Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, April 29, 2009
Film How Not to Talk to Reviewers
Posted by Paul Constant on Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 4:46 PM
There's a moral at the end of this story, I promise.
So I reviewed this movie for the paper over a year ago. It was in town for a festival and I hated it. It was an awful movie. My review said as much. I can assure you that you've never heard of this movie, and the tiny review isn't even in our searchable online archives. If I were to name the movie in this post, it'd be more publicity than this film is worth, so I'm not going to name it. But a producer on the film friended me on Facebook and sent me this message out of the blue (emphasis mine):
you know, we don't really know each other. you reviewed my 1st feature film in the stranger last year when i 1st moved to seattle and you trashed it :) i did some research on your writing and befriended you bc we actually have very similar taste. the thing is this: from the review you wrote i could tell you didn't really watch it. i can understand pre-judging it bc that's what i did when they tried to get me on board. but i believe that it is a wonderful piece of independent cinema in the truest sense of the word independent. [She then asked me to re-watch the movie.] i don't care if you write about it. i just want to you watch it and THEN judge it, even if it's just to yourself.
looking forward to hearing back from you,
I thanked her for the offer to re-watch the movie, and then wrote:
I watched your movie and resent your allegation that I didn't. I watch and read everything I review.Just because something is "independent" doesn't mean it's good, and your film is cliched and amateurish, especially the death at the end.
Thanks for the offer.
Paul
And then she wrote back:
You put things in your "review" that didn't even happen in the film.
Thank you for reinforcing my impression of you.
And I wrote:
I don't see what part of this:[Review of shitty movie here.]
Wasn't in the movie. If any of the review was inaccurate, please let me know and we'll run a correction in the paper.
Thanks,
Paul
And she wrote back:
After re-reading this I question my judgment in reaching out to you again. I wasn't looking for a retraction. If I was I would have written to the editor. You have twisted things in the film to fit your condescending point of view and frankly, with a perspective like yours I no longer care what you think. Fucked up thing is, I like everything else about your paper. Let's leave well enough alone and never contact each other again.
You might be wondering why I'm bothering to put this on Slog. Here comes the moral. after the jump:
If you're a writer or a filmmaker or a theater director and someone writes a negative review of your artwork, you're almost always better off not contacting the reviewer. And if you're trying to reason with the reviewer, for the love of God, don't accuse the reviewer of not viewing, reading, or understanding your art. It starts things off on the wrong foot.
And what's more, never accuse someone of inaccuracies unless there are really inaccuracies there. This is basically the most serious accusation you can lay on a critic, and if it proves to be not true, you've completely blown your credibility. Having an opinion that is different than yours isn't an inaccuracy; it's a review. I've gotten a couple of great e-mails from people whose work I've not liked. They've expressed frustration at my opinion—understandably so—but they've also engaged me in actual meaningful discourse about their artwork. As a result, I'm actually eager to see more work from these people. If this lady ever touches a movie again, I'm going to fucking warn every reviewer I know about how she goes psycho and accuses you of every unethical act under the sun if you don't like her movie.
If you are an artist, you need to keep your temper in check and remember that not everybody cares how much effort you put into your art. Bad reviews are part of the business, and if you are a professional, that means dealing gracefully with them. If you can't do that, you're not long for the business.
2
problem is paul, you are a retarded fuck who shudnt be reviewing anything in the first place... when is ur movie coming out? when is ur book coming out? ONCE YOU OPEN YOURSELF UP TO RIDICULE, YOUR PERSPECTIVE CHANGES.
And thus, since you've offered nothing publicly except criticism, you are a baffoon that no one should take seriously. And I sincerely hope nobody does.
And thus, since you've offered nothing publicly except criticism, you are a baffoon that no one should take seriously. And I sincerely hope nobody does.
3
This is true - however, the Stranger has a well-deserved reputation for snarkiness and dismissing things out of hand... not that that is what's going on in this instance, and your advice is definitely good advice for all of the would-be artists out there.
4
She hardly accused you of 'every unethical act under the sun'. She called you out on somethings that you claim you can prove aren't true - yet you don't prove it here.
Also, if you think if she can't deal with criticism she should get out of the industry, then perhaps that's true for you true. She might be wrong, but she, like you, is entitled to an opinion. Of all people a paid critic is aware of that.
She's obviously wrong, and perhaps a little confused about how to deal with her disappointment at your review but I don't really understand the point of bringing this to light. It seems petty, and your way of one upping someone that you feel violated the pedestal you hold your work on. A tad ironic perhaps?
Also, if you think if she can't deal with criticism she should get out of the industry, then perhaps that's true for you true. She might be wrong, but she, like you, is entitled to an opinion. Of all people a paid critic is aware of that.
She's obviously wrong, and perhaps a little confused about how to deal with her disappointment at your review but I don't really understand the point of bringing this to light. It seems petty, and your way of one upping someone that you feel violated the pedestal you hold your work on. A tad ironic perhaps?
5
There is probably nothing more boring than judging someone's grammar on the internet, but WHOA @2...you should really consider proofreading before calling someone else a retarded fuck and a "baffoon". BTW I'm totally trademarking "baffoon".
6
how can you say:
If this lady ever touches a movie again, I'm going to fucking warn every reviewer I know about how she goes psycho and accuses you of every unethical act under the sun if you don't like her movie.
And then immediately follow with:
"If you are an artist, you need to keep your temper in check...."
?
oy
If this lady ever touches a movie again, I'm going to fucking warn every reviewer I know about how she goes psycho and accuses you of every unethical act under the sun if you don't like her movie.
And then immediately follow with:
"If you are an artist, you need to keep your temper in check...."
?
oy
7
Yeah, okay.
I guess the thing is, the Stranger staff have spent years hammering away at MSM reporters for believing that they have some kind of sacred status as Journalists. Which is a perspective I actually agree with -- a journal is just a printed page, and the people who write content for the page are only as important as the work they produce. But then you guys seem to take the same bullshit in a different direction; you're the scrappy underdogs. You've gotten where you are today, not through the endorsement of The Establishment, but with Raw Talent and Skill. Thing is, the moral of the story is pretty much the same in both cases: don't take that tone with me, young lady -- I'm a Professional. I have Ethics. And I have Connections. So you better just watch yourself there, little missy. And if you can't handle the heat, you better stay out of the kitchen.
I mean, clearly the Stranger does wield influence in Western Washington and, as far as that goes, you're exactly what you say you are -- the new establishment. The alt establishment. And taking that tone with you is, actually, a bad idea, because you do have connections and your reviews matter and all that. But. Just as a point of general fact, if you have to go around telling people how important you are, you probably aren't as important as you think you are. Never mind that that sort of behavior is just tacky on its own merits, it's also a sign that you're on your way to being complacent -- thus lazy, outmoded and irrelevant.
