Biting the Hand: The Cloggers Strike Back

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 real problem is that directors like Andrew Bujalski don't get the attention they deserve, well, OK, sure, that can make your brain spin.  Cause Bujalski's got tons of attention - he's got a wall full of engraved comparisons to Cassavetes - but for every rave from Manohla, he's got at least one (probably many more) OKIA(s) to deal with.

Go to Funny Ha Ha's IMDb page and check out what passes for the sole review, written by an OKIA named "Vlad" from LA:

"Very slooooow... You'll probably have a couple of smiles but you won't be able to stop checking your watch and wondering when it is going to end. Don't waste your time unless you're really deep into independent movies.

Now how many folks have read Vlad?  How many read Dargis?

If “Mutual Appreciation” doesn’t look like any film out on screens today, it does boldly look back at Jean Eustache’s landmark of modern French cinema, “The Mother and the Whore.” Released in 1973, Eustache’s long generational bleat pivots on a handful of chatty young Parisians who are blotto with booze, sex and narcissism. The men and women in “Mutual Appreciation” often come across as being as inwardly directed as those in the Eustache; the crucial difference is that the shadow of 1968 that hangs over the French characters invests their self-absorption with an intimation of tragedy. Mr. Bujalski’s characters, by contrast, don’t even have generational failure on their side, an absence of history, of myth, alluded to by Alan’s drunken confession that all he wants out of life is “a good story.”

In a different film, that good story might mean a record deal and a surfeit of cool. But, like Ryan Fleck’s “Half Nelson” and Kelly Reichardt’s forthcoming “Old Joy,” two other hopeful signs of cinematic life from young American directors, “Mutual Appreciation” is a film that makes a strong, sincere case that we only get that good story with other people.

Oh, I don't know.  Vlad probably thought that "The Mother and the Whore" was "tres leeeeennnnntttt".

Comments

[Josh]

I think the type of people that take Vlad's "review" seriously--that can't be bothered to take the time to find a more cogent analysis of the film's relative merits--are probably more likely to be the type who would agree with his assessment anyway.

In any case, what is to be done? Vlad has every right to put his opinion out there, regardless of what I think of its validity. In this instance, he's not even pretending that it's a thoughtful, considered response to the film; it's just a reaction.

If someone was paying him to write like that, I'd be outraged (and jealous), but since it's a public forum, I can only wish that fans of the film would take the time to express themselves, too. Not that it would necessarily raise the level of discourse, but at least it would provide some balance.

[prideray]

Nice thoughtful addition to the conversation...

[Jason Scott]

I think what it comes down to is that people who make stuff like people who like their stuff. Sometimes they find people who don't like their stuff as much as they do, but they still like their stuff, so they're OK.

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.

....just like those people can't do anything about the creators putting out the stuff.

[cynthia]

i agree with josh--if you're someone who is "deep into independent movies", as vlad puts it, you will likely see his comments as an endorsement and not be turned away.

[Simon Crowe]

The objection to "cloggers" is nothing more than snobbery. Does anyone decide whether or not to see a film based on the opinion of one complete stranger? Sites that average reviewers' opinions seem much more valuable.

If someone is seeking out independent film, a two-sentence review along the lines of "this sucks" isn't going to stop them. I'd also add that while it's easier to set oneself up as a critic via blogs, (as this week's NY Times magazine points out) it's also easier to reach audiences via websites, message boards, MySpace, etc.