Blah, blah, blah. How many big Seattle stories did the Stranger miss that the dailies covered in the last year? That's why we need more than one news source.

I've been meaning to mention, Iraq in Fragments has been getting quite a bit of attention in the British press the last week or so.

Here is Peter Bradshaw's review.

Credit where credit is due. Both dailies and Seattle's lesser weekly all but ignored Longley and his film. Now that it is nominated for an Oscar, here they come. The Stranger has proven itself time and again to have stronger critical arts judgment, backing this film and Longley before LA got on board. The Stranger pays attention to arts and artists, and sometimes that attention is unwelcome because its so critical and discerning.

That's because the movie opened on the 19th in London.

@6: The Stranger has proven itself time and again to have stronger critical arts judgment, backing this film and Longley before LA got on board....

I'm sure there were a host of other films that got the Oscar nod this year that the STRANGER did not get behind early on and display its "critical arts judgment."

Cheers to #1.

Stranger, when will you learn that journalism isn't a pissing contest? Maybe next time you'll be bragging about printing some goddamn chicken pot pie recipe before the Times/P-I even turned on their fucking ovens.

Oh, and the larger issue here is that the Times' and P-I's "arts critics" are too old and too irrelevant for the majority of people who can read. Though I for one learned a lot from the Times' edgy No More Blobs missive this past Sunday.

Journalism isn't a pissing contest? Really?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/movies/2002898254_arab30.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/artsentertainment/2002776680_sundance02.html

So the boring, suburban Seattle Times was months ahead of the Stranger's coverage of the movie? Wow.

[crickets]

Arg, you guys are so irritating.

My long interview with Longley for the Arab and Iranian Film Festival in March: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=31472

My review of Iraq in Fragments for the Arab and Iranian Film Festival: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=31371

My Slog post on the occasion of the Arab and Iranian Film Festival: (can't link, but you can find it)

Andy Spletzer's Slog post on the Sundance screening of Iraq in Fragments: (can't link, but you can find it)
(apologies for the formatting)

Andy Spletzer's Sundance wrapup, which mentions Iraq in Fragments:
(can't link, but you can find it)

And while we're at it:

Sean Nelson's review of Gaza Strip, James Longley's earlier film about Palestinian kids
(can't link, but you can find it)

And of course, there's the Genius profile, the short film Sari's Mother by Longley that we played at the Genius Awards and throughout the Henry installation, my speech at the Genius Awards, the long review I wrote when it opened in Seattle, the Stranger Suggests, between ten and twenty Slog posts, etc.

We were advocating for Longley and Iraq in Fragments earlier and harder than any paper in Seattle. But that wasn't so we could predict the Academy Award nominations. That was because we recognized a great Seattle filmmmaker and wanted to give him his due.

So defensive, Annie. Comment 10 was just showing that the post's claim about the film not receiving attention in Seattle outside the Stranger is demonstrably wrong. You don't need to give a litany of all you've done; the post was simply erroneous.

Fun! The first Times article is from February 2, 2006.

In all seriousness, you all are the ones who started the "we were there long before you were" business here, and it's just not true. The Times was there, with pictures, a year ago as well.

Please. Anybody who spends time arguing on blogs LOVES to feel irritation, and to cause it.

Annie, regarding your update to the post, who said that you guys weren't cheerleading the movie from early on? The point is just that you're dissing your competition unfairly - the Times had pieces early on too. To be honest, whatever you guys are trying to say comes off as unseemly and smug.

Who said? Quoth Fnarf:

So the boring, suburban Seattle Times was months ahead of the Stranger's coverage of the movie? Wow.

Anyway, I didn't ask for any of this. In my post Tuesday morning, I congratulated James and that's it. Complain about Dan and Charles if you must, but they do have a point. The Oscar nomination is what made the PI and the Times write long, blow-jobby pieces today. Their earlier coverage was less enthusiastic and thorough. But I don't necessarily fault them for their early coverage. PI and Times critics honestly didn't like the movie as much as I did.

Like many leftys I don't usually believe everything that I read in print and that goes for blogs too so when I read this blog I thought, "Huh, why not do a quick search to see if Charles Mudede actually did his homework about the other publications not writing about it."

Here is what I found:

Seattle Weekly

November 2006

http://www.seattleweekly.com/film/0645/iraq.php

Seattle Times

November 2006

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=iraq10&date=20061110&query=Iraq+in+Fragments

If you are going to be borderline libel at least research before you publish something seriously even if it's on your blog.