Not that you're worried about that.
I guess the thing is, the Stranger staff have spent years hammering away at MSM reporters for believing that they have some kind of sacred status as Journalists. Which is a perspective I actually agree with -- a journal is just a printed page, and the people who write content for the page are only as important as the work they produce. But then you guys seem to take the same bullshit in a different direction; you're the scrappy underdogs. You've gotten where you are today, not through the endorsement of The Establishment, but with Raw Talent and Skill. Thing is, the moral of the story is pretty much the same in both cases: don't take that tone with me, young lady -- I'm a Professional. I have Ethics. And I have Connections. So you better just watch yourself there, little missy. And if you can't handle the heat, you better stay out of the kitchen.
I mean, clearly the Stranger does wield influence in Western Washington and, as far as that goes, you're exactly what you say you are -- the new establishment. The alt establishment. And taking that tone with you is, actually, a bad idea, because you do have connections and your reviews matter and all that. But. Just as a point of general fact, if you have to go around telling people how important you are, you probably aren't as important as you think you are. Never mind that that sort of behavior is just tacky on its own merits, it's also a sign that you're on your way to being complacent -- thus lazy, outmoded and irrelevant.
Not that you're worried about that.
8
@5,
satire
verb (used with object): to imitate (a composition, author, etc.) for purposes of ridicule.
satire
verb (used with object): to imitate (a composition, author, etc.) for purposes of ridicule.
9
Oh dear God, run away!!!
i believe that it is a wonderful piece of independent cinema in the truest sense of the word independent.
Oh dear God, run away!!!
10
@8 My dear Merriam-Webster does not include your definition. I am not recognizing it as a real word, sorry.
11
Actually, I'd annotate your moral a little: you're better off not contacting the reviewer IF the reviewer is better connected then you are. If, as an artist, you are better connected than a reviewer, you can often cause the reviewer no end of grief by throwing a public fit.
12
Oh, jay. I want to copy edit your comment so intensely I'm actually worried for myself.
I agree that opening yourself to ridicule alters your perspective, but it doesn't necessarily change your opinions. Before I ever sent my work to publishers to get rejected, I hated crappy writing. Guess what? Hundreds of rejections later, I *still* hate crappy writing, and I *still* have no problem pointing it out. My empathy for a fellow artist remains separate from the critical eye I take to their work.
I'm sure Paul could have phrased his review more kindly, but I'm also sure the criticism therein would have remained the same.
I agree that opening yourself to ridicule alters your perspective, but it doesn't necessarily change your opinions. Before I ever sent my work to publishers to get rejected, I hated crappy writing. Guess what? Hundreds of rejections later, I *still* hate crappy writing, and I *still* have no problem pointing it out. My empathy for a fellow artist remains separate from the critical eye I take to their work.
I'm sure Paul could have phrased his review more kindly, but I'm also sure the criticism therein would have remained the same.
13
It's articles like this that make me wonder who those 25 people that want me to friend them on FB really are ... if they're SLOG people, oops, but just getting a friend invite with no accompanying message makes me think you're:
a. lonely
b. desperate to change my mind about something
or
c. trying to rack up friend counts with people you don't know.
All are kind of sad.
But just friending someone to get a good review or retraction ... sigh.
a. lonely
b. desperate to change my mind about something
or
c. trying to rack up friend counts with people you don't know.
All are kind of sad.
But just friending someone to get a good review or retraction ... sigh.
14
@2, Um by posting and allowing comments isn't that what Paul does all the time. He gets his share of criticism and support like any other writer.
15
as to Stranger reviews being spot on - no, they're someone's opinion, and many of us think they're wrong (for us) and hope that the review tells us enough about the movie that we can decide it sounds like something we'd like to see.
As opposed to that shit reviewer Anthony Lane at the New Yorker - guy is seriously lame as a movie reviewer - he should be fired.
As opposed to that shit reviewer Anthony Lane at the New Yorker - guy is seriously lame as a movie reviewer - he should be fired.
16
@2: I would expect that someone who doesn't publish books or produce films--but has a strong cultural knowledge of both fields--would be much more objective and therefore a better reviewer than someone who works in the industry they are charged with reviewing.
17
@4: Nobody "violated" my "pedestal." If I was simply being petty, I'd've posted her name and movie, or a hint as to what the movie is.
I do think that giving advice to artists in how to deal with critics is something that not a lot of artists get before they make their art available to the world, and I think it's useful advice to have.
I freely admit that this lady pissed me off by contacting me with an accusation, countering my response with a separate accusation, and then ending with a third, and completely different, accusation. It struck me as prime "What-not-to-do" advice.
@7: I'm not claiming that I have any fancy connections—"wait until Denby hears this!"—but there's the classic retail rule of thumb that for every positive customer interaction, that customer tells two people, but for every negative customer interaction, that customer tells ten people. I don't know anyone in the media establishment, but I do know a lot of people. If you freak out like this at everyone you don't agree with, sooner or later, you'll alienate a good chunk of people.
I do think that giving advice to artists in how to deal with critics is something that not a lot of artists get before they make their art available to the world, and I think it's useful advice to have.
I freely admit that this lady pissed me off by contacting me with an accusation, countering my response with a separate accusation, and then ending with a third, and completely different, accusation. It struck me as prime "What-not-to-do" advice.
@7: I'm not claiming that I have any fancy connections—"wait until Denby hears this!"—but there's the classic retail rule of thumb that for every positive customer interaction, that customer tells two people, but for every negative customer interaction, that customer tells ten people. I don't know anyone in the media establishment, but I do know a lot of people. If you freak out like this at everyone you don't agree with, sooner or later, you'll alienate a good chunk of people.
18
Wow. Everyone seems to have missed the point.
Paul is not saying "I'm important, so don't piss me off cause I can break you." He's not saying "film reviews are a sacred gift to the world and must never be disputed by the authors of the films reviewed." And he's certainly not "failing to deal with criticism" from this author. He's saying that if you are going to contact the author of an unfavorable review of your work, you probably shouldn't accuse them of lying about your work when, in fact, they did not.
In a sense, this is common sense advice that everyone should follow (don't accuse people of lying when you actually just have a different opinion than they do), but it is very true that young artists -- especially those with less experience in the academic/intellectual worlds -- can tend to react in very self-destructive ways to negative critical reception.
Look, no one likes to hear that their vision and work is crap. All the same, the media and academic response is something that any professional artist has to deal with. Critical opinion certainly isn't the final word about any piece of art, but generally the only viable options for the artist are to 1) Play ball with the critical establishment, or 2) Ignore it. I don't think anyone's ever attained recognition of any kind except infamy by smearing the character of those who don't care for your work.
