Critics at Large Live: The Right to Get It Wrong

Mar 20, 2025

The podcast dives into the art of criticism, showcasing bold historical reviews like Russell Maloney's fiery take on 'The Wizard of Oz.' The hosts engage in lively discussions about the evolution of opinions over time, from literary critiques to classic film assessments. They humorously explore the challenges and joys of writing negative reviews, revealing the emotional undercurrents of dissenting opinions. This celebration of critical thought underscores the vital role of context and personal experience in the appreciation of art.

Ask episode

AI Snips

Chapters

Books

Transcript

Episode notes

ANECDOTE

Wizard of Oz Pan

Russell Maloney's 1939 review of "The Wizard of Oz" panned the film, citing its "eye-straining" color and unbelievable dialogue.
He declared it a "stinkeroo," contrasting sharply with the film's beloved status today.

INSIGHT

Value of Wrongness

Critics getting things "wrong" reflects their time and doesn't diminish their work.
Examining past criticisms offers valuable historical context and can even revitalize our understanding of the work.

ANECDOTE

When Harry Met Sally… Revisited

Terrence Rafferty's negative review of "When Harry Met Sally..." sparked disagreement and renewed appreciation for the film.
His critique highlighted differences between classic screwball comedies and more modern romantic comedies.

Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode

Get the app

In 1939, reviewing the beloved M-G-M classic “The Wizard of Oz” for The New Yorker, the critic Russell Maloney declared that the film held “no trace of imagination, good taste, or ingenuity.” The use of color was “eye-straining,” the dialogue was unbelievable, and the movie as a whole was “a stinkeroo.” This take might shock today’s audiences, but Maloney is far from the only critic to go so pointedly against the popular view. In a special live show celebrating The New Yorker’s centenary, the hosts of Critics at Large discuss this and other examples drawn from the magazine’s archives, including Dorothy Parker’s 1928 takedown of “Winnie-the-Pooh” and Pauline Kael’s assessment of Al Pacino as “a lump” at the center of “Scarface.” These pieces reveal something essential about the role of criticism and the value of thinking through a work’s artistic merits (or lack thereof) on the page. “I felt all these feelings while reading Terrence Rafferty tearing to shreds ‘When Harry Met Sally…,’ ” Alexandra Schwartz says. “But it made the movie come alive for me again, to have to dispute it with the critic.”

Read, watch, and listen with the critics:

“Lies, Lies, and More Lies,” by Terrence Rafferty (The New Yorker)
“Bitches and Witches,” by John Lahr (The New Yorker)
“Don’t Shoot the Book-Reviewer; He’s Doing the Best He Can,” by Clifton Fadiman (The New Yorker)
“The Feminine Mystique,” by Pauline Kael (The New Yorker)
“The Wizard of Hollywood,” by Russell Maloney (The New Yorker)
“The Fake Force of Tony Montana,” by Pauline Kael (The New Yorker)
“Renoir’s Problem Nudes,” by Peter Schjeldahl (The New Yorker)
“Humans of New York and the Cavalier Consumption of Others,” by Vinson Cunningham (The New Yorker)
“The Great Sadness of Ben Affleck,” by Naomi Fry (The New Yorker)
“President Killers and Princess Diana Find Musical Immortality,” by Alexandra Schwartz (The New Yorker)
“Obscure Objects of Desire: On Jeffrey Eugenides,” by Alexandra Schwartz (The Nation)
“Reading ‘The House at Pooh Corner,’ ” by Dorothy Parker (The New Yorker)

New episodes drop every Thursday. Follow Critics at Large wherever you get your podcasts.

Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices