Tomorrow morning, I'll be on KPCC's (Pasadena's most excellent public radio station) FilmWeek program talking about the state of documentary and documentary film criticism (batten down the hatches) with host Larry Mantle, filmmaker Patrick Creadon and others. Listen online at 11 AM west coast time or on the FilmWeek podcast on iTunes. Programs are achived on the AirTalk page.
Begging your forgiveness for the lack of postings this week (more on that soon), but am persuaded to join the "Friday Funnies" crowd and point you to a posting over at our pal Agnes Varnum's blog.
Agnes made some fairly benign observations about the 3-year old hybrid film THE AMERICAN RULING CLASS, based on an extended trailer posted on YouTube. Mostly, she pondered why "the film didn't make a big splash" after high profile screenings at Tribeca and IDFA, among other festivals. To this, director John Kirby responded with full defensive gusto and, well, hilarity ensues.
So pour your coffee and settle on down with this for a bit. Interesting questions about how one should respond to criticism of one's work, the success/failure ratio of presenting unmixed rough cuts at major festivals and the surprising use of racially-loaded epithets. Not to mention howling at the moon o'er all the "vain fat cats who run (the) independent film scene these days".
So which are you dear reader, vain fat cat or free-thinking, English-speaking, Harper's-reading fighter of techno-fascism?
She's a fucking great writer:
"The ultimate male power one-man-show, IRON MAN is less successful as political allegory than as sexual fantasia. Its most exhilarating moments are essentially pornographic: gadget porn, war porn, rehab porn (you don’t have to see the thing to know that the spiritual rehabilitation for the protagonist is supported subtextually by the actual rehabilitation of the actor who plays him), and porn porn. Each incarnation of Tony Stark’s super suit is sexier than the last, with the final model’s lovingly CGIed streamlined curves simultaneously suggesting hardness and touchability. Better still are the countless close-ups of Robert Downey Jr inside this metal womb, his face fixed in concentrated ecstasy as his hands ejaculate fire. Oh, whoops–spoiler alert."
The almost unthinkable is happening this month. Three high profile documentaries are about to open - one from an Oscar winner, one from an Oscar nominee - and each is, currently at least, pulling in a passel of negative reviews.
This almost never happens. Look at the list of best reviewed films of the year and it's nearly always chockablock with nonfiction. Now, of course I'd love to argue that this is because doc filmmakers are an almost universally excellent breed, but truth is that critics don't usually know what to do with documentaries, particularly ones with topics that they approve of.
So perhaps the fact that these three films - EXPELLED, WHERE IN THE WORLD IS OSAMA BIN LADEN? and STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE - aren't getting knee jerk approval should be seen as some kind of brave step forward. But it's still surprising to look at some of the early reviews (with more due today for EXPELLED and WHERE IN THE WORLD) and see the catcalls:
EXPELLED currently (as of just past midnight on Friday morning) at 9% on Rotten Tomatoes and 38 (Generally Negative Reviews) on Metacritic.
WHERE IN THE WORLD IS OSAMA BIN LADEN? currently at 33% on Rotten Tomatoes and 43 (Mixed or Average Reviews) on Metacritic.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE, which, granted, only has 5 reviews posted, is now at 40% on Rotten Tomatoes. That will likely increase as we get closer to the release.
Particularly in light of Tuesday's night Cinema Eye Honors, I feel the need to point to Thursday's Hollywood Reporter story by Gregg Goldstein on the fact that many documentary films are no longer being reviewed by major newspapers upon their theatrical release.
Goldstein notes that two of this year's Cinema Eye winners - Alex Gibney's Oscar winning TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE and Asger Leth's GHOSTS OF CITE SOLEIL - were not reveiwed by the New York Post when they opened in NYC.
The New York Post's top film critic Lou Lumenick (who writes a nifty blog) says that there are just too many indie films:
"The number of films opening in New York City has exploded in the last three years -- 14, 16, 18 titles some weeks, many of them shot on video and playing for a single week in one theater on the way to video. We simply don't have the space or the staff (three reviewers, all of whom have other responsibilities) to review them all, so we make tough decisions on a case by case, week by week, basis."
Of course, neither TAXI nor GHOSTS fit the description that Lumenick offers, so it's clear that there's something more going on than just separating the wheat from the chaff.
Goldstein further notes that the Post's crosstown rival Daily News "offered online-only reviews of "Taxi," the Oscar-shortlisted docu "Lake of Fire" and the the most acclaimed foreign film of last year, "4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days."
When KURT COBAIN ABOUT A SON began to open around the country last fall, I noticed a huge difference from our release of GIGANTIC just four year's earlier. When GIGANTIC opened, we were reviewed in NYC by the Times, Post, Daily News, Newsday and Voice. For ABOUT A SON we were reviewed by the Times, Post, Sun and Voice. And as we went around the country, nearly 40 percent of our reviews were pulled from wire service reviews. This only happened once on GIGANTIC.
Goldstein points to recent layoffs of film critics as a prime cause:
"Critics have recently been laid off, bought out of their contracts or left and were not replaced at the Los Angeles Times, the Village Voice, New York Newsday and more than 15 papers around the country.
In their place, papers have begun running wire service reviews or relying on a mix of stringers. That, however, diminishes the impact of the reviews, because "you don't know enough about a person's voice and what they like for their review to count," according to L.A.-based publicist Fredell Pogodin."
I agree with Pogodin and think that it's at least one of the reasons for the struggle that documentaries are facing theatrically these days. Unfortunately, Lumenick is of the opinion that readers don't give a damn:
""The only complaints we've gotten [on not running some reviews] are from publicists and distributors," says the Post's Lumenick. "Not a single one from readers." "
That may be true but isn't it disconcerting for a fairly important film critic to defend his paper's failure to review an Oscar winning film by saying that readers didn't complain about it? Is that the state of film criticism these days - it's OK to skip films if the readers don't mind? If so, than why should we care if film critics stay or go from the nation's newspapers?
Thankfully, I've noticed (and Goldstein reports) that some of the gap is being filled by a number of online writers who are covering smaller films, particularly documentaries. And one could argue - for good or for ill - that the Times and Voice reviews are the only ones that matter to regular art house attendees. But in a trying time for nonfiction, it's a bad sign that when print film critics choose favorites, it's often nonfiction that gets left out.
While an exceptional year for film quality, tt would be a mistake to argue that 2007 was a good year for the nonfiction film "industry", such as it is. Despite the best efforts of many (from filmmakers to writers to distributors to exhibitors), the year featured one bad news story after another - box office down, interest down, distribution options down. And then, come the end of the year, the bad joke that was the Academy's Documentary Feature Shortlist - long on staidness, short on imagination.
So, grab a stiff drink and revisit the lowlights of a thoroughly depressing year as we recap The Top 5 Issues in Nonfiction 2007:
5. All Michael Moore, All the Time
The unveiling of a new Michael Moore opus is starting to seem like the release of a new Harry Potter book. In addition to the release itself, there's the nonstop hubbub and hoopla that surrounds it. With Potter, this means costumed kids standing in line at bookstores. With Michael Moore, it means an endless series of "fact-checks" from the "serious media", lambastes from conservatives ("it didn't gross 100 million, it's a flop!") and tortured second-guessing from the left ("someone has to say it, I just wish it didn't come with all his baggage").
This year, the SXSW-premiere of a new, supposedly unbiased anti-Moore film kicked off the debate a full three months early. The subsequent whining by the film's makers that festivals were blocking their film in deference to the mighty Michael added some questionable last-minute PR to their cause. Throughout all of it, it became clear that it wasn't enough to debate SICKO, Moore's treatise on the health care crisis, because we were still having an active debate about Moore's first feature, ROGER & ME.
But SICKO provided it's own controversies (including the aforementioned idiocity that it was somehow a flop), with charges of hypocrisy (why is he staying at the Four Seasons if he's such a "man of the people", wondered the very un-serious LA Times) and loose journalism (from the likes of Wolf Blitzer).
Seems unlikely to stop the kudos to come: Moore's position as "the most important man in nonfiction"™ neatly guarantees loads of critics prizes (especially from groups that barely see more than 5 docs a year) and a probable Oscar nod. Meanwhile, Moore-haters and liberals who like to seem above it all can bask in the critical drubbing of CAPTAIN MIKE ACROSS AMERICA, his Toronto-premiering tour film.
4. Oscar Qualifying Rules
What started in late 2006 as a bit of anger and much head-scratching over the Academy's charge that films had to play 14 cities in 10 states, ended just as bizarrely this fall with a total reversal - you only have to play in New York and Los Angeles. In between was months of debate over whether the new rules would make it impossible for films to qualify or would guarantee that the shortlisted films were true theatricals. The verdict - no and no.