Paul is not saying "I'm important, so don't piss me off cause I can break you." He's not saying "film reviews are a sacred gift to the world and must never be disputed by the authors of the films reviewed." And he's certainly not "failing to deal with criticism" from this author. He's saying that if you are going to contact the author of an unfavorable review of your work, you probably shouldn't accuse them of lying about your work when, in fact, they did not.
In a sense, this is common sense advice that everyone should follow (don't accuse people of lying when you actually just have a different opinion than they do), but it is very true that young artists -- especially those with less experience in the academic/intellectual worlds -- can tend to react in very self-destructive ways to negative critical reception.
Look, no one likes to hear that their vision and work is crap. All the same, the media and academic response is something that any professional artist has to deal with. Critical opinion certainly isn't the final word about any piece of art, but generally the only viable options for the artist are to 1) Play ball with the critical establishment, or 2) Ignore it. I don't think anyone's ever attained recognition of any kind except infamy by smearing the character of those who don't care for your work.
19
I'm wondering when "Ur" movie is coming out, too. I've often thought that Sumerian civilization was grossly underepresented in modern cinema.
Ur Movie! I'm so psyched now!
Ur Movie! I'm so psyched now!
20
Hey Paul, this sucks. And it sucks because as a reviewer you're remarkably good at judging things for what they are/what they're trying to be, instead of what YOU wanted them to be. You've given me good reviews and bad reviews alike (and, admittedly, anything less than a rave often "feels" like a bad review), but I've always respected your ability to put something in context, and set aside your personal taste if you feel like a work has value to people who just don't happen to be you. These things are hard to do, especially in 200 words. So, thanks. I respect your opinion. And she's a big baby.
21
"And if you're trying to reason with the reviewer, for the love of God, don't accuse the reviewer of not viewing, reading, or understanding your art. It starts things off on the wrong foot."
Unless of course you absolutely know for certain the reviewer didn't in fact view your work, as when for example, you see them walk out at intermission.
Unless of course you absolutely know for certain the reviewer didn't in fact view your work, as when for example, you see them walk out at intermission.
22
@15... that is why I stopped reading "the strangers" movie reviews years ago (they still do them?)... too many reviews were ones where the reviewer would rather show-off their vocabulary and know-it-all'ness, maybe for the editors to fill column count, then there were reviews that actually give me (their audience) anything close to substance. IMDB is now my go-to location for reviews.
but yeah, I think this indy "producer" is just a little pissed-off that the credit card bills from "her prodution" keep coming and coming and coming, but the 'we will fund all costs' dvd distribution offers for her turd are not.
but yeah, I think this indy "producer" is just a little pissed-off that the credit card bills from "her prodution" keep coming and coming and coming, but the 'we will fund all costs' dvd distribution offers for her turd are not.
23
Jay @2. I often disagree with reviews in the Stranger, but your assertion that Paul shouldn't review movies because he hasn't produced one is ridiculous. By this criteria, Roger Ebert shouldn't review movies either.
A vast majority of movie reviewers have never produced, acted in, or directed a movie. A vast majority of book reviewers have never published a book. A vast majority of art critics have never had a public art exhibition in a gallery or museum. In fact, I'd guess it is probably something less than 1%.
Your argument is specious.
A vast majority of movie reviewers have never produced, acted in, or directed a movie. A vast majority of book reviewers have never published a book. A vast majority of art critics have never had a public art exhibition in a gallery or museum. In fact, I'd guess it is probably something less than 1%.
Your argument is specious.
24
Artists should never read reviews anyway. If they want useful artistic feedback (which is NOT the point of reviews), they should talk to other artists who've seen their work and get feedback from them.
25
She didn't say you didn't watch it, she said you didn't "really" watch it, which sounds like it could be true. As in, "how much longer does this piece of shit go on for? Oh fuck, now HE'S cutting up salami. Is that a motif, salami? Am I supposed to ponder the connection to that earlier scene in the deli? Who the fuck cares?"
30
Paul I think your point is absolutely valid and the people in here are the typical Seattle Capitol Hill hipster whiners who think their art trumps the fact that as humans we have an inherent need for actually-enjoyable work.
I don't think you were stuck up. If I were to be accused of not having watched something then reviewing it, I'd be pissed. Super pissed.
The people above are whiners.
Paul wasn't stuck up, he's giving good advice about how humans interact with each other. You're all fucking retarded.
I don't think you were stuck up. If I were to be accused of not having watched something then reviewing it, I'd be pissed. Super pissed.
The people above are whiners.
Paul wasn't stuck up, he's giving good advice about how humans interact with each other. You're all fucking retarded.
32
@30: 'Fucking retarded' aptly describes the plans drunken hobos have for the evening when they pick you up, you shit-stained little suck-up. Oops, better not get you 'super pissed', you might explode.
33
@4 - I look at it like saying no to a second date because you don't want to go even though you're being thoroughly asked. I consider that a smart move.
34
Paul -- this is what you said:
And this is how you paraphrased it:
So, just to be clear, you said you would warn every reviewer you know. Then you corrected to people. You started out talking about reviewers who are, pretty much by definition, people working in the media. You corrected to say that you're not claiming any fancy connections and don't know anyone in the media. If you're not claiming any connections, why did you say "reviewers" instead of "people" the first time? If you don't think there's a difference, why did you change "reviewers" to "people" when you clarified yourself?
So that's thing one.
Thing two is,
I'm not going to argue that artists aren't in business. There's a whole debate there, obviously, but it's not really worth getting into; most artists want to make a living at it if they can, and most of them have to get to that point through self-promotion, so fine. Art's a business and the classic retail rule of thumb applies. But if that's how you're going to come at this, just be clear on where you fit into the picture: you're one of those bitchy University Village shoppers whose sense of entitlement actually makes you feel justified in trying to get a high school senior fired from Bartell's because she didn't know how to validate your parking. Because this is the real world, and if she can't hack it, she's in for a rude awakening. If she can't stand the fire, she should stay out of the kitchen.
Don't take that tone with me, young lady.
More...
If this lady ever touches a movie again, I'm going to fucking warn every reviewer I know about how she goes psycho and accuses you of every unethical act under the sun if you don't like her movie.
And this is how you paraphrased it:
I'm not claiming that I have any fancy connections.... I don't know anyone in the media establishment, but I do know a lot of people. If you freak out like this at everyone you don't agree with, sooner or later, you'll alienate a good chunk of people.
So, just to be clear, you said you would warn every reviewer you know. Then you corrected to people. You started out talking about reviewers who are, pretty much by definition, people working in the media. You corrected to say that you're not claiming any fancy connections and don't know anyone in the media. If you're not claiming any connections, why did you say "reviewers" instead of "people" the first time? If you don't think there's a difference, why did you change "reviewers" to "people" when you clarified yourself?
