 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|||||
THE FUZZY PICTURE: I tend to be pretty pleased with Patrick Goldstein’s Big Picture column in the L.A. Times. But he pissed me off big time this Tuesday. The column was about the disconnect between critics and the public these days, based on the reviews for A.I., headlined “Reviewers' 'A.I.' May Be 'Aging, Irrelevant'.“ Cute. And there are arguments to be made… they just weren’t in Patrick’s story.
Hindsight, it seems, is not always 20/20. Sometimes it feels like 20/20… especially when it agrees with your opinion. As much as I’ve ripped Pearl Harbor, where was the Goldstein column explaining how out of touch film critics are by ripping that film a new one as it grosses nearly $200 million? He agreed with the critics there… and so, no column. What about the Goldstein column about how important critics were to Traffic and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? Well, it wasn’t really the critics that drove those movies. But what I’m concerned about is intellectual consistency.
I personally believe/agree that there are a lot of generationally handicapped film critics out there right now. But Goldstein points to “A-list reviews from A.O. Scott and Lisa Schwarzbaum… both of whom are end-of-baby-boom/Gen X types. Geez, A.O. Scott compares A.I. to earlier Spielberg movies. A.O. Scott wasn’t a movie critic – or in any way a writer about movies - the last time Spielberg made a movie! And what about a guy like Michael Wilmington at the Chicago Tribune… highly respected and NEVER one to be in anyone else’s boat. This is the guy who put O Brother, Where Art Thou? at the top of his top Ten last year. (And the more times I watch it, the more I am willing to agree that he isn’t nuts.) But there isn’t a paper in America that wouldn’t be well served by adding Wilmington to their staff.
Goldstein also assumes to know what “rank-and-file moviegoer sentiment” is, capturing it “best” by quoting an extremist letter to the Times, that stated, “Forget about nonexistent movie critics--"A.I." could be the biggest scam ever put upon the general public by the entertainment industry. This film is horrible!" Think what you may about the film, when did A.I. ever present itself as anything other than what is was… ambiguous and unusual? I feel strongly that the reason the film didn’t open as well as hoped is not because people hated the film (Hot Button Rule #3: Opening Weekends are NEVER about the quality of the film.), but because Warner Bros. and Steven Spielberg didn’t try to trick the public into thinking it was something it wasn’t. That is, other than “good.” But that’s hardly unusual. A.I. was about as honorable a sales job as you’ll ever see.
But then Goldstein gets rolling into a mistaken idea that he and his buddies are the real arbiters of taste, throwing away any real sense of perspective. When Patrick takes on Denby for shredding Staying Alive as the ”vision of the end. As you watch it, the idea of what a movie is crumbles before your eyes," wondering what Denby can do to top that pan when watching Tomb Raider, he’s exposing his own limitations. Firstly, taking an 18-year-old quote out of context is unfair. But, more to the point, as often as I disagree with Denby, he was right with that review of Staying Alive… not just because the movie sucked but because it did, in fact, mark a distinct change in the history of popular film. Saturday Night Fever represented a film that could be, in 1977, commercial, while still keeping a light on for the fading traditions of the early 70s. By the time of Stallone’s 1983 sequel, Stallone himself had already taken Rocky from intimacy into hyperactivity and indeed, his version of Tony Manero’s life marked the beginning of the end of Travolta’s first career. (Two of a Kind and Perfect finished him off, but Staying Alive was the kick off.) In fact, Tomb Raider doesn’t deserve that kind of review. It’s just more of the same… not much different than Swordfish or The Fast and The Furious in spirit or execution.
Then Our Mr. Goldstein starts smugly deconstructing films that were too complex for both critics and audiences, Bringing Out The Dead and Eyes Wide Shut. But again, just because they weren’t successful entertainments does not mean they weren’t works of absolute genius by directors not past their prime, but right in the height of their skill. Of course, neither film really fits Goldstein’s profile, since both were attacked by a lot of the critics out there. Both films will, I can assure you all, be studied by filmmakers and students of film for decades, as the richness of both films, which repelled the public, is beyond the reach of 99 percent of filmmakers working today. You want to know what Scorsese film I think is way overrated and over praised? The Age of Innocence. It just doesn’t work. It was a transitional film for him. It informs all his films afterwards, but it’s not, in my opinion a very good film. Kubrick? There is a touch of genius in every single film… but he didn’t make many films. Is The Shining the weak link? Many disagree. Barry Lyndon? Watched it again a couple of weeks ago… not in the pantheon, but there’s some amazing stuff there.