It hit a nadir when IRAQ IN FRAGMENTS producer John Sinno wrote, days after the Oscars, an Open Letter to the Academy, in which he blasted the new rules. His screed captured the "sky is falling" attitude of some in the doc community and prompted many uninformed film writers to guess that most films would be out of the running under such a system. The truth was that plenty of films would have been able to qualify in past years and 70 films still found a way to qualify this year, and (as you'll see at issue #2) being a true theatrical release was in no way a mandate.
But beyond the surface reactions, there were serious issues. The Academy seemed to have no idea what venues actually qualified a true theatrical venue. They planned to leave such research up to filmmakers and theater owners to determine. Meanwhile, a cottage industry was born, as filmmakers without distribution (or whose distribution was pending) spent tens of thousands of dollars making sure their films traveled to enough cities.
The Academy seemed to realize that the whole theatrical mandate was a debacle, but their fix is likely even worse. In a repudiation of the last decade's push for theatrical releases, we're back to a 2-city requirement. It may not be the bad old days of Saturday morning screenings at 11 AM, but it's not much better - a week in Los Angeles (likely again hidden in the sparsely-attended downtown Laemmle) and a week in New York (hey Anthology Film Archives, your phone is ringing). You know that the likes of HBO and THINK will be able to secure a week, but will you?
3. Declining Distribution
One of the not-so-quiet secrets of the year has been the struggle of many award-winning films to get distribution. The storyline usually goes something like this - film premieres at a major festival and wins prizes and plaudits, interest is expressed by one or two of the usual doc-distributing suspects (Magnolia, THINK, IFC, etc.), a deal is discussed and seems to be in the offing. Then, suddenly, the deal is off and the filmmaker ends up making a deal with a smaller, start-up company that promises grass-roots marketing with fingers crossed that theaters and press will come aboard.
Of the 7 major North American festivals that award prizes for nonfiction - Sundance, SXSW, Full Frame, Hot Docs, Tribeca, Silverdocs & Los Angeles - only one grand jury prize winner, Alex Gibney's TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE, ended up with an experienced distributor - THINKFilm. The others, which include Jason Kohn's MANDA BALA (SEND A BULLET), Jennifer Venditti's BILLY THE KID and Pernille Rose Gronkjær's THE MONASTERY - MR. VIG & THE NUN, all ended up patching together distribution, with MANDA BALA thus far fairing the best. The Sundance jury winner has made more than $
One would have to go back to 2001's Southern Comfort (about the life of transsexual Robert Eads) to find a grand jury winner at Sundance that didn't wind up with an established distributor on board. And this was before the two big purchases out of Sundance - IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON and MY KID COULD PAINT THAT - disappointed at the box office. So what does that bode for 2008?
2. The Oscar Shortlist
After all the maneuvering by the Academy and the posturing about the importance of theatrical distribution (see issue #4), when the Academy released its vaunted Shortlist of 15 films in November, shockwaves reverberated through the nonfiction community.
On its face, the list made a lie of the Academy's so-called theatrical mandate. Only six films of the fifteen had actually had a traditional theatrical release. Three of the films had already aired on television.
But it was the films that didn't make it that brought the most heat. During a year in which the notion of a nonfiction new wave began to take hold - auteurs (not journalists) taking real risks with craft and filmmaking style, telling true stories with vision and artistry - the Academy ignored so many truly great films that the mind reeled.
A number of impassioned words were written on the topic here and elsewhere, and these brought a strong, mostly supportive, response. Startlingly, we received a great deal of positive reinforcement from where you might least expect it - from members of the Academy and members of the IDA (which was also criticized). So if Academy members know that this year's list is - as more than one Academy member told me - "a scandal", then how did it happen?
We'll likely never know, other than oft-repeated tales of out-of-touch members receiving boxes of DVDs and picking films that played well for them on their television screens, which is an impressive way to reinforce a theatrical mandate.
For our part, the entire episode, from the list to the response, has inspired us to tackle something we began discussing with folks earlier in the year. You'll be hearing about it in the days to come.
1. Dismal Box Office
I'm as big a cheerleader for theatrical nonfiction viability as the next person, but after months of trying to wish it untrue, even I have to admit that it was a terrible year for nonfiction at the box office.
Part of it was our own fault. Filmmakers and distributors left the first half of 2008 nearly dry of high profile releases. By October, there were as many notable nonfiction films opening on a weekend as there were in the first five months of 2007. Not a good idea.
But there was something else too. A sense that documentaries are medicinal? That Seinfeld was right - we're incredibly depressing? Too much bad news in the world anyway and you don't want to pay $10 for it, you'll just wait to put it in your queue?
Compared to any year since 2002, when BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE changed everything, it was the worst year for docs by far. Expected hits like IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON were big disappointments. Folks at Magnolia are still scratching their heads over why mobs didn't show up for CRAZY LOVE. And after coming up way short on both MY KID COULD PAINT THAT and JIMMY CARTER MAN FROM PLAINS, how much does Sony Pictures Classics have to make on Errol Morris' upcoming film to ever want to pick up a doc again.
Waves come and go and 2008 could change everything, what with Errol and Spurlock's did-he or didn't-he find bin Laden flick. But in a year with a lot of bad news, the site of an empty theatre was the worst news of all.
Last week, I wrote a post about a film critics seminar at IDFA that was led by the critic John Anderson. You can find that commentary here. In short, I used some of the themes raised in that seminar - as reported by IDFA's Daily newspaper - as evidence that some film critics are failing in their reviews of nonfiction filmmaking. This has prompted a response from Anderson, which I have plucked from the comments section so that it can be seen here in its own post, followed by a short response:
AJ Schnack is very glib, but was he (or she?) at IDFA? Or just further mutilating appropriated Dutch-into-English reportage? Either way, Schnack is thoroughly misinterpreting the points I was making (or at least trying to make) during my Talk of the Day moment -- a segment advertised each day as a "critical rant," although that aspect seems to elude AJ, too. What I said was that if an imaginary movie could cure cancer, the critic would, as a responsible HUMAN BEING have to give it a good review. And once you've admitted the fact that content can dictate your critique assessment of a film, you've admitted a lot. But of course it's a question of degree. Most films, in case I need to make it clear, do not come anywhere close to curing cancer, but they're well-intentioned, meant to advertise a crisis or issue that needs to be exposed, and thus deserve at least some respect -- not the mean-spirited "criticism" leveled at a lot of perfectly decent films that don't happen to fit a particular critic's worldview, or biases.
As for the seminar, I was again misrepresented. In making my points about "Devils on Horseback" I used the film to illustrate how the juxtaposition of images -- a besieged village, say, and then subject Brian Siedle walking in the sun with his camera -- could be viewed as a bit disengenuous because Siedle wasn't shot in Darfur, yet the impression is given is that he's there, and the presumed intention is to put him there in that moment. The filmmakers of 'devils" are upfront about having used others' footage, and not having shot in Darfur at all. But I thought examining their construction of sequences would be of use to the students.
Um, what else... oh, yes, if you want to create fiction, create fiction. If you want to co-opt the immediacy and urgency implied by the word "documentary" it behooves you to follow some rules. Don't mislead your audience and don't use the cutting room to fabricate what you couldn't capture in your camera. "Billy the Kid," by the way, is such a painfully exploitative film I don't know how anyone can defend it, except perhaps those who enjoy zoos, circus sideshows and visiting days at correctional institutions.
* * * * * * *
While John Anderson is correct that I was not at IDFA and was relying on an article translated from Dutch for my piece, I'm not at all sure what he believes misrepresents him in what I wrote. In fact, he confirms each of my main points, specifically the thrust of my commentary - that film critics have different criteria when reviewing films that are based on important social issues. His statement that such films are "well-intentioned, meant to advertise a crisis or issue that needs to be exposed, and thus deserve at least some respect" as opposed to the "mean-spirited 'criticism' leveled at a lot of perfectly decent films" goes further than anything in the IDFA Daily article to emphatically prove my point. Exhibit A, your honor.
Further, his comments here about THE DEVIL CAME ON HORSEBACK (yes, yes, I know, but we can let that slide) confirm what I wrote regarding the discussion of a moral imperative as it related to the Sundberg and Stern's use of footage and the implication therein. I view this as a stylistic question, Anderson views it as potentially disingenuous, aka "not truth-telling", also see "not journalistic". This last point is underlined by Anderson's pithy "if you want to create fiction, create fiction" and his lecture that documentary requires "rules".
But I'll end on Anderson's ongoing and exceedingly lonely campaign against BILLY THE KID. He must be quite baffled since he can't know "how anyone can defend it", yet it goes on to win awards at three major film festivals and receive mostly rave reviews. It must be quite cold out in that particular wilderness.
