that “the audience was left thirty years ago.”
According to Times TV lists in the history of the case in which KAEL was published (on Saturday: New Yorker The dates of the release did not turn to the two until the number 2 July 1973), as the six major commercial channels are broadcast in twenty-three films ranging from 1934 to 1960. Some of them were wonderful-Kumidia Raiol Walsh “Jim Jim”, Billy Wilder “Sabrina”, and the Leo Macaria “six of the kind”, Female. There was an early film (called) by Instagr Bergman. There was a solid melodrama “the best of everything”, and the hunting fee late at night like “Tarantula”, which is a childhood favorite, but the calendar was dominated by mysterious films by directors or previous franchise films (such as Tarzan or Carlie Chan). What disturbed Kael about these daily seizures is that they dismantled the films that appeared. Kyle was forty -seven years old when her article was published, and she was sharply distinguished between what was the case to watch the films when she was new and what was the case in watching her manipulation, and this means, from their social places. Even the “garbage” films for their youth were largely important, as she said, as it was “what constituted our tastes and formed our experiences.” But it continued, “Now these films are present for new generations, which cannot have the same effect or meaning, because they are all mixed together, from the historical sequence.”
It is clear that this is true, if this is true, the discovery of a work from the past is different from its experience directly at the time when it was released. But Kyle takes advantage of this distinction to confirm the priority of her critical authority over “old” films only based on her age and experience. I am recently review Kyle’s unusual article of 1971 is similar to the statement.Notes on the heart and mind“And I discovered that she made a similar argument there, confirming her negative judgment on the current films by comparing her first viewing to the biggest New Yorker (Where, by that time, she was working on employees for a period of three years) against age calls by studio executives of younger critics who are supposed to share the tastes of the young masses.
At a time when she wrote “TV films”, Kiel (then writing regularly for New RepublicHe did not take the goal. Instead, she was implicitly defending her critical point of view against cinema theory that, with her dissatisfaction, was gaining strength: the idea of directors as sources, referring to the French word to “authors” – the main creators of the films they make. This idea was developed by French French critics in the fifties, mainly in the magazine Cahiers du CinémaAnd it gained an international force through the films they produced, in the late 1950s and sixties, as part of what was known as the new French wave. In the United States, the authors’ idea gained strength through Andrew Saris’s criticism (at village voice) And Uitro Artcher (in TimesAlso, through programming and writing the young Peter Boujdanovic, who organized, in his early twenties, Mima Please films from Urson Wales, Howard Hax, and the Hitchcock.
In 1963, Kyle published an article, “circles and squares”, as it did not include what Saris called. Core The theory “as a distorted lens between films and experience. Citing” aesthetics is in fact a branch of ethnography “, it was documented in the rulings of” children who practice films “regarding popular films on” The ” Core Critics. ”However, by the time when she wrote“ movies on TV ”, the idea of Utur was rooted, at least among the younger cinema pioneers. Cahiers du Cinéma He had a New York -based English edition; Suzan Sonag, in her book in 1966Against interpretationHe declared, “Like the novel, the cinema provides us with a procedure that is completely under the control of the director (the writer) at every moment. “In the liberation of Hollywood films from the social context, the younger viewers freed them from their commercial roots, from the idea of popularity, which was essential in Kyle’s understanding of the art of films that I loved in the quality of Hollywood, and writing, in” Films on TV “,” This garbage – most of them, and cautious. Films collapsed barriers of all kinds, which opened the world, and helped us make us familiar with. “
Just as her article in 1971 was targeting the straw of the “ACOLYTE”, “TV films” found a river in the movie that stayed at home and watched movies on TV. Kyle wrote: “It is different from the owner of the cinema.” “For one thing, he wanders at home, inactive, unlike a movie member, it seems that he does not need to discuss what he sees.” Social communication and discussion were inseparable from Kyle’s decisive activity. She surrounded herself with fans of young sharp films – nicknamed “Paulettes” – and has strengthened the functions of many, including David Dinby, another movie critic of this magazine. For Kael, the early experience of cinema was a form of social integration; Talking about films, an essential part of the prevailing culture, and provides binding unity. Its frequent use of “we” in writing it is less property than Clubby-in “notes on the heart and mind”, indicates the priority of watching movies with others and sharing similar rulings in thinking with friends. She writes in “TV films”, “If we stay wake up in the half of the night to watch old films and we cannot face them the next day, this is partly, at least, because of the magic of the past of our films.” On the contrary, she says that film monitors on TV “live in the past unprecedented.”
