Cinematic Qualities...

I am generally turned off by the use of the word 'cinematic' to describe literature. Literature has always strove to create an experience, and "appeal[ing] directly to the reader's visual perception" (Karetnikova 164) need not have anything to do with film. Lack of authorial digressions, abstract concepts, or narrative thoughts, and a descriptive preference for physicality do not necessarily make text cinematic - I have never heard Hemingway's stories described as such, but they have many of those qualities.
That being said, I think that Karetnikova makes a good argument for The Kiss of the Spider Woman's Cinematic Qualities. When an author uses phrases like, "and then you see them later" and "with a good close-up of the two faces," there is an undeniable filmic aspect to the writing, almost as if it were a screenplay treatment.

I do take issue with her assertion that "a film could be fully visualized without any shooting or editing." I agree that a story could be so clearly described visually that the reader could 'watch' it play out in his head, but would it be a film? No; obviously, unless you can truly SEE it, the story would remain a written narrative. (Which is not to say that makes it any less.) Karetnikova's statement is so ridiculous that I feel stupid arguing about it.

I also disagree on the point that interwoven narratives are "a purely cinematic device; in fact... the very nature of film." Take Dracula, published in 1897, which includes journal entries from multiple characters in different locales, "combining and shuffling" through different "footage" - without the relation to film that Puig's book has. Clearly "intercutting" is not a "purely cinematic device" - although the term itself references film editing, the effect that Karetnikova describes is present in cinematic and non-'cinematic' texts alike.

This tendency to cast shadows of cinema over literature, applying Hollywood concepts to the words of novels, is a common exercise in anachronistic thinking. Literature has surely influenced film, as the previously prevailing storytelling medium; one must also consider that the aim of both media - storytelling - also creates commonalities between these methods of communication. Though I must concede that many books are highly influenced by film (e.g. the American publication ofMemories of Underdevelopment, which was altered to more closely match its film adaptation), I believe that critiques of literature too often create this relationship from thin air, without considering their own movie-minded projections onto the written work.

EDIT --
I also think there is evidence of non-visual description/inner thoughts:
"He's happy, because he sees how to please him she got her complex under control, just the way he planned, to go there in the first place, to please her..." (Puig 7)
Though he is describing a scene from a movie, the speaker is actively interpreting the inner thoughts of the characters he describes, which cannot be explicitly shown.