What do you think?
Rate this book
The Film Writings
For Keeps: 30 Years at the Movies
A collection of film reviews, most of them originally published in the "New Yorker," selected from the author's previous collections, covers movies from "Hud" to "Dances with Wolves"
1312 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1994
17 people are currently reading
1434 people want to read
About the author
Pauline Kael
56 books187 followersPauline Kael was an American film critic who wrote for The New Yorker magazine from 1968 to 1991. She was known for her "witty, biting, highly opinionated, and sharply focused" movie reviews. She approached movies emotionally, with a strongly colloquial writing style. She is often regarded as the most influential American film critic of her day and made a lasting impression on other major critics including Armond White and Roger Ebert, who has said that Kael "had a more positive influence on the climate for film in America than any other single person over the last three decades."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
December 1, 2015
This isn’t really the kind of book you’d sit and read cover to cover. Like, I did, but I’m not really a role model for how people should live their lives. I loved it, though.
What For Keeps is, is a collection of essays written for magazines (largely the New Yorker, but elsewhere too), generally reviewing then-current films. They were written back before screeners and largely before VHS/Beta allowed people to take movies into their homes, so a lot of her reviews try to capture her emotions after a screening or two.
Generally, when I read a collection of this sheer size and scope – it’s well over a thousand pages and over an inch thick – I find the essays all kind of bleed into each other and it’s hard to pick moments out of the pack. Fortunately, it’s not the case here. Although there are plenty of reviews for movies I’ve never seen (and probably never will), her prose, insight and instincts generally stand out well after I’ve read them. For example, when she writes about “Last Tango in Paris,” she carves into the raw sexuality of Brando. Elsewhere, she gets into the madness of Nicolas Cage, the way Paul Newman can make his characters appealing and looks at what made Cary Grant so good at what he did.
Similarly, taking her essays all in order lets you see how her judgment evolved, changed and focused over the years. For example, when she rips into “Full Metal Jacket,” it isn’t just a broadside against the movie, but a part of a long-running antagonistic relationship with Kubrick, who she feels lost himself when he moved to England and started taking himself too seriously. Or her long-running dislike for Clint Eastwood, where her arguments about violence in movies – particularly in how it rationalizes the violence viewers are supposed to embrace – sound as fresh as anything you’d read on AV Club, Grantland or New Yorker.
Still, there are moments which sound dated. Kael is probably best remembered for her insight or wit, but she also had a real nasty streak. When I read her calling someone a fatty, I wonder what’d she say about Melissa McCarthy. And her defence of a movie like “Driving Miss Daisy” seems a little reactionary, particularly since I’d read Roxane Gay’s Bad Feminist almost in tandem with For Keeps, and Gay's approach to a movie like that comes off far better (to again make a modern parallel: would Kael have liked “The Help” or would she have seen through that, too?).
Probably the weakest moment in the book is her book-length essay “Raising Cain,” which is collected here in full. At the time, it was an incendiary shot at Orson Welles and Auteur Theory, arguing “Citizen Kane” was more the work of Herman Mankiewicz than Welles. Although it has it’s moments, particularly when dealing with Hollywood in the 30s, the essay is problematic: there are attribution issues where Kael claimed others work as her own; there are factual errors by Kael, too. I like the style and her essay is readable, but I also skimmed over it.
It’s a little hard to recommend a book of this scale and size. It’s a little unwieldy to carry around and the reviews are both too long and too few to really make it worthwhile as a companion to, say, Leonard Maltin’s books. (Kael's 5001 Nights at the Movies might be a better choice there). But I’d still recommend it for anyone who enjoys reading good criticism, is interested in film or in writing their own criticism. For me, it has a nice spot next to Roger Ebert's Book of Film: From Tolstoy to Tarantino, the Finest Writing From a Century of Film.
The thing about Kael isn’t her wit (although it’s nice), but the way poked into and at movies. I don’t think it’s a cliché to say she loved film, since it so vividly comes through with her writing, in the way she could enjoy both pulpy fare like “The Re-Animator” and high-class works like “The Dead.” But her love wasn’t uncritical: if a movie had holes, she’d poke at them: why was a character motiviated? What did the lighting do for a scene? Does a script take the time to explain a character? Etc, etc, etc.
These days, movie criticism is largely left to the specialists who work off in a corner that nobody really reads. Wesley Morris won a Pulitzer for his work, but Grantland struggled to find an audience. Instead, people gravitate towards people like Ebert, who would sum a movie with a hand gesture, or TV critics who award flicks on a sliding scale of three to five stars. It’s kind of funny when some of the best criticism comes from Gregg Turkington and Tim Hidecker’s funny web series “On Cinema at the Cinema.” So go back to Kael, go back and read about some movies you’ve forgotten or never seen, and enjoy yourself. I certainly did.