Anderson is perfectly entitled not to like BILLY. He could have panned BILLY at HotDocs because, quoting him, it didn't "happen to fit a particular critic's worldview" and no one would have paid much notice. But he went further, calling the film a freak-show (guess who's the freak) and comparing Billy (a 15-year old boy recently diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome) to the Virginia Tech shooter. That - in addition to his not knowing the difference between verite and direct cinema - was what enraged so many people.
Yet here, he goes further still. In a grotesque fit of pique, Anderson compares Billy to circus creatures, zoo animals and criminal miscreants. The same character that so many of us look at as somewhat noble and touching and slowly finding his way in the world, Anderson labels - over and over again - as a weirdo, a monstrosity, a mutant.
That says volumes about John Anderson. Volumes.
Not surprisingly, I stand firm on my original commentary.
The two films that nearly all film critics saw in 2007 - Michael Moore's SICKO and Charles Ferguson's NO END IN SIGHT - are shaping up to be the top contenders for this year's film critics awards for Best Documentary.
While it's hardly a secret that film critics tend to bestow their doc prizes on the most widely-seen films (witness last year's near sweep for AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH), in awards announced to date, most of the various critics groups have made it a battle royale between Moore's health care manifesto and Ferguson's clear-eyed reporting on the Iraq debacle, with NO END IN SIGHT taking both the LA and NYC critics prizes. That's left little room for the best reviewed film of the year - Seth Gordon's THE KING OF KONG - or the other widely-seen critical favorite, David Sington's IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON.
Thus far, only two groups haven't gone for SICKO or SIGHT. Critics in Boston handed their award to Dan Klores' CRAZY LOVE and - while they aren't critics - the oft-ridiculed National Board of Review inexplicably handed its prize for Best Documentary of the Year to a film that has not had and will not have a theatrical release in 2007 - Phil Donahue and Ellen Spiro's BODY OF WAR, which also appears on the Academy's controversial Shortlist. It's likely to be the only year-end honors for a film that has not screened for critics or reported the box office for its underground Academy-qualifying run.
Here's the tally to date (we will update as new honorees are announced):
New York Film Critics Circle
NO END IN SIGHT
Los Angeles Film Critics Association
NO END IN SIGHT
runner-up - SICKO
New York Film Critics Online
SICKO
Boston Film Critics Association
CRAZY LOVE
San Francisco Film Critics Cirlce
NO END IN SIGHT
Washington DC Area Film Critics
SICKO
Broadcast Film Critics Choice Nominees
DARFUR NOW
IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON
THE KING OF KONG: A FISTFUL OF QUARTERS
NO END IN SIGHT
SHARKWATER
SICKO
National Board of Review
BODY OF WAR
runners-up
DARFUR NOW
IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON
NANKING
TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE
TOOTS
Updates:
Austin Film Critics
THE KING OF KONG
Chicago Film Critics
SICKO
Dallas/Fort Worth Film Critics
no prize for documentary
Detroit Film Critics
no prize for documentary
Florida Film Critics
NO END IN SIGHT
Las Vegas Film Critics
SICKO
Oklahoma Film Critics
THE KING OF KONG
Phoenix Film Critics
SICKO
San Diego Film Critics
(tie) CRAZY LOVE and DEEP WATER
St. Louis Gateway Film Critics
SICKO
Southeast Film Critics
NO END IN SIGHT
runner-up - SICKO
Toronto Film Critics
NO END IN SIGHT
runners-up - IRAQ IN FRAGMENTS and MY KID COULD PAINT THAT
Utah Film Critics
THE KING OF KONG
runner-up - MY KID COULD PAINT THAT
In my commentary two weeks ago about the Oscar Shortlist debacle, I wrote that the responsibility for elevating craft over content fell not only to juries, screening committees and the like. It also required a new commitment by film journalists and critics:
"(W)e need film critics to dig down deep within themselves and write about films from the perspective of the filmmaking, not on whether or not a subject is worthy or important. You need to learn to write about the art of making nonfiction as much or more than you write a summary of the events that transpire in the documentary."
This past week at IDFA, the annual international doc festival in Amsterdam, film critic John Anderson - who drew scorn earlier this year with a questionable hit piece on Jennifer Venditti's BILLY THE KID - led a two-day seminar on Documentary Criticism, and according to a report in IDFA's Daily, issues debated in that panel demonstrate that at least some critics are still in the dark when it comes to reviewing nonfiction films.
From the Daily of this past Tuesday:
"During a two-day seminar, John Anderson, film critic for Variety and The New York Times, among other publications, investigates the ways in which it is possible to look at documentaries as a critic. The first session of the seminar, attended yesterday by some twenty international film critics, revealed that everyone pretty much has his or her own idea of what to look out for when writing a review. A number of specific themes were then examined on the basis of film fragments. For example: How can a badly made film also be an audience favourite? Perhaps the audience falls for a certain character, or a crafty mise-en-scene. But as a critic, you should be able to spot these from a mile away. Is Michael Moore (for example) justified in creating such mise-en-scenes for "a good cause"? Is it your duty, as a critic, to blow the whistle if you find out that someone is pulling the wool over audiences' eyes, even at the risk of damaging the worthy message you agree with?
Anderson gave a pertinent example of such a dilemma during the Talkshow on freedom of speech last Sunday: "If there were a documentary that cured cancer, would you as a critic turn round and say, "Well, it may cure cancer, but I don't like the cinematography, it's too long, and it has no theatrical potential? Are you then doing a good job?""
Where to begin? This is a pertinent example? It's pure nonsense. Obviously, Anderson is trying to take things to the illogical extreme in setting up the paradigm that a.) the secret to curing cancer - or, Lord almighty, the cure itself - is contained within a documentary film and b.) the only hope for millions of cancer patients is whether a film critic gives the documentary his or her approval. Otherwise, this important cure will just, what exactly? Disappear into the ether?
In Anderson's scenario, it falls to the critic to decide whether millions live or die. And if that critic were to point out that the film is, well, shite, what then? And I quote - "Are you then doing a good job?"
So here is the clearcut evidence that film critics actively consider tempering their criticism for a good cause.
And this my friends is the fundamental problem that exists in documentary today. No matter the importance of the topic, a film will ultimately live and die on whether it is well-made. And no amount of critical fear or obfuscation will change that.
Yet, as the article points out, issues of "right and wrong" loom large when critics think about nonfiction:
"In addition to scrutinizing aspects such as editing, use of music and the filmmaker's relationship with his subject(s), the first of the two critics' seminars raised predominately moral issues. Michael Moore was a frequently cited example, dividing opinion among those present between those who consider him essentially a documentary maker, and those who would describe him as a pamphleteer, who does not make pure documentaries. Further discussion of moral issues took place taking the example of the documentary THE DEVIL CAME ON HORSEBACK, looking at the question of genocide in Darfur. The makers did not shoot the footage themselves, but this was sourced from the BBC. How important is it to know this? Do we need to know - and more importantly, as a critic, do we need to tell?"
Aside from the nearly constant fascination - or fixation - on Michael Moore and his tactics, note that the critics are still dealing in issues that largely emerge from a singular, false premise: Nonfiction = Journalism. How can film critics respond adequately to the stylistic and storytelling advances within the current new wave of nonfiction if they remain focused on this long debunked paradigm.
But look at Anderson's piece on BILLY THE KID and the same strict notions of what qualifies as documentary come leaping out:
"The major fallacy about "Billy the Kid" is its masquerade as verite filmmaking. On the contrary: Almost every scene is a set-up, with sequences involving Billy and his would-be girlfriend, Heather, shot from multiple angles, but not, it seems, multiple cameras."
The argument pushes the notion that BILLY THE KID is "masquerading" as verite. Put aside the oft-confused distinction - as Anderson seems to do here - between verite (where the filmmaker's involvement/instigation is apparent, indeed often the causational factor for the action) with direct cinema (where the filmmaker tries to completely remove him or herself from having any presence), BILLY doesn't try to masquerade as anything. It's construction is completely worn on its sleeve, not solely when Billy breaks the fourth wall by acknowledging the camera, but in the very cafe scenes that Anderson mentions. The problem for Anderson seems to be that this - setting up a scene or knowing that characters are going to be in a certain place and preparing for it - is somehow breaking the rules. That's a journalistic distinction that has no place in film criticism.
But back to IDFA, where, as the piece in IDFA Today notes, "(f)urther discussion of moral issues took place taking the example of the documentary THE DEVIL CAME ON HORSEBACK."
"The makers did not shoot the footage themselves, but this was sourced from the BBC. How important is it to know this?"
I have no qualm with film critics discussing a film's use of archival material - in fact, it actually borders on talking about filmmaking craft! - but I'm disturbed that the panel apparently saw such a discussion as a moral issue, rather than a stylistic one.
But perhaps, the critics wondered if it were they who were wrestling with the moral dilemma. Perhaps they felt that the use of licensed footage somehow dilutes the power of DEVIL (it doesn't) or somehow cuts into it's righteous message (no) and that the issue for them is whether they should point out something that they consider to be a flaw even if it might stop people from seeing this VERY IMPORTANT FILM.
And such is where we find ourselves in the documentary community in early December, 2007. We have film critics admitting that they will look the other way, maybe give an extra star or a higher letter grade if the film deals with the right issue, the right topic. And why shouldn't they? No one within the documentary community has given any indication that craft is the thing we hold most dear. If they look to the prestigious Full Frame Film Festival, they see that awards are handed out to the film "that best portrays women in leadership", to the film "that best exemplifies the values and relevance of world religions and spirituality", and to filmmakers who "lay bare the seeds and mechanisms that create war". Nothing for editing, composing, cinematography or directing.
On Friday, the IDA will present its annual award for "best use of television news footage". No annual award for creating your own, however.
And so it goes. The uproar over the Oscar Shortlist two weeks ago was really just the beginning of a realization that a revolution is necessary.
We need a movement of filmmakers, producers, commissioners, film critics/writers and others from within the documentary community to take a stand for craft, to launch a campaign for craft. It isn't about television vs. theatrical or social justice vs. everything else, it's about respecting the fact that you and your colleagues are artists. And you expect to be treated as such, critiqued as such, honored as such.
Nothing less will suffice.
Since I've been traveling a bunch lately, I'm just catching up on a few items that I'd been wanting to cover over the past couple weeks, so forgive me in advance for coming at you like a time warp. But I wanted to comment on Amy Taubin's recent mumblecore obit that ran in Film Comment and has drawn some pointed responses from David Hudson (which is followed by a lengthy and fascinating discussion in the comments) and Karina Longworth, among others.
Much of what Taubin wrote - and a lot of the blowback - has been focused on mumblecore poster boy Joe Swanberg and whether he necessarily must step outside of his white hetero hipster enclave and "get real" about the world in which he lives. We covered this same ground back in August.
But I want to respond to what Taubin wrote about the SXSW Film Festival and its guru, Matt Dentler:
"The chief promoter (of mumblecore) is Matt Dentler, who heads Austin’s South by Southwest Film Festival and is also a tireless blogger on behalf of the mumblecore “movement.” The quotation marks are Dentler’s, a recent tacit acknowledgement that his claim to fame is perhaps not the cinematic upheaval he once believed it to be. sxsw is probably the biggest benefactor of the mumblecore branding. Once known as the festival of Sundance rejects—not an entirely negative identity, given Sundance’s increasing blindness with regard to new talent—it is now the birthplace of mumblecore, and as such, worthy of mention in national print publications like Rolling Stone, which allotted a full page in its ’07 “Hot Issue” to a genealogy of mumblecore’s pantheon directors: Andrew Bujalski, Aaron Katz, Joe Swanberg, and the Duplass Brothers."
First, let me stipulate - as most others seem to have - that I generally hold Taubin in high regard. I think that, more than most, she's a good writer and I like her perspective on films, even when I diagree. But I think that her argument here is a bit simplistic, and while neither SXSW nor Matt Dentler are in need of my manning their defenses, I think that describing Dentler as "a tireless blogger on behalf of mumblecore" misses the point.
Matt is a tireless blogger, period. Whether it's about his basketball games, his travels, his music tastes and particularly the films that he has programmed at his festival, Matt writes about it. The way Taubin writes it, you'd think that Matt wrote the material for the official Mumblecore fan site. He writes about these filmmakers because he, more than anyone, has programmed their films and given them a platform from which to launch. (Full disclosure - he's often written about my films as well - both of which screened at SXSW, and which, far as I can tell, contain neither mumbling nor core.)
Is this good for SXSW? Sure, it is. Because it promotes the (correct) idea that SXSW is a place that looks for new work and that supports it both at the festival and beyond. Is that a marketing idea or is it just Matt's normal way of business? I'd argue the latter.
But this leads me to Taubin's other remark - that SXSW "once known as the festival of Sundance rejects—not an entirely negative identity, given Sundance’s increasing blindness with regard to new talent—it is now the birthplace of mumblecore".
Again, I'd argue this is a oversimplification.
The reality is that there is a lot of work out there. A lot of good or challenging or original work. More than Sundance (or Toronto or Berlin) can possibly be expected to shine a spotlight on. And it's not solely in narrative. SXSW has - for years - been an essential contrast to Sundance in the realm of nonfiction, focusing on films like BILLY THE KID, AUDIENCE OF ONE, CAT DANCERS and HELVETICA. Any one of these films could have screened at Sundance and not seemed out of place, but they made particular sense at SXSW.
Taubin may think that SXSW is now known as "the birthplace of mumblecore" but I think it's truer to think that it's thought of as a very democratic and open festival, one in which more experimental, more DIY, more pop film experiences are quite at home. It makes sense that filmmakers as similar - and as different - as Swanberg, Katz, Bujalski, Duplass would thrive in that kind of environment.
And that's the central point. Mumblecore did not birth the notion of what SXSW has become on the festival landscape. SXSW's very essence, one that is reflected totally by Matt Dentler's blog and his presence on the festival circuit, opened the door to these films being seen.
No one should look askance at SXSW for being that festival, nor should anyone criticize Dentler for championing the films that thrive within the fertile environment he has so carefully nurtured.
...perhaps not the film you think it is. And it may very well be left off the list of films about to be announced by the Academy that comprise this year's Best Documentary Feature Shortlist. In fact, it's the kind of film that would likely surprise no one if it's not included, even though it unquestionably has a critical consensus that no other nonfiction feature can match.
But more on that in a moment.
It's always a gamble to look at critical response when one tries to guess what the members of the Academy's documentary branch will respond to. For one thing, critical opinion of documentaries often is counter to the prevailing winds within the documentary community. Why else would one of the most universally beloved films of the year within the doc community - Pernille Rose Gronkjær's THE MONASTERY (which is inelligible for Oscar due to a foreign TV broadcast) - have received a decidedly mixed response from the New York film critics?
It works the other way as well. One of the darlings of film critics this year has been Tony Kaye's LAKE OF FIRE. In fact, it ranks third on our chart below. But amongst doc makers, the film is viewed less enthusiastically. It might cause shock waves amongst critics if it's not on the Academy Shortlist, but few in the documentary community would raise an eyebrow.
Perhaps more curious is what will happen to the film that our chart shows to be the best reviewed film of the year - Seth Gordon's KING OF KONG: A FISTFUL OF QUARTERS. It's not about Iraq or Darfur or African kids or health care or dead icons. And some who've seen it seem to enjoy it so much that they don't particularly notice the skillful filmmaking involved. Will the Academy?
At this moment, there seem to be five frontrunners - films whose omission would surprise many of us:
THE DEVIL CAME ON HORSEBACK
IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON
NO END IN SIGHT
SICKO
TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE
Beyond that, on a list that may be 12, may be 15, it's almost anyone's guess. If I had to predict - and given all the attention focused on the desire for actual theatrical releases - I'd wager that 8 - 10 of the films would come from the year's higher profile theatrical releases, 30 of them listed here in alphabetical order:
THE 11TH HOUR
AIR GUITAR NATION
ARCTIC TALE
CRAZY LOVE
DARFUR NOW
DEEP WATER
THE DEVIL CAME ON HORSEBACK
FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO
GYPSY CARAVAN
I HAVE NEVER FORGOTTEN YOU: THE LIFE & LEGACY OF SIMON WIESENTHAL
IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON
JIMMY CARTER MAN FROM PLAINS
JOE STRUMMER: THE FUTURE IS UNWRITTEN
THE KING OF KONG: A FISTFUL OF QUARTERS
KURT COBAIN ABOUT A SON
LAKE OF FIRE
MANDA BALA (SEND A BULLET)
MANUFACTURED LANDSCAPES
MEETING RESISTANCE
MR. UNTOUCHABLE
MY KID COULD PAINT THAT
NO END IN SIGHT
PETE SEEGER: THE POWER OF SONG
THE PRICE OF SUGAR
PRIMO LEVI'S JOURNEY
SHARKWATER
SICKO
TERROR'S ADVOCATE
WAR/DANCE
ZOO
In addition to TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE (which opens theatrically in January), there are a number of festival favorites (or films that, like Taxi, have upcoming theatrical releases) that look to fill up to five of the other slots:
BILLY THE KID
BODY OF WAR
BUDDHA'S LOST CHILDREN
CHOPS
HEAR AND NOW
LARRY FLYNT: THE RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE
MY ENEMY'S ENEMY
NANKING
PLEASE VOTE FOR ME
PROTAGONIST
A PROMISE TO THE DEAD: THE EXILE JOURNEY OF ARIEL DORFMAN
SOUVENIRS
SUMMERCAMP!
WE ARE TOGETHER
That's 45 films. In a recent Wall Street Journal article, the Academy reported that 70 films had qualifying runs. From that remaining 25, expect between 2 and 4, including at least one title that has everyone scratching their heads.
But of the films that are in the running for the Shortlist this year, at least 30 have had traditional theatrical releases - including screening for critics and reporting box office totals. How important is that to the Academy? Years vary, but last year, 12 of the 15 films had already had a traditional theatrical release or had one planned when the Shortlist was announced.
We've taken those 30 films and come up with a formula to track their critical response - the overall percentage of fresh reviews from all critics at Rotten Tomatoes PLUS the percentage of fresh reviews from the "Cream of the Crop" critics at Rotten Tomatoes PLUS the film's score at Metacritic.
While this formula is certainly imperfect - I don't know a filmmaker who hasn't wondered how Fresh/Rotten is determined or how Metacritic comes up with their scores - the combination of the three numbers gives at least an introductory indication of how a varied group might respond to a film - as well as gauge the strength of their passion for or against. And when compared to the actual shortlist when announced, it might provide clues as to where opinion differs between critics and filmmakers (see the list at the very bottom for last year's results).
By this formula, here is how 30 of the year's higher profile theatrical releases are fairing as of this weekend. As indicated, the first figure is total of three scores, the second is an average based on that total divided by three, the third is the freshness rating of all Rotten Tomato critics, the fourth is the "Cream of the Crop" critics percentage and the fifth is the film's Metacrtic score:
1. THE KING OF KONG
TOTAL = 282
AVERAGE = 94
99% (71 out of 72)
100% cream
83 score
2. NO END IN SIGHT
TOTAL = 280
AVERAGE = 93.333
95% (75 out of 79)
96% cream of the crop
89 score
3 (TIE). IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON
TOTAL = 278
AVERAGE = 92.667
94% (95 out of 101)
100% cream of the crop
84 score
3 (TIE). LAKE OF FIRE
TOTAL = 278
AVERAGE = 92.667
95% (37 out of 39)
100% cream
83 score
5. THE DEVIL CAME ON HORSEBACK
TOTAL = 275
AVERAGE = 91.667
97% (38 out of 39)
100% cream of the crop
78 score
6. DEEP WATER
TOTAL = 270
AVERAGE = 90
96% (46 out of 48)
94% cream
80 score
7. PETE SEEGER: THE POWER OF SONG
TOTAL = 267
AVERAGE = 89
95% (18 out of 19)
91% cream
81 score
8 (TIE). JOE STRUMMER: THE FUTURE IS UNWRITTEN
TOTAL = 266
AVERAGE = 88.667
87% (33 of 38)
100% cream
79 score
8 (TIE). FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO
TOTAL = 266
AVERAGE = 88.667
94% (32 out of 34)
100% cream
72 score
10. MY KID COULD PAINT THAT
TOTAL = 264
AVERAGE = 88
95% (52 out of 55)
95% cream
74 score
11. SICKO
TOTAL = 254
AVERAGE = 84.667
93% (163 out of 176)
87% cream
74 score
12. MANUFACTURED LANDSCAPES
TOTAL = 251
AVERAGE = 83.667
83% (44 out of 53)
89% cream
79 score
13. TERROR'S ADVOCATE
TOTAL = 249
AVERAGE = 83
84% (21 out of 25)
90% cream
75 score
14. MANDA BALA (SEND A BULLET)
TOTAL = 247
AVERAGE = 82.333
82% (36 out of 44)
94% cream
71 score
15. I HAVE NEVER FORGOTTEN YOU: THE LIFE & LEGACY OF SIMON WIESENTHAL
TOTAL = 243
AVERAGE = 81
81% (17 out of 21)
89% cream
73 score
16 (TIE). AIR GUITAR NATION
TOTAL = 241
AVERAGE = 80.333
83% (48 out of 58)
86% cream
72 score
16 (TIE). GYPSY CARAVAN
TOTAL = 241
AVERAGE = 80.333
85% (39 out of 46)
83% cream
73 score
16 (TIE). KURT COBAIN ABOUT A SON
TOTAL = 241
AVERAGE = 80.333
79% (19 out of 24)
89% cream
73 score
19. THE PRICE OF SUGAR
TOTAL = 230
AVERAGE = 76.667
75% (12 out of 16)
83% cream
72 score
20. CRAZY LOVE
TOTAL = 227
AVERAGE = 75.667
78% (61 out of 78)
80% cream
69 score
21. PRIMO LEVI'S JOURNEY
TOTAL - 226
AVERAGE = 75.333
83% (15 out of 18)
75% cream
68 score
22. MR. UNTOUCHABLE
TOTAL = 223
AVERAGE = 74.333
76% (16 out of 21)
82% cream
65 score
23. WAR/DANCE
TOTAL = 221
AVERAGE = 73.667
76% (16 out of 21)
80% cream
65 score
24. MEETING RESISTANCE
TOTAL = 209
AVERAGE = 69.667
82% (9 out of 11)
83% cream
44 score
25. DARFUR NOW
TOTAL = 198
AVERAGE = 66
64% (25 out of 39)
67% cream
67 score
26. JIMMY CARTER MAN FROM PLAINS
TOTAL = 195
AVERAGE = 65
75% (33 out of 44)
62% cream
58 score
27. SHARKWATER
TOTAL = 194
AVERAGE = 64.667
77% (17 out of 22)
56% cream
61 score
28. THE 11TH HOUR
TOTAL = 193
AVERAGE = 64.333
67% (53 out of 79)
63% cream
63 score
29. ARCTIC TALE
TOTAL = 182
AVERAGE = 60.667
64% (53 out of 83)
54% cream
64 score
30. ZOO
TOTAL = 175
AVERAGE = 58.333
56% (24 out of 43)
56% cream
63 score
What does this mean? How important is critical opinion? If we look back at 20 high profile traditional theatrical films from 2006 - including 12 that made the Shortlist - we'll find films like 51 BIRCH STREET and 49 UP, which had the second and third highest cumulative scores, and neither made the Shortlist, while JESUS CAMP, which comes in 18 out of 20, gets nominated:
1, DELIVER US FROM EVIL (Nominated)
TOTAL = 286
AVERAGE = 95.333
2. 51 BIRCH STREET (Not Shortlisted)
TOTAL = 274
AVERAGE = 91.333
3. 49 UP (Not Shortlisted)
TOTAL = 273
AVERAGE = 91
4. IRAQ IN FRAGMENTS (Nominated)
TOTAL = 272
AVERAGE = 90.667
5. THE WAR TAPES (Shortlisted)
TOTAL = 271
AVERAGE = 90.333
6. WORDPLAY (Not Shortlisted)
TOTAL = 265
AVERAGE = 88.333
7. AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH (Nominated/Won)
TOTAL = 261
AVERAGE = 87
8. (Tie) SHUT UP AND SING (Shortlisted)
TOTAL = 258
AVERAGE = 86
8. (Tie) AN UNREASONABLE MAN (Shortlisted)
TOTAL = 258
AVERAGE = 86
10. JONESTOWN: THE LIFE AND DEATH OF PEOPLES TEMPLE (Shortlisted)
TOTAL = 256
AVERAGE = 85.333
11. WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR? (Not Shortlisted)
TOTAL = 255
AVERAGE = 85
12. CAN MR. SMITH GET TO WASHINGTON ANYMORE? (Shortlisted)
TOTAL = 250
AVERAGE = 83.333
13. SISTERS-IN-LAW (Shortlisted)
TOTAL = 249
AVERAGE = 83
14. MY COUNTRY MY COUNTRY (Nominated)
TOTAL = 244
AVERAGE = 81.3
15. (Tie) THE GROUND TRUTH (Shortlisted)
TOTAL = 240
AVERAGE = 80
15. (Tie) HEART OF THE GAME (Not Shortlisted)
TOTAL = 240
AVERAGE = 80
17. THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED (Not Shortlisted)
TOTAL = 236
AVERAGE = 78.667
18. JESUS CAMP (Nominated)
TOTAL = 233
AVERAGE = 77.667
19. SKETCHES OF FRANK GEHRY (Not Shortlisted)
TOTAL = 224
AVERAGE = 74.667
20. US VS. JOHN LENNON (Not Shortlisted)
TOTAL = 209
AVERAGE = 69.667
On critical opinion and box office alone, WORDPLAY should have been a shoe-in, right? Well, keep that in mind if KING OF KONG isn't on this year's list, even though it just may be the best documentary of the year.
With Telluride over, Venice in full flower and Toronto just days away, some of the fall's biggest narrative films are finally getting public airings, and for the most part they are stirring polarity amongst film critics. Glancing at GreenCine Daily's definitive wrap-ups of critical responses out of Colorado and Italy is enough to make your head spin.
THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD is either "a ravishing, magisterial, poetic epic that moves its characters toward their tragic destinies with all the implacability of a Greek drama" or "the most pretentious studio release in a decade!!!".
The Iraq war provocation REDACTED shows that "Brian De Palma's filmmaking skills have seldom been as razor sharp as they are in his sensational new film" or it's a "[d]eeply felt but dramatically unconvincing 'fictional documentary' [... that...] has almost nothing new to say about the Iraq situation and can't make up its mind about how to package its anger in an alternative cinematic form". (See previous post for more about REDACTED fauxcumentary-style.)
George Clooney's new film MICHAEL CLAYTON? "A highly accomplished first feature" says one London critic, as another writes that "it's poorly edited and tries too hard to be a Seventies-style conspiracy thriller".
The trades also split on IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH, Paul Haggis' follow-up to Best Picture winner CRASH (wow, that still pains to type), with The Hollywood Reporter reviewing that the director "avoided the dreaded sophomore slump... In the Valley of Elah is a deeply reflective, quietly powerful work that is as timely as it is moving" but Variety writes that it's "too self-serious to work as a straight-ahead whodunit and too lacking in imagination to realize its art-film aspirations".
There was some consensus, however. Seems like mostly positive responses for Sean Penn's adaptation of Jon Krakauer's INTO THE WILD, Jason Reitman's JUNO, Todd Hayne's Dylan biopic I'M NOT THERE; mostly lukewarm for Ang Lee's LUST, CAUTION, Wes Anderson's THE DARJEELING LIMITED and the remake of SLEUTH; and mostly negative for Woody Allen's CASSANDRA'S DREAM and Noah Baumbach's MARGOT AT THE WEDDING.
Lots of Venice and Telluride reports at GreenCine Daily, great reports and interviews from Telluride at SpoutBlog, Kim Voynar's extensive coverage at Cinematical and, of course, the always excellent Eugene Hernandez at indieWIRE.
Toronto begins in 2 days.
Late last week, right wing blogs began beating the drum against Brian De Palma's latest film REDACTED, which premiered in Venice and had the nerve to show that very occasionally people do some pretty inhumane things. I suppose that it's perfectly fine to show corrupt cops or corrupt pols or corrupt and evil school principals, but if you depict an actual event wherein the bad guys happen to be guys wearing the uniform of the United States, you are given an official "I hate the troops" club card.
But I'm more interested in REDACTED's form, as De Palma shoots on HD video, takes material from the internet (including grisly photos) and generally takes a faux-documentary approach to the story. It's this that Movie City News' David Poland writes about in a salvo against the film and makes some interesting points comparing De Palma's work to that of Michael Tucker & Petra Epperlein, James Longley, Laura Poitras, Andrew Berends and so many other nonfiction filmmakers who have literally risked their lives to get their films to audiences:
If the film didn’t steal so freely from the many quality documentaries that actually put documentarians in harms way to attempt to get a more accurate picture of what is happening on the ground in Iraq, I don’t think I would have found it so grating.
The line for a filmmaker making a simulated doc is very thin. Is there political value in a film that recreates what has already been shown in doc form, but adds 10% of material that polemicizes the reality by creating “simulated reality” that extends what the filmmaker would like to be the truth. If this film was an investigation, on some level, of the issue of where that line lives, I would be happy to watch that. But I would argue that what it does is to create evidence – even though we are watching an admittedly fictional film – to make a case that cannot be made with the actual facts.
Ironically, one of the films that Redacted seems to steal from – a house raid seems to be almost shot for shot the same – is Gunner Palace, which also had young soldiers who were in danger of going adrift and who were constantly facing the dichotomies of this war. The irony is that when the Gunner Palace filmmakers found a lose thread in their documentation of events in the person of a journalist who was taken into custody on the night of one of the house raids, they followed up with an entire documentary, The Prisoner, that told his rather horrifying story. And then, when one of the guards from Abu Gharib showed up at a screening of the film and was willing to go on record, they added more to that documentary until the story was as complete as they could make it.
Seems to me that they made the responsible choice.
There's been much abuzz this week over the issue of embargoes, wherein a media outlet (whether print, television, online or telegraph) tacitly or explicitly agrees to withhold certain information - for example, a review or an interview - until a specified date. Breaking the embargo (or even bending the embargo) has, in recent years, been more of an issue as some outlets have been more and more willing to ignore the specified dates.
For most of the week, the embargo swirled around a battle between the movie studio Fox and online journalists, who believed that Fox had unfairly targeted them - denying them access to advance screenings of films - in an effort to clamp down on embargo breaking. David Poland wrote about this extensively earlier this week, offering suggestions on how Fox could make the whole screening process more uniform and, ultimately, more fair for critics, and by today it seemed that Fox and the rebel critics in Chicago who launched the intifada had reached a kind of quiet peace.
Later, the issue was the new Harry Potter book and the decision of two major media outlets - the Baltimore Sun and the New York Times - to bust embargoes and review the film in the days before the release of the final book in the series.
On Keith Olbermann's Countdown program, Sun book reviewer Mary Carole McCauley made the curious claim that she didn't really break the embargo, see, because she (and the Sun) never agreed to the embargo in the first place. They got their copy when someone's order was filled in advance in error. Since they didn't get a copy from the publisher and since they hadn't agreed to the publisher's embargo, the Sun felt no qualms about running the review a day or two early.
Potter author JK Rowling was upset:
I am staggered that some American newspapers have decided to publish purported spoilers in the form of reviews in complete disregard of the wishes of literally millions of readers, particularly children, who wanted to reach Harry’s final destination by themselves, in their own time. I am incredibly grateful to all those newspapers, booksellers and others who have chosen not to attempt to spoil Harry’s last adventure for fans.
The Huffington Post's Rachel Sklar (and self-proclaimed Potter geek) was outraged:
What is your problem, New York Times? No WMD rumors to plaster on the front page, no Jayson Blair to make things up for posterity, no Alessandra Stanley to mangle TV show names? I'm mad so I'm lashing out, but come on: How on earth could you run a review of the last Harry Potter? To do so, you had to break an industry-wise embargo — and not just any embargo, an embargo that is almost tantamount to a public trust at this point, given the worldwide hype about Harry Potter and the excitement and intense emotion generated by — finally — the end to this epic series.
But, hey, you're the New York Times, boldly going etc. Why should you care about honoring a book that's been over a decade in the making just for the sake of getting a two-day jump on the competish? You've done it before, with Bob Woodward and Carly Fiorina, buying both books at some super-secret bookstore where they apparently have no qualms about selling embargoed books to customers who have no qualms about buying them and then writing about them in the paper of record in defiance of millions of wide-eyed and breathless readers. Editor & Publisher reports that "the Times explained that it bought a copy in a New York City store" — just like when they scooped WaPo on Woodward's embargoed book and spilled the beans on HP CEO Fiorina's memoir. That was last October; then I asked, rhetorically: "Where is this bookstore and are they stocking the next Harry Potter?" Well, I guess we have our answer.
But the most ridiculous item in this saga came today, in the increasingly more woeful (at least from a columnist perspective) Los Angeles Times, this time from "media columnist" Tim Rutten who decided to boil down the kerfuffle into this hoary chestnut:
Fair enough. (Rowling)'s the author, and she's entitled. The fact of the matter is, though, that both Kakutani and the Sun's Mary Carole McCauley are accomplished critics whose reviews scrupulously avoided giving away anything that could be considered a plot spoiler. Even the most passionate Potterites could read their pieces without fear of compromising their pleasure in this new book.
So what's the fuss really about?
Like most these days, it's about money.
Well, thank God, Rutten has gotten to the gist of the matter - the fact that it's all about money. But wait, exactly whose money is Rutten talking about?:
Here it's necessary to distinguish between the newspaper critics and the cyber crooks, who may have posted sections of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" on the Web. That's theft, and if we don't protect the intellectual property of even fabulously wealthy creative people like Rowling, they'll have less and less incentive to produce the things that entertain and delight us. Her publishers are right to go after these looters with laptops with every lawyer they hire.
Embargoes on reviews and discussions are another matter. All the outrage surrounding this particular book notwithstanding, contemporary publishers impose these blackouts not in the interest of readers but to protect the carefully planned publicity campaigns they create for books on which they have advanced large sums of money.