Goldstein continues, “…with rare exceptions, such as American Beauty, today's audiences prefer safe, less demanding fare.” Uh, Patrick, with due respect to a film I liked a lot… American Beauty WAS safe, less demanding fare. Do you want to see a dangerous, very demanding film that covers the same topic and expands on it exponentially? See Fight Club. What did people who hated Fight Club say over and over? “I liked the first part… with the Ikea stuff.” That was the part that was exactly the same as American Beauty… the safe part. It’s easy to say you feel imposed upon by a world that’s become too pre-packaged. Admit that part of you really wants to be hurt and hurt others just so you can wake up… that’s a challenge to filmgoers.
And I’m not even saying that critics don’t bend over for their favorites all the time. Not that it’s anything new. But look at the reviews of that car wreck, Reindeer Games. The film didn’t even pretend to carry any weight, but critics herniated discs bending over to kiss the ass of directing icon John Frankenheimer. Some may have done the same for Spielberg. But whether Goldstein likes it or not, a lot of people loved A.I. Maybe they’re right. Maybe they’re wrong.
My “Critics Are Suckers” pick from last year was Dancer in the Dark. I felt like critics liked it mostly because they saw it as “daring” and “original.” I found it to be neither. But I felt that they wanted to like it… not because they were old or irrelevant, but because the emperor’s new clothes always draw moths. Did the film’s failure at the box office and at the Oscars and even in most critics groups make me right? No. My opinion stood and stands on its own. I am here to have an opinion, be able to defend my opinion and to understand that a large group of people will disagree with absolutely anything I say.
The truth is that critics should, for the most part, disagree with public opinion, as voted at box office. The job of a critic is to actually know something more than your next door neighbor. Yes, there are those who are “regular guy” critics and they have their place. “Popular” and “good” are not symbiotic concepts in the film business. I thought Tomb Raider was crap, but I let my readers know what they were in store for if they saw it. It isn’t my job to convince them to disregard Angelina Jolie’s lips or breasts. It is my job to let them know that they are pretty much all there is worth watching in the film. And it’s not my job to convince people that The War Zone was a rousing date movie… but to give them insight into the power of a film that should make any audience member uncomfortable and emotional.
Judging a film critic, especially one at an important outlet, based on “Thumbs Up” or “Thumbs Down” is wrong. I can assure you that Roger Ebert would prefer you read his criticism in the Chicago Sun-Times before you decide that you know how he feels about a movie rather than to just assume that 100 seconds of TV time hits it on the nose. (Ironically, while Goldstein took the L.A. Times’ Ken Turan’s review as negative, Rotten Tomatoes took it as a positive review.)
Criticism that is reduced to a statistic is worthless, with due respect to Rotten Tomatoes. The job of a critic, it seems to me, is to add some serious thought to the conversation of films. Marketing departments are there to get you into the theater. Critics love Memento… audiences, despite huge box office for an art film, aren’t going in major numbers. Are the critics wrong? Critics hated Star Wars: Episode One. It grossed around $800 million worldwide. Were the critics wrong?
Anyway, I think I’ve written more about why Goldstein’s column was misguided than Goldstein wrote. Yes, there are critics who are past their primes. There are critics who embrace their personal favorites… they need not be great filmmakers with decades of success. And there are critics who are out of touch. But context is critical. Just as I attack Patrick today, I may love his column next Tuesday. I fail in this space all the time. To be judged, for better or worse, based on one column, is horrifying. On the next page, I’m going to write about Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor’s contributions to Jurassic Park 3…. the guys who wrote Election have their names on this film?!?!??! And so we go on. And Patrick, rent the DVD of Kundun… one of the greatest films from a major filmmaker that barely anyone saw. Take an evening. Light a candle. And let it wash over you. We’ll all feel better then.