What For Keeps is, is a collection of essays written for magazines (largely the New Yorker, but elsewhere too), generally reviewing then-current films. They were written back before screeners and largely before VHS/Beta allowed people to take movies into their homes, so a lot of her reviews try to capture her emotions after a screening or two.
Generally, when I read a collection of this sheer size and scope – it’s well over a thousand pages and over an inch thick – I find the essays all kind of bleed into each other and it’s hard to pick moments out of the pack. Fortunately, it’s not the case here. Although there are plenty of reviews for movies I’ve never seen (and probably never will), her prose, insight and instincts generally stand out well after I’ve read them. For example, when she writes about “Last Tango in Paris,” she carves into the raw sexuality of Brando. Elsewhere, she gets into the madness of Nicolas Cage, the way Paul Newman can make his characters appealing and looks at what made Cary Grant so good at what he did.
Similarly, taking her essays all in order lets you see how her judgment evolved, changed and focused over the years. For example, when she rips into “Full Metal Jacket,” it isn’t just a broadside against the movie, but a part of a long-running antagonistic relationship with Kubrick, who she feels lost himself when he moved to England and started taking himself too seriously. Or her long-running dislike for Clint Eastwood, where her arguments about violence in movies – particularly in how it rationalizes the violence viewers are supposed to embrace – sound as fresh as anything you’d read on AV Club, Grantland or New Yorker.
Still, there are moments which sound dated. Kael is probably best remembered for her insight or wit, but she also had a real nasty streak. When I read her calling someone a fatty, I wonder what’d she say about Melissa McCarthy. And her defence of a movie like “Driving Miss Daisy” seems a little reactionary, particularly since I’d read Roxane Gay’s Bad Feminist almost in tandem with For Keeps, and Gay's approach to a movie like that comes off far better (to again make a modern parallel: would Kael have liked “The Help” or would she have seen through that, too?).
Probably the weakest moment in the book is her book-length essay “Raising Cain,” which is collected here in full. At the time, it was an incendiary shot at Orson Welles and Auteur Theory, arguing “Citizen Kane” was more the work of Herman Mankiewicz than Welles. Although it has it’s moments, particularly when dealing with Hollywood in the 30s, the essay is problematic: there are attribution issues where Kael claimed others work as her own; there are factual errors by Kael, too. I like the style and her essay is readable, but I also skimmed over it.
It’s a little hard to recommend a book of this scale and size. It’s a little unwieldy to carry around and the reviews are both too long and too few to really make it worthwhile as a companion to, say, Leonard Maltin’s books. (Kael's 5001 Nights at the Movies might be a better choice there). But I’d still recommend it for anyone who enjoys reading good criticism, is interested in film or in writing their own criticism. For me, it has a nice spot next to Roger Ebert's Book of Film: From Tolstoy to Tarantino, the Finest Writing From a Century of Film.
The thing about Kael isn’t her wit (although it’s nice), but the way poked into and at movies. I don’t think it’s a cliché to say she loved film, since it so vividly comes through with her writing, in the way she could enjoy both pulpy fare like “The Re-Animator” and high-class works like “The Dead.” But her love wasn’t uncritical: if a movie had holes, she’d poke at them: why was a character motiviated? What did the lighting do for a scene? Does a script take the time to explain a character? Etc, etc, etc.
These days, movie criticism is largely left to the specialists who work off in a corner that nobody really reads. Wesley Morris won a Pulitzer for his work, but Grantland struggled to find an audience. Instead, people gravitate towards people like Ebert, who would sum a movie with a hand gesture, or TV critics who award flicks on a sliding scale of three to five stars. It’s kind of funny when some of the best criticism comes from Gregg Turkington and Tim Hidecker’s funny web series “On Cinema at the Cinema.” So go back to Kael, go back and read about some movies you’ve forgotten or never seen, and enjoy yourself. I certainly did.
August 7, 2014
Note: this is a twelve-hundred page book. I didn't read it all, but focused mainly on reviews and essays on the movies I've seen. I maybe covered about an eighth of the book.
I picked this up after seeing the recent documentary Life Itself on the life of Roger Ebert, noting the huge influence Kael had on his reviewing, and realizing I had read little to none of her work. Overall, it's powerful stuff --- Kael is especially good at separating craft from art while at the same time noting the joy that can come from each. She adores DePalma and Burton, while she is happy to note the flaws in Scorcese. (I agree with her about Raging Bull.) Even with her aesthetic tone, she never shies away from the idea of the movies as a business, and I found that some of her more insightful comments involved how some stars limited themselves more and more as their popularity rose. The latter point is hit hard in a long essay on Cary Grant, where she claims that only Hitchcock's involvement (along with the movie Charade) kept Grant's star bright after the forties. (Kael claims Grant only plays himself in the Hitchcock films, not that she's complaining.) Definitely entertaining and thought-provoking, and the volume (which excerpts her other works) gives an interesting view of cinema history.
I picked this up after seeing the recent documentary Life Itself on the life of Roger Ebert, noting the huge influence Kael had on his reviewing, and realizing I had read little to none of her work. Overall, it's powerful stuff --- Kael is especially good at separating craft from art while at the same time noting the joy that can come from each. She adores DePalma and Burton, while she is happy to note the flaws in Scorcese. (I agree with her about Raging Bull.) Even with her aesthetic tone, she never shies away from the idea of the movies as a business, and I found that some of her more insightful comments involved how some stars limited themselves more and more as their popularity rose. The latter point is hit hard in a long essay on Cary Grant, where she claims that only Hitchcock's involvement (along with the movie Charade) kept Grant's star bright after the forties. (Kael claims Grant only plays himself in the Hitchcock films, not that she's complaining.) Definitely entertaining and thought-provoking, and the volume (which excerpts her other works) gives an interesting view of cinema history.
January 24, 2007
If you want to read great criticism, this is the go-to woman. She wrote for the New Yorker for years and years. Kael's film reviews are laugh-out-loud funny. It may not be in this book, but I loved her review of The Sound of Music--which she hated. She called Andrews "sexless" with her boyish hair and unflappable optimism.
I actually like the movie, but I cracked up all over the place in the library when I read her review. She rocks.
I actually like the movie, but I cracked up all over the place in the library when I read her review. She rocks.
April 25, 2022
Fantastic collection of reviews from Pauline Kael. I read reviews of the films I have seen, which came up to roughly half of this 1200+ page collection. Kael doesnt pull any punches and it gave me a healthy dose of perspective to read scathing reviews of what are now regarded as "classics" while they were being released. She also praises many films which were recieved poorly at the time of their release, suprising and delighting me.This collection also includes the book-length essay on the authorship of Citizen Cane titled "Raising Cane" which was a major highlight. Kael was an incisive critic and it's clear she had a vast knowledge of and respect for the inner workings of film. I hadn't read any Kael reviews before checking this book out and now I'm hungry for more.
January 17, 2014
Pauline Kael. There aren't too many people in any field that you can say "that person is the best to ever do what they did". Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Jimi Hendrix...Pauline Kael is that to movie criticism. The best there ever was, the one by which everyeone else will be measured. She was crazy smart, almost comically opinionated and man did she love movies. Whether or not you agree with her you will always know more about film and the movies you love or hate after having read her. A must for movie buffs. Simply, the best.
August 17, 2019
The gold standard, obviously. All good roads lead to Kael.
July 6, 2019
I hate Pauline Kael about as much as I love her. Her work was vital and compulsively readable, and also pompous, cruel, and often wildly off-base; I can think of quite a few reviews of hers that are all of the above at once (there's also the issue of her homophobia, which still rankles me but isn't really worth diving into here). If For Keeps' massive size (1,300 pages) is intimidating, it helps to know that it's not really meant to be read cover-to-cover; it's quite simply a chronological collection of her most well-known writing, and you can jump in just about anywhere you'd like. In any event, it's about as perfect an introduction to her work as you could ask for.
October 18, 2008
If you think you don't have any time to spare during the day, you are sure to find some if you ever start reading Pauline Kael's movie reviews. Her famously colloquial writing style is very addictive, and, in this 1291-page compendium, you're bound to discover dozens of movies you've never heard of before but are suddenly desperate to see. A source of pleasure whenever I return to Ohio, I’m trucking my copy back to New York this time.
May 24, 2011
4 1/2 stars. Though I disagree with a lot of her opinions and her rule of only watching movies once, Kael was a great writer whose wit and perspective changed film criticism. Though she was at her best when she was being enthusiastic about something, even her snarkier, negative reviews made me want to go and see or rewatch most of the movies she was talking about - which might be the best thing you can say about a film critic.
August 13, 2008
Best movie critic ever! Esp her reviews of Godfather II, The Music Room, Days, Nights in the Forest make you see the movies in a new light. She is funny when eviscerating a undeserved "classics" - her review of Blade Runner (I know, i know - Ridley Scott is a great visualist but a terrible story teller)is an example.