So that's thing one.
Thing two is,
there's the classic retail rule of thumb that for every positive customer interaction, that customer tells two people, but for every negative customer interaction, that customer tells ten people.
I'm not going to argue that artists aren't in business. There's a whole debate there, obviously, but it's not really worth getting into; most artists want to make a living at it if they can, and most of them have to get to that point through self-promotion, so fine. Art's a business and the classic retail rule of thumb applies. But if that's how you're going to come at this, just be clear on where you fit into the picture: you're one of those bitchy University Village shoppers whose sense of entitlement actually makes you feel justified in trying to get a high school senior fired from Bartell's because she didn't know how to validate your parking. Because this is the real world, and if she can't hack it, she's in for a rude awakening. If she can't stand the fire, she should stay out of the kitchen.
Don't take that tone with me, young lady.
38
@34 No its the customer who tries to get he person fired who, after not knowing how to validate parking and has it explained by the customer, proceeds to follow said customer out to their care and whine like a little fuckwit about how its not their job and you just don't get it.
Paul gave his review, she didn't agree. Fair enough. But instead of handling it like an adult, which would be to either ignore it, learn from it, or engage him in an actual conversation she accused him of not watching it and when asked what he got wrong ended the conversation.
Sorry, but yes in the real world attitude and action has consequences. Whether one is an artist or not.
Paul gave his review, she didn't agree. Fair enough. But instead of handling it like an adult, which would be to either ignore it, learn from it, or engage him in an actual conversation she accused him of not watching it and when asked what he got wrong ended the conversation.
Sorry, but yes in the real world attitude and action has consequences. Whether one is an artist or not.
39
That is a really terrible analogy. A better one might be that the high school senior got pissy at you for daring to ask her to do her job or for daring to criticize her for not doing her job effectively. Maybe it's an overreaction to try to get her fired, but it's still unprofessional and immature behavior. The producer would have been smarter to just keep her trap shut, which is Paul's ultimate lesson. And I hope I don't need to remind you that she approached him.
...you're one of those bitchy University Village shoppers whose sense of entitlement actually makes you feel justified in trying to get a high school senior fired from Bartell's because she didn't know how to validate your parking. Because this is the real world, and if she can't hack it, she's in for a rude awakening.
That is a really terrible analogy. A better one might be that the high school senior got pissy at you for daring to ask her to do her job or for daring to criticize her for not doing her job effectively. Maybe it's an overreaction to try to get her fired, but it's still unprofessional and immature behavior. The producer would have been smarter to just keep her trap shut, which is Paul's ultimate lesson. And I hope I don't need to remind you that she approached him.
41
@12 @23 .... Critics think that because they consume a lot of art that they therefore understand the workings of it. Right?
So, a virgin who consumes hours of pornography daily, does he know anything about having sex?
(He'd tell you so.... But I wouldn't fuck him....)
Criticism is for push-overs. Critics are fuckheads. Get with the program......
So, a virgin who consumes hours of pornography daily, does he know anything about having sex?
(He'd tell you so.... But I wouldn't fuck him....)
Criticism is for push-overs. Critics are fuckheads. Get with the program......
42
You're all missing a huge point here. To read this passive aggressive rant and assign anything other than Paul's hurt feelings is to assume he has readers who see him as more than a trainwreck and friends who see him as more than a wanna-be.
I find it funny how week after week we read The Stranger because it's the 'best' option but nobody really gives a shit about what ECB's opinion is, PC's reviews, or CM's ANYTHING.
I find it funny how week after week we read The Stranger because it's the 'best' option but nobody really gives a shit about what ECB's opinion is, PC's reviews, or CM's ANYTHING.
44
@41: That's an idiotic analogy. Going with the porno-addict idea, that guy's area of knowledge is clearly the porno genre, not the physical acts performed by the actors in that genre. Same with a film critic: someone reviewing Transformers is reviewing the film, not claiming to be an expert on the subject of shapeshifting alien robots.
In any event, any artist who wants an audience beyond his or her coterie kind of has no choice but to acknowledge the intelligence and understanding of those of us who happen not to produce artistic works ourselves. Dismissing their opinions and responses simply because they are not themselves producers of art is not only profoundly arrogant, but is indulging in the worst kind mystification.
In any event, any artist who wants an audience beyond his or her coterie kind of has no choice but to acknowledge the intelligence and understanding of those of us who happen not to produce artistic works ourselves. Dismissing their opinions and responses simply because they are not themselves producers of art is not only profoundly arrogant, but is indulging in the worst kind mystification.
45
Ebert has inaccuracies in most of his reviews. I've come to believe that they're akin to mapmakers including fake towns to detect illicit copies by competitors.
p.s. what was so dramatic about the "moral" that it had to remain hidden "after the jump"?
p.s. what was so dramatic about the "moral" that it had to remain hidden "after the jump"?
46
WiS@13:
You poor thing. Well, I have some good news for you: you and I have several mutual FB friends, and I have never once tried to friend you. So I'm not contributing to the crushing burden that is your hyper-popular life.
those 25 people that want me to friend them on FB...
You poor thing. Well, I have some good news for you: you and I have several mutual FB friends, and I have never once tried to friend you. So I'm not contributing to the crushing burden that is your hyper-popular life.
47
@44 - Your little transformer thing is far more idiotic than my porn thing. The guy still would know nothing about the production of a film by merely viewing it. Thus, as an overly enthusiastic member of the audience, he has no credibility to offer "critique", other than that of self-appointment.....
Do you understand why publications have review sections? All of them? Hint hint, it has to do with advertisements and promotions....
Paul Constant is a little pawn for the industry, as is Roger Ebert, etc.
Let him go on putting himself in the center of those promotional blurbs. Cause after all, when I wanna know about a new movie, there's nothing more terrific than getting a mouthful of a retail clerk's oversized opinion.....
And I don't know about you, but I really wanna read some of Paul Constant's short stories.... I wanna see the air of perfection!!
Do you understand why publications have review sections? All of them? Hint hint, it has to do with advertisements and promotions....
Paul Constant is a little pawn for the industry, as is Roger Ebert, etc.
Let him go on putting himself in the center of those promotional blurbs. Cause after all, when I wanna know about a new movie, there's nothing more terrific than getting a mouthful of a retail clerk's oversized opinion.....
And I don't know about you, but I really wanna read some of Paul Constant's short stories.... I wanna see the air of perfection!!
50
Dear Paul, thank you for your willingness to stick your neck out to make the world a better place, knowing that a million hatchets are waiting to chop your head off.
51
"...from the review you wrote i could tell you didn't really watch it."
I think the word "really" is key here. She didn't suggest you walked out halfway through (like other Stranger reviewers), but that you didn't watch with an open mind, that you had already prejudged it.
Obviously a self-serving charge, and one that can neither be proven nor disproven, but far different from attacking your integrity, as your overwrought hissy-fit would imply.
I think the word "really" is key here. She didn't suggest you walked out halfway through (like other Stranger reviewers), but that you didn't watch with an open mind, that you had already prejudged it.
Obviously a self-serving charge, and one that can neither be proven nor disproven, but far different from attacking your integrity, as your overwrought hissy-fit would imply.
52
Paul Constant is a good critic. He can always be counted on to say why something blows.
I know you're reading and loving this thread, director lady, because you're a glutton for punishment. You should come clean, let us know who you are. Consider it free advertisement. I'm dying to know what all the stink's about.
I know you're reading and loving this thread, director lady, because you're a glutton for punishment. You should come clean, let us know who you are. Consider it free advertisement. I'm dying to know what all the stink's about.
53
The problem is EVERYONE'S a critic. Or everyone thinks they're a critic. So then people critique the critic, and it becomes this crazy vicious cycle. I myself have learned a few lessons in reviewing. 1) I shouldn't be as crazy of a bitch I can be and 2) Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them an awful crazy person (that goes both ways) and 3) The majority of the general population has a dismal sense of humor.
The problem with the director lady Paul's dealing with, is she automatically assumes that because he didn't like it, he must not have REALLY watched it, which is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. That's like saying, I like the color purple, but you don't, so you must not REALLY see it. Bull.
Keep reviewing Paul.
The problem with the director lady Paul's dealing with, is she automatically assumes that because he didn't like it, he must not have REALLY watched it, which is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. That's like saying, I like the color purple, but you don't, so you must not REALLY see it. Bull.
Keep reviewing Paul.
54
Man, what the hell people? There is nothing worse than a damned artist saying "well you just don't get it and that is why you didn't like it." And you know what? They are probably right, you probably just don't get it and that probably is why you don't like it, but who gives a fuck ... if you're only making the art that you want to see that ONLY YOU can truly "get" than don't put it out there for us to judge, okay. There is nothing wrong with doing whatever fucking art you want, do what you want, but if you're making something that you know is not main stream, you are setting yourself up for some serious criticism, and you may not agree with what the critics say, but don't cry about it. If you want to make sure that everyone enjoys your art, go the mainstream route. Sell out and bite your fucking tongue. If you want to make something that you feel is truly artistic, something you would want to see if you were the audience, something that only speaks to those few people out there that are 'like you' than just do it, shut up about it. If you want to grow as an artist within your little "niche" then learn to take criticism. That is one of the greatest things you can learn about making art. You fuck up. People will tell you you fucked up, you can either improve, grow, whatever you want to call it, or you can keep doing what you're doing and realize it is only for you.
55
I think that, unfortunately, SOME reviewers have set a precedent of not actually viewing performances all the way through. Sometimes the reviewer makes note of that, but at other times, they do not. And I'm not getting this second hand, I've actually been there when a Stranger critic leaves at intermission only to put out a review as if they had been there the entire time.
I actually know a great amount of people who use the reviews that the Stranger posts to know what to see by how badly it was rated. Now, this isn't for every reviewer.
That having been said, however, Paul Constant is, in my opinion, a person of integrity and I would say the woman is obviously bonkers.
I actually know a great amount of people who use the reviews that the Stranger posts to know what to see by how badly it was rated. Now, this isn't for every reviewer.
That having been said, however, Paul Constant is, in my opinion, a person of integrity and I would say the woman is obviously bonkers.
56
@48:
Many prominent directors in the film industry have admired Riefenstahl's work, while abhorring her politics: Jean Cocteau, Luis Bunuel, Frank Capra, Orson Welles, Paul Verhoeven - even Steven Spielberg - have at various times expressed admiration for her technical genius while simultaneously expressing disgust for the regime under which it was employed. Film critic Gary Morris called Riefenstahl "an artist of unparalleled gifts, a woman in an industry dominated by men, one of the great formalists of the cinema on a par with Eisenstein or Welles", while Pauline Kael called "Triumph Of The Will" and "Olympia" "the two greatest films ever directed by a woman."
It is entirely possible to appreciate art on its own terms, even when its created by a monster, or in Riefenstahl's case, an apologist for a monster.
Discuss.
Many prominent directors in the film industry have admired Riefenstahl's work, while abhorring her politics: Jean Cocteau, Luis Bunuel, Frank Capra, Orson Welles, Paul Verhoeven - even Steven Spielberg - have at various times expressed admiration for her technical genius while simultaneously expressing disgust for the regime under which it was employed. Film critic Gary Morris called Riefenstahl "an artist of unparalleled gifts, a woman in an industry dominated by men, one of the great formalists of the cinema on a par with Eisenstein or Welles", while Pauline Kael called "Triumph Of The Will" and "Olympia" "the two greatest films ever directed by a woman."
It is entirely possible to appreciate art on its own terms, even when its created by a monster, or in Riefenstahl's case, an apologist for a monster.
Discuss.
57
@56: I think there's something particularly American about demanding that our great artists, athletes, and leaders be great human beings. I mean really, who gives a fuck if Michael Vick fights dogs, other than the extent to which we care that any other person fights dogs. Or the need to find a "poster child" for the immorality of dog fighting. But Vick as a "role model"? As an "idol for our children?" Fuck that.
Anywho, the Europeans don't seem to have that nearly as much.
Anywho, the Europeans don't seem to have that nearly as much.
58
this lady was the "producer" on the film right? I would call that a few steps removed from "artist." In fact, she might have just been trying to stick up for the writer/director/cast of the film (regardless of it's suckiness) On the other hand, I think Paul should have followed his own advice and not replied to her email, because he knew it would get nasty after his response, and he should be above that if he wants to stay in the business of being a critic. I also think beauty is in the eye of the beholder and he should tell us what the film is, and not just assure us that it's garbage.
59
@47: Understanding the process of how a film is created, from conception to distribution, is great, and I think it can enhance a person's appreciation of the film, but there is a difference between appreciation and enjoyment. Some films are well-made, and are perhaps conceptually genius, but the end product still sucks ass. It happens.
Also, to echo @44, consider that just because Paul (or any reviewer) doesn't participate in the art form doesn't mean he isn't intimately familiar with the process. I know it would make your position stronger if that weren't the case, but again....it happens.
Also, to echo @44, consider that just because Paul (or any reviewer) doesn't participate in the art form doesn't mean he isn't intimately familiar with the process. I know it would make your position stronger if that weren't the case, but again....it happens.
60
dexter--- anyone who does not create has no viable understanding of the creative process. period. paul constant is a spectator. period.
anyone who does not PUBLICLY offer his/her creations has no viable understanding of what it means to put yourself on the line, and what it means to be ridiculed by a minion... therefore, such a person has no credibility.
that's why seeing John Updike do a book review on someone else's novel in the NYT is credible...
now, please tell me how Paul Constant is "intimately familiar" with the creative process?
tell me dexter, please tell me..... spectating? tons of spectating....???
anyone who does not PUBLICLY offer his/her creations has no viable understanding of what it means to put yourself on the line, and what it means to be ridiculed by a minion... therefore, such a person has no credibility.
that's why seeing John Updike do a book review on someone else's novel in the NYT is credible...
now, please tell me how Paul Constant is "intimately familiar" with the creative process?
tell me dexter, please tell me..... spectating? tons of spectating....???
61
@58:
I agree wholeheartedly. Posting all the email exchanges was also unprofessional and tacky. He mentions the producer's temper, but posting the email exchanges and then telling the public the "moral" of the story is condescending and pretentious and comes off as retaliation from being angry.
Paul, stick to CRITIQUING. Be a critic. Criticize, tell us what the movie is, what it is trying to do. Come from a place of loving movies, all sorts of movies. Tell us if it fails, tell us if it succeeds, but don't assassinate character through public displays of hurt feelings. Sounds like you got hurt feelings because someone PRIVATELY called you on what they saw as bullshit, then you had to take action to protect your pride.
And another thing: You are childish, Paul. You're threat that you are "going to fucking warn every reviewer I know about how she goes psycho and accuses you of every unethical act under the sun if you don't like her movie," is childish and seriously fucked up. You need to get a hold of yourself and quit slandering people, threatening people.
Awful slog post. Underhanded, juvenile, and unprofessional.
I agree wholeheartedly. Posting all the email exchanges was also unprofessional and tacky. He mentions the producer's temper, but posting the email exchanges and then telling the public the "moral" of the story is condescending and pretentious and comes off as retaliation from being angry.
Paul, stick to CRITIQUING. Be a critic. Criticize, tell us what the movie is, what it is trying to do. Come from a place of loving movies, all sorts of movies. Tell us if it fails, tell us if it succeeds, but don't assassinate character through public displays of hurt feelings. Sounds like you got hurt feelings because someone PRIVATELY called you on what they saw as bullshit, then you had to take action to protect your pride.
And another thing: You are childish, Paul. You're threat that you are "going to fucking warn every reviewer I know about how she goes psycho and accuses you of every unethical act under the sun if you don't like her movie," is childish and seriously fucked up. You need to get a hold of yourself and quit slandering people, threatening people.
Awful slog post. Underhanded, juvenile, and unprofessional.
63
This is a very interesting thread of comments, I have become enthralled in what people have been saying all day long. I think that people are being too hard on Paul ... to be perfectly honest ... saying that his post was juvenile and that his feelings were hurt kind of makes you all seem very naive. I am not saying that he is incapable of having his feelings hurt or anything along those lines, I don't know him. I think that we are all too protective of "artists" and "art" in general, and that is why there has been such a visceral reaction to his posting a "private" email thread here.
He did ask this person to point out where he misrepresented the movie, they did say outright that he put things in the review that did not happen in the movie. Do not call someone out like that unless you can back it up and unless you want to see something come of it. This person was not just contacting Paul because they have 'similar' tastes in movies and they felt that he was genuinely missing out on this 'great' thing. That is BS.
Maybe it is true that Paul didn't "really" watch the movie in the sense that this person would have liked ... maybe not. But ... I don't think that is the point here. The point is that to him it was so bad that he couldn't watch it in the way that this person would have liked. He couldn't get to the message, right? I suffered some terrible movies that were utterly disappointing because they were such a good idea! But that does not make the movie itself any good.
I think that it is totally legit to say you would warn other critics of a person who makes accusations that they cannot, or at least refuse to, back up. There may have been some vengeance in the voice of Paul's post, but who gives a fuck? He is a critic saying honestly to people, 'hey, if you want me to have your back in this biz, don't be a fucking asshole.'
More...
He did ask this person to point out where he misrepresented the movie, they did say outright that he put things in the review that did not happen in the movie. Do not call someone out like that unless you can back it up and unless you want to see something come of it. This person was not just contacting Paul because they have 'similar' tastes in movies and they felt that he was genuinely missing out on this 'great' thing. That is BS.
Maybe it is true that Paul didn't "really" watch the movie in the sense that this person would have liked ... maybe not. But ... I don't think that is the point here. The point is that to him it was so bad that he couldn't watch it in the way that this person would have liked. He couldn't get to the message, right? I suffered some terrible movies that were utterly disappointing because they were such a good idea! But that does not make the movie itself any good.
I think that it is totally legit to say you would warn other critics of a person who makes accusations that they cannot, or at least refuse to, back up. There may have been some vengeance in the voice of Paul's post, but who gives a fuck? He is a critic saying honestly to people, 'hey, if you want me to have your back in this biz, don't be a fucking asshole.'
64
jay @ 60 and elsewhere;
Your arguments that only filmmakers can review films is absurd. Films are not made for filmmakers. Filmmakers are not the only people who enjoy films. Filmmakers are not the only people who understand films. There are many people who have never taken a film class who understand films. Knowing the ins and outs of the process of filmmaking is no prerequisite for enjoying film any more than being trained in sculpture in necessary for appreciating sculpture.
Therefore, if you don't have to create film in order to appreciate it, you don't have to create film in order to criticize it either.
Your arguments that only filmmakers can review films is absurd. Films are not made for filmmakers. Filmmakers are not the only people who enjoy films. Filmmakers are not the only people who understand films. There are many people who have never taken a film class who understand films. Knowing the ins and outs of the process of filmmaking is no prerequisite for enjoying film any more than being trained in sculpture in necessary for appreciating sculpture.
Therefore, if you don't have to create film in order to appreciate it, you don't have to create film in order to criticize it either.
65
@60, Paul is writing reviews. Writing: it's a form of art, yes? And he is being taken to task in public. It seems he and his nemesis are walking in the same shoes.
66
@64
"Filmmakers are not the only people who enjoy films".... WTF?
Anybody can review a film, and many people do. Some in publications, some in conversation with friends. What I am arguing is CREDIBILITY, which requires something more than lots of spectatorship. It requires an understanding of the creative process from the first person perspective.
Paul Constant has never made a movie. Nor published a novel. For him to sit on a throne and offer holier-than-thou critiques of movies and novels is just plain old bullshit.
@65
Writing reviews is not a form of art. Altho in the case of Paul Constant, it is a form of masturbation.
"Filmmakers are not the only people who enjoy films".... WTF?
Anybody can review a film, and many people do. Some in publications, some in conversation with friends. What I am arguing is CREDIBILITY, which requires something more than lots of spectatorship. It requires an understanding of the creative process from the first person perspective.
Paul Constant has never made a movie. Nor published a novel. For him to sit on a throne and offer holier-than-thou critiques of movies and novels is just plain old bullshit.
@65
Writing reviews is not a form of art. Altho in the case of Paul Constant, it is a form of masturbation.
67
jay @66, elsewhere.. this is pointless I know, since you're just declaring over and over again that your opinion that "it's not possible to have a credible opinion of something you've never done yourself" is the indisputable truth, but my god man, it's really one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard.
You seriously think that it's not possible to have a credible opinion of something you haven't participated in first-hand? In fact, it's often the opposite. If someone reviews or criticizes something they're intimately involved with, it's what's known as a conflict of interest. If Paul's reviews were to be informed by "understanding the creative process from the first person perspective," he'd probably be more sympathetic to the hard work that went into creating the films he reviews, and this would make him a LESS credible reviewer.
The process is irrelevant. The care, the heart, the money, the fingers and toes lost - all 100% irrelevant to a critical review of the film. The review is of the final product and should not be influenced by knowledge of the creation process.
You seriously think that it's not possible to have a credible opinion of something you haven't participated in first-hand? In fact, it's often the opposite. If someone reviews or criticizes something they're intimately involved with, it's what's known as a conflict of interest. If Paul's reviews were to be informed by "understanding the creative process from the first person perspective," he'd probably be more sympathetic to the hard work that went into creating the films he reviews, and this would make him a LESS credible reviewer.
The process is irrelevant. The care, the heart, the money, the fingers and toes lost - all 100% irrelevant to a critical review of the film. The review is of the final product and should not be influenced by knowledge of the creation process.
68
Jay, being able to understand a movie is ALL the credibility a film critic needs.
You can take Constant to task for how he reviews films, as that's all a matter of opinion. But your declaration that only filmmakers have the inherent credibility to critique film is just silly.
You can take Constant to task for how he reviews films, as that's all a matter of opinion. But your declaration that only filmmakers have the inherent credibility to critique film is just silly.
69
@ 67 & 68
I am in total agreement with both of you. It is just silly. Not only that, but as a layman in the movie making aspect, I don't really want to know which movies are best from a makers' point of view ... I want to know which movies are best from the point of view of someone with my same (or at least similar) knowledge of the movie making process. If you're not making movies for us, then don't get mad if we don't get or don't like it. Sheesh.
I am in total agreement with both of you. It is just silly. Not only that, but as a layman in the movie making aspect, I don't really want to know which movies are best from a makers' point of view ... I want to know which movies are best from the point of view of someone with my same (or at least similar) knowledge of the movie making process. If you're not making movies for us, then don't get mad if we don't get or don't like it. Sheesh.
70
@68 As I said earlier, what you're missing here is that every paper in every city has a review section(s), and the reason is because reviews are part of the industry. PC uses his day job to grossly overshoot his intellectual energy. In the public square, as it were, he has no credibility and absolutely no justification to offer such a degree of critique.
But, alas, people like you eat it up.....
@67 I like your delivery. Hate your content....
To look solely at the final product of any form of art, and to see it as only that- a final product- is exactly why you and PC and the like should be kept miles away from such things. Again, why? Because you are merely spectators, looking for gratifying entertainment, while completely oblivious to anything that wasn't served up on the platter....
If Paul Constant, Storky, Matt from Denver, or anyone else wants to be a member of an artistic community, here's a metaphor I'll leave for ya---
You're watching your son learn how to ride a bike. He falls off. Since you yourself know how to ride a bike, you offer him clues and encourage him to keep at it....
But if you don't know how to ride a bike, you're a piece of shit parent and person, and you need to learn how to ride a fucking bike man!
And HEY, why are you yelling at your son? So what, he fell... You don't even know how to fucking ride!!!!
But, alas, people like you eat it up.....
@67 I like your delivery. Hate your content....
To look solely at the final product of any form of art, and to see it as only that- a final product- is exactly why you and PC and the like should be kept miles away from such things. Again, why? Because you are merely spectators, looking for gratifying entertainment, while completely oblivious to anything that wasn't served up on the platter....
If Paul Constant, Storky, Matt from Denver, or anyone else wants to be a member of an artistic community, here's a metaphor I'll leave for ya---
You're watching your son learn how to ride a bike. He falls off. Since you yourself know how to ride a bike, you offer him clues and encourage him to keep at it....
But if you don't know how to ride a bike, you're a piece of shit parent and person, and you need to learn how to ride a fucking bike man!
And HEY, why are you yelling at your son? So what, he fell... You don't even know how to fucking ride!!!!
72
@70
The artistic process means shit to an audience if the final project is entirely unenjoyable. If it is the artistic process that is the ENTIRE point of the final product then do a fucking documentary on that process. Don't give me a final piece and say "hey, I know the final piece is not great, but wait till you hear what it took to get it done"
It is not the process that PC is critiquing, it is the final product. Many great ideas can fall flat on their face.
PC said outright in his post that he has received emails from other people that he has reviewed and they have had conversations which led him to actually be excited about seeing their next project.
And again, you're missing the point of the post. Whether you find PC's opinion legit or not, the point is that if you want a reviewer to have your back in the biz, don't be a fucking asshole or make unfounded claims about a review.
I don't read stranger reviews either, but your arguments are nonsense.
The artistic process means shit to an audience if the final project is entirely unenjoyable. If it is the artistic process that is the ENTIRE point of the final product then do a fucking documentary on that process. Don't give me a final piece and say "hey, I know the final piece is not great, but wait till you hear what it took to get it done"
It is not the process that PC is critiquing, it is the final product. Many great ideas can fall flat on their face.
PC said outright in his post that he has received emails from other people that he has reviewed and they have had conversations which led him to actually be excited about seeing their next project.
And again, you're missing the point of the post. Whether you find PC's opinion legit or not, the point is that if you want a reviewer to have your back in the biz, don't be a fucking asshole or make unfounded claims about a review.
I don't read stranger reviews either, but your arguments are nonsense.
73
@71 and @72
I love how neither of you read the reviews!
(Certainly, I don't blame you...)
But if you don't read Paul's reviews, why are you making statements in their defense?
In fact, the whole premise of my argument is that PC's criticism is far beyond his credibility......
How the fuck you gonna argue it one way of the other if you don't read his shit!?!?
Here's a taste of the true utter NONSENSE....
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
I love how neither of you read the reviews!
(Certainly, I don't blame you...)
But if you don't read Paul's reviews, why are you making statements in their defense?
In fact, the whole premise of my argument is that PC's criticism is far beyond his credibility......
How the fuck you gonna argue it one way of the other if you don't read his shit!?!?
Here's a taste of the true utter NONSENSE....
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
74
If you expect artists to be even-tempered, level-headed creatures with always the most apt decorum, and if you distance yourself from works made by those who aren't, you'll be missing out on a large chunk of great stuff.
75
@73
Okay, I give you that. I do not read his reviews and I was basing my comments entirely off of the idea that you presented which was that his criticism is far beyond his credibility because he himself is not a creator of the art which he criticizes (paraphrasing based on my understanding of your argument). That argument (as I have come to understand your meaning) is entirely bunk and I still disagree with that argument whole heartedly.
I do entirely believe that those of us lucky enough to be trained in the arts have a whole new beautiful meaning that they can lend to the pieces we observe. Don't get me wrong. But that is certainly not a prerequisite in holding a valued opinion of the arts themselves.
Reviewers get to where they are because there are people out there who enjoy, agree with, and promote that persons' opinions. People who may not have the extra special understanding that those involved in the processes themselves have, but do have a respected understanding. I may be a painter, but I am not a writer or a movie producer and I appreciate having someone that makes suggestions, I find the reviewers whose opinions I do come trust, and I ignore those that I don't agree with or that have lead me astray in their suggestions.
And I did, painfully, make it almost to the end of the article which you suggested. Reminded myself, again, of why I do not read the reviews in this paper, ugh, and whereas I find his writing all over the place and entirely unreadable. The flow jumps and twitters like a school girl touching herself for the first time ... ugh ... I still don't see where his review is beyond his credibility. His review is based off of his own experience in reading ... (in the case of the article you pointed to). Though his language is abrasive and his opinions strong, I still do not see where your argument holds water.
Unfortunately you probably won't be convincing me otherwise. It is all kind of a pointless argument either way. People will continue to read and enjoy his articles. Funny thing is you're the one that is so offended by his abuse of his reviewing power, yet of the 3 of us, you're the only one that continually subjects yourself to the torture of reading the reviews.
More...
Okay, I give you that. I do not read his reviews and I was basing my comments entirely off of the idea that you presented which was that his criticism is far beyond his credibility because he himself is not a creator of the art which he criticizes (paraphrasing based on my understanding of your argument). That argument (as I have come to understand your meaning) is entirely bunk and I still disagree with that argument whole heartedly.
I do entirely believe that those of us lucky enough to be trained in the arts have a whole new beautiful meaning that they can lend to the pieces we observe. Don't get me wrong. But that is certainly not a prerequisite in holding a valued opinion of the arts themselves.
Reviewers get to where they are because there are people out there who enjoy, agree with, and promote that persons' opinions. People who may not have the extra special understanding that those involved in the processes themselves have, but do have a respected understanding. I may be a painter, but I am not a writer or a movie producer and I appreciate having someone that makes suggestions, I find the reviewers whose opinions I do come trust, and I ignore those that I don't agree with or that have lead me astray in their suggestions.
And I did, painfully, make it almost to the end of the article which you suggested. Reminded myself, again, of why I do not read the reviews in this paper, ugh, and whereas I find his writing all over the place and entirely unreadable. The flow jumps and twitters like a school girl touching herself for the first time ... ugh ... I still don't see where his review is beyond his credibility. His review is based off of his own experience in reading ... (in the case of the article you pointed to). Though his language is abrasive and his opinions strong, I still do not see where your argument holds water.
Unfortunately you probably won't be convincing me otherwise. It is all kind of a pointless argument either way. People will continue to read and enjoy his articles. Funny thing is you're the one that is so offended by his abuse of his reviewing power, yet of the 3 of us, you're the only one that continually subjects yourself to the torture of reading the reviews.
76
@ 73, I second everything 75 says, except that I don't have time to read the article you posted now.
As I said above, there are other things I'm sure you can take PC to task for, but simply not being a filmmaker ain't one of them. You're most definitely free to make that a personal criterion for evaluating a film critic, but it's not a universal truth.
As I said above, there are other things I'm sure you can take PC to task for, but simply not being a filmmaker ain't one of them. You're most definitely free to make that a personal criterion for evaluating a film critic, but it's not a universal truth.
77
@75
Well that article was not a review. I linked it solely for it's disaster within....
And, truly, you will never see where my argument "holds water" if you do not read his reviews. Simply, they reek of the air of expertise.
Listen, somebody has to write reviews. That's how papers work. And I am not here saying that all reviewers need to be artists themselves.
However, if such reviewers want to move out of the vein of "soft anonymous opinion" and into the realm of "high-brow personalized criticism", they need the entire package, which includes public offerings of creative work.
This whole argument reminds of a film I watched a few months ago which featured a marriage counselor who had never been married....
Same fucking thing.
Well that article was not a review. I linked it solely for it's disaster within....
And, truly, you will never see where my argument "holds water" if you do not read his reviews. Simply, they reek of the air of expertise.
Listen, somebody has to write reviews. That's how papers work. And I am not here saying that all reviewers need to be artists themselves.
However, if such reviewers want to move out of the vein of "soft anonymous opinion" and into the realm of "high-brow personalized criticism", they need the entire package, which includes public offerings of creative work.
This whole argument reminds of a film I watched a few months ago which featured a marriage counselor who had never been married....
Same fucking thing.
78
@77
Does that mean that a psychiatrist has to have been crazy in order to offered legitimate assistance?
I do agree with you that the article you sent was a complete disaster.
Does that mean that a psychiatrist has to have been crazy in order to offered legitimate assistance?
I do agree with you that the article you sent was a complete disaster.
79
sorry "offer" legitimate assistance.
And really, a reviewer only has the power that you, as the reader gives them.
And really, a reviewer only has the power that you, as the reader gives them.
81
I guess the psychiatrist, themselves, would not be the telling factor in their effectiveness, their patients would. Obviously PC must be doing something at least somewhat right if people are still reading his articles, including yourself despite your seemingly strong feelings against his expertise.
I am extremely curious as to why it is that you read his reviews if you find him to be such a blow-hard. Really, he would not have this effect on you if you just didn't read the articles. Does his bad writing really have any adverse effects on your life? Are you a disgruntled artist? The brunt of one of his awful reviews?
I am extremely curious as to why it is that you read his reviews if you find him to be such a blow-hard. Really, he would not have this effect on you if you just didn't read the articles. Does his bad writing really have any adverse effects on your life? Are you a disgruntled artist? The brunt of one of his awful reviews?
82
i take pride in my local media. isn't it bothersome that you can't read reviews in your hometown paper because a delusional man is barfing all over the pages?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (85) RSS