It is not skepticism. She is saying that film is not an art form. Would it be skepticism to declare that painting is not an art form? Or music or dance or poetry?
Also, what do you mean by "get very pretentious about movies"?
> Why do we have to have a serious love of film "as aesthetic
expression"? Why can't we just love it, period?
Nothing wrong with loving film, but there are different kinds of love. Most people go to the movies for a good story, something they can get invovled with that has performances they can identify with. That is the lowest form of film appreciation -- like saying about a piece of music "It's got a good beat. I can dance to it." There is nothing wrong with this response, but it is a simple one.
But there are deeper and more complex varieties of movie love. The problem with Kael is that she regarded investigating those aspects as being antithetical to her beloved notion of film as trash.
Another problem lies with the medium of film itself. It appears to be much more transparent/straight forward than it actually is. People seem much more willing to admit the advantages offered by a trained ear in music or a trained eye in painting, than those conferred by a trained eye for cinema. Cinema's accessibility seems to lead people to believe that films cannot be complex works of art that reward close attention and investigation, but are merely just good trrashy fun (Kael's know-nothing approach).
Brian