October 14, 2013
I may agree with Pauline Kael half the time or less, but she sure is a lot if fun to read. How could she think Last tango in Paris would change the movies forever? How could she miss the genius of The Right Stuff? Her profiles in this volume of Cary Grant and Citizen Kane are great and better than the reviews.
July 10, 2019
This is a monster of a book, nearly 1300 pages of film reviews culled from her several books. Some of the stuff I’ve read before; I have a couple of her books. But the bulk of it is unfamiliar, and she’s always interesting, even about movies you haven’t seen.
February 18, 2010
I don't think I will ever 'finish' this book. It's a collection of reviews, and bigger than the bible. But I am happy to dip in and out every so often, and enjoy the wit and cleverness that is Ms Kael.
December 27, 2015
The greatest film critic this country has ever produced and her opinions remain relevant today. There will never be another critic who is as knowledgeable, dedicated, passionate and funny as Pauline Kael.
July 8, 2008
Pauline Kael, along with Jonathan Rosenbaum and a few others, is one on my very favorite film writers of all time, and this is a fantastic collection of her stuff.
September 26, 2008
If there were some way I could give all of Pauline Kael's writing twelve stars, I would. My favorite critic of any medium or genre.
September 3, 2010
When we everyone else goes on the Axiom and I'm left on Earth with Wall-E...I don't know. This is a great book.
January 30, 2014
This book singlehandedly made me realize that having a home library was an idiotic notion.
March 1, 2024
I was a huge Roger Ebert fan growing up, always watching "At the Movies" when it was on tv. I also would pick up his phone book size collections of film reviews, occasionally write him e-mails (one of which he answered) and once he started posting reviews online I would read the new releases weekly. When I got older, I found out most trye cinephiles preferred the writing of Pauline Kael. Never having read her I picked up this book to give her a shot.
Overall, not a fan! This collection includes hundreds of film reviews, sometimes in their entirety and others just excerpts she found worthwhile. Her reviews tended to be much longer than Eberts. For smaller films she would often come out of the gate saying how great the movie was but for many larger ones it felt like she was padding out a word count rather than stating whether she actually recommended it or not. That's where I found her writing to be much less effective than Ebert's, as while she would get into details the films, she often spoiled large components of the plots. I liked using critic reviews as a preview of whether I would enjoy the movie and Kael writes more for people that want to analyze a movie whether they've seen it or not.
I did add a lot of films to my Letterboxd watchlist while reading this and that's a plus.
Overall, not a fan! This collection includes hundreds of film reviews, sometimes in their entirety and others just excerpts she found worthwhile. Her reviews tended to be much longer than Eberts. For smaller films she would often come out of the gate saying how great the movie was but for many larger ones it felt like she was padding out a word count rather than stating whether she actually recommended it or not. That's where I found her writing to be much less effective than Ebert's, as while she would get into details the films, she often spoiled large components of the plots. I liked using critic reviews as a preview of whether I would enjoy the movie and Kael writes more for people that want to analyze a movie whether they've seen it or not.
I did add a lot of films to my Letterboxd watchlist while reading this and that's a plus.
July 2, 2023
This is one of Kael's most highly rated books and I wish I could agree. Sadly, the movie reviews were selected by Pauline and show her in the worst light. Why? Because this books is chock full of Kael's reviews of IMPORTANT MOVIES, and she wasn't very good at reviewing IMPORTANT MOVIES.
1) We get lot of discussion on foreign language films. Bergman, Ozu, Kurasowa, Godard, Fellini, etc. And Kael has nothing interesting to say about these Giants of Cinema. She liked what pretty much everyone liked. And she disliked what everyone else did.
2) Her reviews of the "Oscar Bait" movies are the same. She'll take shots at "Sound of Music" or "Passage to India" but mostly she loves all Hollywood midwitery. Especially when it pertains to a liberal sacred cow.
And we get all the usual Kael verbosity.
1) We get lot of discussion on foreign language films. Bergman, Ozu, Kurasowa, Godard, Fellini, etc. And Kael has nothing interesting to say about these Giants of Cinema. She liked what pretty much everyone liked. And she disliked what everyone else did.
2) Her reviews of the "Oscar Bait" movies are the same. She'll take shots at "Sound of Music" or "Passage to India" but mostly she loves all Hollywood midwitery. Especially when it pertains to a liberal sacred cow.
And we get all the usual Kael verbosity.
August 15, 2020
The greatest writer of film criticism - funny, genuine and very smart.
May 9, 2014
The greatest thing that ever happened to words. No joke.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews