The movie would sort of have us believe that she was almost like the first critic to

events and evoke real passion about film. But also that, and I think one of the things that

made her so popular to those who love her and continues to resonate is also her rigorously

anti-theoretical approach to film. So cards on the table, I would say that my

thesis about Pauline Kale, my feeling is she's a brilliant prose stylist. She's an original thinker,

but nevertheless, and I think this documentary accidentally makes this case, nevertheless,

she was a very powerful force against the idea of taking film seriously as an art form.

And you can see it a lot in this movie, how it emphasizes two strands of her thought,

one of which was this delightful, irreverent cutting down of mid-century European modernism.

It reminded me a little bit of like Tom Wolfe,

radical chic, you know, that that essay that she wrote about La Dolce Vida and Hiroshima Monomor

and last year at Marion Bad, where I think she called... Oh, and Lanote.

And Lanote, where it was like, she called it something like, come dressed as the sick

soul of Europe parties. Yes. Which there's a lot of bad faith in there.

And you can see in her reviews and parts of her reviews that are quoted this element of,

well, movies are ultimately for pleasure.

And if it's not giving me that, then what good is it?

If it's aiming for other textures and other responses, it's ultimately not good.

And, you know, she was famous for

allegedly never watching a movie a second time. She was famous for being a great intellect who

nevertheless trusted her emotions more than her intellect. But then the other strand of her

thought that this movie emphasizes is her love of trash quote unquote. And this section I found

...