The Other Daily Will be in the next post after this.

As a reader and a former editor for a daily I don't feel like I should have to research all the facts.

Please as a time-saver I really don't want to have to point out all of your errors, next time do some research. Thank you.

Seattle P.I.

November 2006

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/movies/293598_tf227.html

Additional Find, but Couldn't have place it in the last post.

Whistleblower, that's fine. But those pieces range from 200 words (Seattle Weekly) to 382 (Seattle Times). Charles asked about "serious attention" and "roaring praise" and "big stories." Simply linking to short, mildly positive reviews--one of them about the Oscar shortlist!--does not refute his point. Moira McDonald's write-up of the SAIFF and review of the movie is more like what Charles is talking about (referenced earlier), but I still think you can make the case that the roaring praise came mostly from us.

Again, big deal. I really, really liked the movie and basically blew a fuse praising it; they said it was "canny" and "deft" and put it on the same level with The War Tapes. That's a standard bell curve of critical judgment.

Anyway, I don't view the Oscar nomination as confirmation of my approbation, but I do hope it means the movie will reach larger audiences. I also hope our Genius Award and roaring, sustained praise did the same, on a more modest level.

Annie, what's your point? You really want people to know that you liked it more than everyone else. It's childish. This type of pettiness at the Stranger has really been grinding on me, and this is coming from a long-time reader and fan of your paper. You're proud that you guys touted Iraq in Framents, and that's fine. Leave it at that, and ignore the impulse to make amateurish low-blows to the others. It's having the opposite effect of what you intended; you're looking like a fool.

Sadly Annie you missed my point, but luckily enough it was completely understood by Gabriel.

What I was pointing to was the fact that you can't combat that other papers have written about this movie. You don't have a monopoly on it and you should be happy that others are jumping up to praise it too.

I mean how many times does the Stranger and Seattle Weekly write about the same CD or band?

It doesn't matter as long as it's reaching an audience and helping to inform people. I thought that was what alternative weeklys and publications were based on information, not petty feuds, or Neopolian complexes.

What should matter is that an artistic piece is getting the credit that it deserves. You did your part, so don't let your pride manipulate you into dogging on the other papers.

Perhaps they focused their attention on other films that you did not, because you were more focused on this one?

The point is adjust your attention to what YOU DO and not what they do. You'll gain more reader's respect.

No, you guys are missing my point. I am totally thrilled with other papers writing enthusiastic reviews of movies I like. Jesus. I was responding to Fnarf, who was under the impression that the Stranger had not written about the movie prior to the Genius profile.

I'm ambivalent about this point, and apparently ambivalence does not come across in a blog comment. I do think it sucks that it takes attention from the only marginally relevant Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to convince the dailies (so far, not the Weekly) to write a profile of James Longley, who is an incredibly talented local filmmaker. We did, in fact, write a profile dedicated to Longley before any of the other papers in town did and consistently championed the film. HOWEVER, I also think anything that gives Longley's film more attention is GOOD. And therefore I'm happy that it's been nominated for an Oscar, I'm happy that it's getting press in the dailies, and I hope that it will receive another theatrical run in the coming weeks.

Charles and Dan started the pissing contest. I corrected the record when it was being misinterpreted. Please, please, please, stop this unnecessary hostility.

Congratulations, James Longley, producer John Sinno, and editors Billy McMillan and Fiona Otway. Thank you to Longley's translators and fixers and Mohammed Haithem, Sheik Aws al Kafaji, and everybody else who agreed to be filmed. That's all I want to say. It's an important, beautiful, and extremely moving film. You should see it.

WB totally misspelled Napoleon!

Brava Annie, Brava.

Chill, Annie. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression I was or would ever impugne your excellent criticism. And I'm sorry I said "months before" when that was clearly not the case. My bad. I am an asshole, clearly.

But I wasn't going after you at all. It was Charles, and then Dan, who said that the dailies had ignored the movie. This is also clearly not the case; the Times did give the movie "serious attention" way, way back in February, long before any Oscar nomination talk. The reason that rankled a little is because it's dickwaving of a type that just looks foolish. If you're going to get into a pissing contest, you should make sure you have something to pee with first.

I'm a big fan of Dan, and Charles, and Annie Wagner, and I don't read the Times; but they can both be a little irresponsibly loose sometimes. And you can be a little chip-on-the-shouldery. OK?

I gotta admit, though, even if I'm an asshole, it's fun to watch you guys get wound up like that.