Weekend, 7-8 October 2000

NEWS BY THE NUMBERS

10 - 5. Tangled Web: I was certainly interested when I heard that indieWIRE Senior Editor Anthony Kaufman was going to "respond" to Mark Olsen's Film Comment piece on online film journalism. As you may remember, this column was a prominent part of that article, along with Jeff Wells' Reel.com column and Ain't It Cool, which ended up, it seemed to me, getting the only real embrace in Olsen's piece. When I met Olsen in person in Toronto, we buried the hatchet, even if my first instinct was to bury it in his head for painting me with the same brush as Wells...his embrace of Harry was far less surprising and not really upsetting. And so, I read Kaufman's open letter:

EDITORIAL: In Defense of Online Film Journalism by Anthony Kaufman/indieWIRE

indieWIRE Senior Editor Anthony Kaufman responds to Mark Olsen's article about online film journalism, published in the September/October issue of Film Comment Magazine: RANGE WARS: FILM SITES ON THE INTERNET Trouble in cyberland: a few thoughts on the new frontier of film journalism By Mark Olsen, Associate Editor, Film Comment.

Dear Mark, Gavin, et. al.,

I'm continually frustrated by the kind of judgments and generalizations made about Internet journalists in articles like yours ("R@NGE W@RS," Film Comment: Sept/Oct 2000), and Peter Travers' recent article in Rolling Stone. There seems to be little interest in looking at responsible Internet journalism and always at the more salacious aspects of scandal mongering, petty bickering and rumor-building that goes on in any field. I guess because it makes for better copy.

"Print journalists" love to harp on the immature world of Ain't-it-cool-news and completely overlook the more serious web journalists that do work responsibly and respectfully, if I might add. There are some of us that don't partake in the "online pissing/posting contest" that you describe, but in fact, actually do detailed reporting and criticism on film and filmmakers. Reading your article, however, it would seem as if we don't exist. I find it funny that you describe such rivalries exclusively on the Internet, when over the years, such vitriol and competition has appeared just as often among print film critics. Just look at France's critics any day of the week, especially when one of Emir Kusturica's films are playing.

It's time to get past pigeonholing the "online critic" or "online journalist" -- to do so is blatantly erroneous. Richard Jameson, the former editor of Film Comment, writes for Mr. Showbiz.com, New York Film Festival selection committee member Dave Kehr is the lead critic for Citysearch.com. Are they merely "online journalists?" Are their works on the web merely "grab bags consisting of news, semi-substantiated gossip and reviews?" I'm sure you wouldn't claim that, so then why are they excluded from a discussion of film writing that appears on the Internet?

So as a "print publication," I ask you, why not take on the same responsibility you seem to think is lacking online? Rather than be "confused" by the online world of film writing, why don't you do some research and look at what's out there of value and worth, rather than what's immature and petty.

Sincerely,
Anthony Kaufman
Senior Editor, indieWIRE

AND NOW, my response: Sod off, you self-righteous clown!

Well, that was my first response. I sent my response, intended for publication, to Mr. Kaufman and he responded calmly. That always gets me. I hate it when I'm all pissed off and I get calm from the other side.

Nonetheless, I am still a bit unhappy with A.K. and I'll now explain why without attempting to create a new orifice in his body from which a new head could sprout.

I think it's a fair read of the Kaufman letter to say that it suggests that Olsen focused on the crappy side of the Internet in his Film Comment article. Jeff Wells and I were about 40 percent of that article. Kaufman says, in his letter to me, that he did not intend to smear Wells and I with the brush of contempt. Well, I think he failed to make that distinction. If I were uninvolved, I'm pretty sure that I would click on the Film Comment article thinking, "This guy did a piece all about the bone heads on the Internet, leaving out all the serious writers." As one of three boneheads focused on in the Film Comment article, I object to that impression, every bit as much as I objected to Olsen pairing Wells and I off as though we do the same thing and have a remotely similar mind set. I think if you did an objective survey of the amount of overt negativity in Wells' column versus The Hot Button, Jeff would win hands down...especially if you just concentrated on movies and not on my proclivity for commenting on entertainment journalism.

But I digress...

I do think that "mainstream" journalism's obsession with Harry Knowles, great story though he is, does diminish the rest of us, by both association and lack of association. Speaking for myself, I am regularly sought out by media for comments on all kinds of things and there seems to be some understanding that this column is now a fairly regular read within the industry. Yet, that Film Comment article, warts and all, is about as many column inches as this column has ever had on its own. (Roger Ebert has kindly championed The Hot Button time and again, as have other "mainstream writers...but you will not have seen any articles in this country -- there was one in Germany, I believe -- specifically about The Hot Button, as there have been myriad pieces about Harry Knowles.) There are many reasons for that: self-promotion, my willingness to slap other journalists and some sense of competition among them. But Film Comment was the first to take a semi-serious look at what some of us are reaching for on the Web. So, angered though I may be, I am still thankful, because it is press and press is hard to get...for almost everyone but Harry. And what does the press want to write about when we do get attention? The fighting.

So, Anthony does have something to say that's worth saying. I don't know what he'd be saying had IndieWIRE been mentioned in the piece...maybe nothing. But I still object to being painted with any kind of broad brush. Because in a final bit of irony, it was the pursuit of the kind of specificity and detail that much entertainment journalism lacks, that inspired me to want to write a column like this. The idea was rejected as a weekly at the Chicago Tribune about 7 years ago. Four years later, it became The Hot Button at roughcut.com. Suddenly, you can't swing a bit of gossip without hitting a desperate movie columnist.

I work hard to make this column both worldly and personal. It may not always be good, but it is unique. And anything less than the acknowledgement of that is, for me, a hard slap in the face. I'm sure there are those who are happy to see the red mark on my cheek. (Wells, on the other hand, is ready to tear into one of the best films of the year because he is so uncomfortable personally at seeing a red mark on a man's cheek...but that's a whole different story.)

And for, the record, because of Kaufman, I have now written more about Wells and Knowles today than I have in more than a month. Ironic how the plead for less to be written about a subject demands that the subject of the pleading be written about.

4. Since I'm On A Tear: Could it get any worse that Warner Bros. quoting Tom King, who usually does the Hollywood Journal column at the Wall Street Journal, in an ad for Pay It Forward? One: King is not a critic nor does he pretend to be. Two: if the movie were really a serious Oscar® player, wouldn't we have seen it in Toronto, where Warner Bros. had two other films? Three: The only way the quote, "The Best Oscar Buzz Of Any Film This Fall," could be true is if it was followed by, "because there is virtually no Oscar buzz on any film and this one has two recent Oscar winners in the fold." Almost Famous has had more Oscar buzz. The Contender has had better Oscar buzz. Chocolat has had better Oscar buzz. Quills has better Oscar buzz. Moulin Rough had more Oscar buzz. Geez, Wonder Boys has more Oscar buzz than Pay It Forward and it already flopped once. The only reason Pay It Forward has ANY Oscar buzz is because of the actors and the fact that Warner Bros. has nothing else coming except for Proof of Life and everyone now assumes that who is boinking who will distract from any real shot at awards. But once again, the gross part is that the Wall Street Journal is being dragged into this kind of publicity. Joe Morgenstern is a respected critic. Fine. But this pull from Tom King is reminiscent of DreamWorks brilliant manipulation of the New York Times' Bernard Weinraub on American Beauty (which has Weinraub proclaiming heat where the was absolutely none...until there was)...just not remotely as elegantly handled.

"The Top Three"