Straight interviews are always a little difficult to read. There are often thoughts behind the interviewer’s questions that aren’t necessarily apparent to the reader. Often when a person is interviewed, the pertinent or entertaining information is highlighted and informatively placed together while the rest is edited out.
In the case of Afterglow, the entire interview, which I imagine lasted quite a while, was recorded and published into a book. For a person who is not familiar with the status and personality of Pauline Kael, it is hard to understand the reason to read such a long interview with her. Although the introduction was meant to give a background to her life, it seemed as if the author was so awed by her that it seems to be a very biased view. During the interview, the impression of Pauline Kael is that she is a very opinionated and strong minded woman. By going through lists of movies and giving her opinion on them, Kael seems to be forcing others to feel the same, upsetting other if they don't agree with her opinions. Afterglow doesn’t necessarily highlight Pauline Kael in a great light, which seems like the authors main goal.
1 comment:
Agreed I think Davis's objective was to flatter Kael. A problem arose with the poor questions asked at the interview. The intro gave us a life full of passion. The interview followed it up with a 60 year conical of no name movies that put you to sleep. Davis did a poor job.
Post a Comment