This is the economic imperative that leads publishers to withhold the contents of even nonfiction manuscripts that contain news that the public has a vital interest in knowing.
It's also why newspapers, including this one, routinely break those embargoes without any pang of conscience. Our first and most compelling obligation is to our readers' right to know and not to the commercial interests of publishers.
There you have it in a nutshell. It's about the money that the publisher might lose. Why newspapers are brave defenders of the "right to know! Never mind all that clamor from media outlets about a federal shield law, never mind all that came to light in the Valerie Plame affair over reporters' constant withholding of key facts so that they could continue to court administration sources. The public doesn't need to know who leaked a CIA agent's identity! They need to get a review of the new Harry Potter book!
It's their fucking right!
And what is missing from Rutten's miserable excuse of a column? How about any acknowledgment that the Baltimore Sun is, like the Times, owned by the Tribune Company?
But worse is Rutten's fact-less assertion that those upset by the breaking of the embargo should really be upset with the publisher. After all, he says, the embargo is all about the publisher's desire to enhance profits.
But what of the newspapers? Could it possibly be that the Sun and the Times broke the embargo to enhance their sales? To drive traffic to their websites? To garner headlines?
Rutten's right, it is about money. But it's not the publisher's money at stake (does anyone really think that the reviews affect the sales of Harry Freaking Potter), it's the dwindling reach and sales of newspapers. Rutten knows better, but fails to mention that the papers, in having a "get", an exclusive, have a monetary stake. It's dishonest reporting and he should know it.
And after a series of faulty media reports by the LA Times on Michael Moore, it's clear that the paper, already a bit of a laughing stock in Los Angeles, needs to keep columnists like Robert Scheer and Al Martinez and rid themselves of the likes of Tim Rutten.
I've written plenty about the anti-Michael Moore film, MANUFACTURING DISSENT, over the past few months, but my recent post about John Pierson's Open Letter to Michael Moore drew a response from one of the directors. I'm reprinting Rick Caine's thoughts below, rather than let them sit solely inside a comments section. If you want to get to the good part (also known as the bitchslap, in case you think I'm in need of one), you can scroll to the end. By the way, I stand by my previous writing on the subject, which you can find here and here.
Thank you for yet again dicussing our film Manufacturing Dissent (coming soon on DVD and depending on where you live a theater near you). We made it in the hopes that it would be a film that would be thought about and discussed long after the usual 5 minutes of discussion that typically follows any film viewing. We made it in the hopes that audiences would question not only Moore's films and tactics but also ours and every other documentary filmmaker as well. You falsely impune our motives (yes maybe we should have known more about Moore going into this doc, but the fact remains we didn't) and accuse us of the same tactics Moore employs. Please point to the fictional devices we have tucked into our non-fiction films, omitted (maybe we landed a sitdown with Moore we're hiding?) or distorting interviews and showing them in a false light (hello Larry Stecco)and taking them out of context (Bush speaking sarcastically about his public image at the Al Smith Memorial Dinner, among others) and cobble them together to make flat out lies (the splicing together of seperate Charleton Heston speeches, literally puttng words in his mouth, in Bowling, which isn't even in our movie.)
From Saturday's Rocky Mountain News:
Unless you've been living in happy isolation, you know that newspapers face a cascading series of problems. Declining revenues. Declining circulation. Uncertainty about the future. No need to recite the entire litany here, except by way of noting that the words "layoffs" and "buyouts" have appeared in far too many stories about too many newspapers lately, including this one.
I've spent the past 30 years at the Rocky Mountain News, 27 of them as its film critic, and that's about to end. I've accepted what's called a voluntary separation agreement from the paper in a time when the Rocky and many other papers are contracting and reorganizing. I'm at a point in my life where it makes sense to slow down and smell the artificially flavored popcorn.
That means that my name won't be appearing regularly in the paper after today. If upon waking Tuesday, I reflexively begin the drive toward the Rocky, you'll have to forgive me - I'll be battling 30 years' worth of conditioning.
And later in the same piece:
Most critics learn to expand their tastes. I hope that's happened to me over the years. Maybe it's time to be more selective, though. I'm looking forward to being able to dismiss movies that don't drift onto my radar. I won't miss seeing every movie. It's rewarding to rip apart a bad movie and even more fulfilling to embrace a good one, but there are only so many ways to shrug one's shoulders in print. I've seen a lot of mediocre movies; my shoulders need a rest.
Lots of discussion emanating from Anthony Kaufman's two blog pieces on "Critic/Bloggers" (here and here - with great comments at both) including my piece yesterday - and much of it is summarized over at Chuck Tyron's blog. Chuck reminds me of Anne Thompson's piece in Variety last Friday, which opens with the reminder that the first step is admitting you have a problem:
My name is Anne and I'm a blogger.
Thompson's piece is really about the whole of online film reporting, as she delves into online entertainment and gossip sites like TMZ and Defamer, as well as aggregator news sites like Aint It Cool and YahooMovies. Related to Anthony's initial post (and some of the comments to it), Thompson notes that a number of veteran critics - both with and without day jobs - are now starting blogs:
Many media outlets are building online traffic by giving their best-known writers blogs. While fact- and spell-checking is still de rigueur, so are more personal statements of point-of-view and opinion. On a blog, writers can get away with a heartfelt lack of objectivity that they can't inside the strictures of the newsroom. New York Post critic Lou Lumenick is one of a growing number of daily newspaper critics who are reaching out to readers via blogs. Other notables: the Boston Globe's Ty Burr, the Philadelphia Inquirer's Carrie Rickey and the Oregonian's Shawn Levy. (Some ex-print critics have developed their own online followings, including EmanuelLevy.com, HenrySheehan.com and DaveKehr.com.)
Speaking of the Post's Lumenick, a recent post on his blog referenced a open forum question on Variety's website - "Are film critics really needed anymore...or is it a washed up profession?" (here we go again) - and the response from "an anonymous 'Variety staffer'". Said staffer was answering the charges of Variety editor Peter Bart, who had chastised crix for not getting why the public at large was falling for big hits like 300 and Wild Hogs.
In Lumenick's comments, said anonymous staffer (only anonymous cause that's how things work on the Variety site), outs himself as journeyman critic Peter Debruge, who hits on some of the same topics that Kaufman and I have been mentioning:
Variety is perhaps the single most supportive outlet of film criticism in print, and our jobs as critics here are very much secure. But that's not true of the way the same line of work is being treated elsewhere, and I felt compelled to respond to what Peter Bart left out of his initial column. I think there's a very salient argument to be made about the state of film criticism today, what with the widespread online availability of amateur opinions (the phrase sounds disparaging, but I believe that non-professional opinions on films are more likely to represent a "peer judgment" for most moviegoers than those meted out by the more aesthetic-minded critical community).
We've seen it in a number of places. Village Voice Media let one of their best editor/critics go when they cut Dennis Lim, and the alt-weekly chain hase been moving away from locally-based critics. Eleanor Ringel Gillespie is leaving her post at the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, presumably to be replaced with wire reviews. The Los Angeles Times cut Kevin Thomas and now keeps just one dedicated critic on staff, relying on columnists and copy editors to fill out the section each week. And newspapers everywhere (including two that I freelance for: the Miami Herald and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram) are turning to wire reviews to save money.
These points are, I think, incredibly on point. In a strange way, the democratization of the internet - the ability for me and you and everyone else to have the same level of access to a public forum, and in some cases the same or larger reach via sites like IMDb and Amazon - has fundamentally changed the way in which films are discussed, and ultimately the context in which they are received. In ye olden days, the first review you might see of a film would come from your local, trusted critic or from Siskel and Ebert or, if you went to the art house, a snip from the Times or Christian Science Monitor review. Now, the first review you might see is Vlad, an OKIA who seeks to provide no context, no meaning, just a random guy telling you what you will feel, because Vlad sees himself as the everyman.
In the comments to my post yesterday, Jason Scott wrote that it all comes down to filmmakers liking those who like their work, heretofore referred to as "stuff":
People who don't like their stuff are any number of criminals and cretins, lacking certification, brainpower, awareness, perspective, or anything else that would explain why they don't fit into the set of people who like their stuff.
I think going "cloggers" or "online know it alls" and all that is just a clever defense mechanism for people who make stuff to build up against the fact that once it's out there, they can't do anything about people seeing and commenting on their stuff.
I think this is an oversimplification of what I am saying. I'm as interested in a critical (read: negative) review of my "stuff" as I am a positive review, so long as I feel that the writer has invested some qualitative amount of time, energy, thought, digestion, wisdom into the review. One of my favorite reviews from Gigantic judged the film as mediocre, but the writing in the piece was smart and comparative to other films. It brought context.
Likewise, I read plenty of rave reviews from OKIAs - "it rocks! it's the greatest movie ever!" that meant absolutely nothing to me. Now is that elitist? Is it any more so than if you were to spend hours and hours making a gourmet meal and when you present it to your guests you don't get a charge if the only thing they say is "delicious"? Or that it actually means more when someone says, "I see what you were going for here. What do you think about adding radicchio next time instead of basil?"
That's the filmmaker's issue. Some people are just going to have gut bursts of reactions. And on some websites, OKIAs are the rule not the exception - and two of those websites just happen to be IMDb and Amazon - two of the more important sites for film. And there's nothing to be done about that.
So I'm all for online bloggers who can review films and provide context as well as film critics who expand on their thoughts on their blogs. I'm for local reviewers that you grow to trust, who have a language and a perspective that you can understand, and who - as Ty Burr wrote recently - "sits in the same theater you do -- and understands how and why that matters". I'm for major media conglomerates (whether Tribune or the Voice) understanding that it isn't enough to have a set of critics that you can plug in and wire service their reviews and stories in. You need a film writer with a feel for what's happening locally, whether it's the latest film festival line-up (I've noted on this festival run that often the local "free weekly" have failed to provide coverage of the festival when the weekly is part of a larger chain and reviews are sent in from other markets) or special film event or burgeoning DIY scene.
To the extent that some of this is being lost is depressing. One can only hope that cloggers and critics find a way to plug some of this vacuum, to continue to provide context, even as they expand the dialog in other directions.
Anthony Kaufman has a great new piece up on his blog about the rise of the critic/blogger (which he, in total Bennifer fashion, dubs "the Clogger") and how filmmakers must learn to adapt to a world in which even the lowliest of cloggers (which means you are at least two levels of hell beneath Rex Reed) may affect public perception of your film. Says Kaufman:
A positive blurb from anyone -- even a clogger -- is to be welcomed by press-hungry indie filmmakers, but the changing landscape of the press, where larger publications are devoting less space to arts coverage and established critics are either getting laid off or forced to cover Hollywood films (or blog), is all making it harder for good indie films to find the critics they need.
First off, as both a filmmaker and, dare I say, a clogger (am I really? It feels so dirty), I can totally relate to both sides of this discussion. While I'm not sure that my reviews of films have been catalysts for other filmmakers, I know that I have certainly used the thoughts of bloggers/reviewers in gauging reactions and building press kits.
Indeed, on my first film, we built a press kit out of SXSW largely on the backs of cloggers - internet entities that seem to have disappeared as quickly as they surfaced. I was so unfamiliar with the who/what/where that for months we led our kit with a review from someone who as far as I know had never covered a festival before and has never since.
And despite my feeling a bit more savvy about these things than I was in 2002, I still am puzzled by the occasional press request (really? the site is called filmturd? and I should do that interview?) just as I'm sure some have been confused when I say, yes, I'm a filmmaker but I also write an online column on film (which sounds so much more respectable than clogger, I must admit).
But Kaufman also touches on a secondary issue, another new(ish) reality:
In my Filmmaker Magazine article, Jim McKay told me that he feels much of the Internet-based press lacks prestige and context. "When you're going to Amazon or IMDB, the first thing you'll often see is a write-up of your film by some Internet critic. And that can be horrifying," he told me. Indeed, among Amazon.com's top reviews of McKay's latest HBO feature "Angel" are mixed responses from one K. Harris from Las Vegas and Grady Harp from Los Angeles. They're a far cry from the imprimatur given to McKay's "Our Song" by Times critic A.O. Scott, who raved "Don't miss this one."
First off, I think that Jim McKay is being muy generoso in calling the folks who write user comments at Amazon and IMDb "internet critics". That's a little like calling people who post in the comments at Daily Kos "political commentators". Maybe we can come up with a new name for them, such as "online know-it-alls", or in the parlance of internet abbreviations, OKIAs.
As Kaufman notes, the problem for filmmakers is that the random OKIA can often have a greater and longer reach than Tony Scott at The Gray Lady, even if the OKIA is technically even lower than the lowliest clogger. Hey, that IMDb page is so easy to find! And who doesn't scan through Amazon reviews? It's so much easier to check what Grady Harp has to say rather than navigate through the NY Times website. Sure, I could go to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic and MRQE, and wade through tens of critics I've never heard of just to find what Manohla Dargis had to say, but I'm not actually looking for reviews, I'm deciding whether to buy a DVD or maybe find out if that was really Annette O'Toole reading the part of Mrs. Polk. Or I was just following a link. What's this? Grady Harp only gives it 3 stars?
And while Kaufman's post has prompted several defensive responses from online blogger/reviewers (but we're better than the Times! we really are!), it's this latter point that provides the minefield for filmmakers. In a follow-up post on this topic, Kaufman asks:
Does the average cinemagoer have the time to sift through the dozens of film blogs out there, ferret out those that match their tastes and stick with them long enough to determine if they're reliable. Or do people randomly search the web looking for info, spot it, and digest it, without taking the time to evaluate it?
I think that many (if not most) people do find critical voices that they respect, particularly for films that seek to challenge or that exist more as artistic ideas than commercial enterprises. But when one of the commenter's at Kaufman's blog simultaneously chastises Kaufman for having an elitist attitude ("It seems to invalidate entirely a layman's opinion, an opinion which in general dictates the market success of a film.") and then complains that the
In one scene in Manufacturing Dissent Moore discussses how the Bush administration used fearmongering (trumped up WMD claims, bogus imminent threat claims, false testimony before the UN regarding mobile chemical weapons labs, etc, etc) to manipulate the American public into siding with him on the invasion of Iraq. Then in the same speech Moore turns around and tells the college students that if they don't vote for Kerry then Bush will draft them and send them right to the front lines. That statement had no more truth in then Bush's claims about WMDs. So fearmongering for Bush bad but fearmongering for Moore good? And what about the truth, or is getting people all riled up, even if its based upon lies, good enough?
We're just as frustrated as the next person that we have not gotten to the promised land with Moore's assistance. Why isn't he more effective? How about effective at all? Just maybe Moore's approach has something to do with it, which is exactly the issue Manufacturing Dissent raises. We're lefties so we get the whole speaking truth to power argument but what if it's half truth? Is it half as effective, or maybe not effective at all? Moore is hard to ignore but easy to dismiss.
Pierson writes in the open letter to Moore "You're on the side of the fucking angels with "SiCKO" and no lapses, omissions or oversimplifications can detract from its contribution to the greater good." But this is exactly the problem: the lapses, omissions and oversimplifications do distract from the greater good and to all of our detriment. This is akin to arguing that lying for the cause is good for debate. What's the point if it's based upon lies? We all want the same thing to live in a well-functioning democracy the only way we can get there is by having an informed electorate that acts upon their knowledge at the ballot box and the only way we can get there is by having media that chooses not to lie to the people. Part of our argument in Manufacturing Dissent that it is also destructive when Moore does it as it is when FOX News does it. Some say who cares if Moore lies to his lefty base and gets away with it? Others will argue it doesn't matter if FOX News lies to their viewers. For better or worse it does have an impact an that is exactly why its important. We need to be having debates based upon facts and not resting upon misconceptions and lies. How will this get us to where we want to be?
For the record, Mike Westfall, who seems to always have the last word in internet posts (under whatever pseud he chooses) was both interviewed and contributed footage to Manufacturing Dissent but it is incorrect to term this a "consultant" however grateful we remain. We never made any pretense with Westfall, we told him repeatedly that ours was a film about Moore. And yes Westfall is right there remains marvelous opportunity for films to be made about the plight of working Americans. Hopefully someone will "consult" with Westfall about that.
SiCKO, just like Moore's previous films, will have no impact on the American health care system. But hey why should some piss ant Canadians stand in the way of mighty America trying to get universal health care right? We meant many things with this film, this was not amongst them.
And maybe sometime we can go for a beer AJ and you can confess all of your ethical lapses to us like other filmmakers are doing. Let's start with the violating of your own 'self imposed' standards (if you don't follow your own 'rules' what's the point in having them?) about blogging about other films, even as you suck and blow your own mediocre and largely ignored film. I know I was at SXSW when it screened during the music part of the fest and all of like 50 people turned up for a screening in the 1,200 seat Paramount Theater, and that's the music crowd. Then we can discuss your ethically challenged principles that allowed you to put together a doc about deceased Kurt Cobain based upon interviews he granted to another under very different circumstances. To say nothing of what I don't yet know. Ethics smethics, who's kidding who here? Come confess, the filmmakers always seem to feel better afterward. Now if they just could have been as honest with their audience to begin with...