A couple of weeks ago, I shelled out a good chunk of change to go see Kevin Smith's
Red State at Radio City Music Hall, where it was playing the first engagement of its spring "road show" tour, in advance of a self-distributed run in the fall. I knew I'd have to go out of pocket to do it, thanks to
Smith's inexplicable war against film criticism, and was kind of fine with that-- I wanted to see the film (I remain an admirer, in spite of his feelings about my profession of choice), and knew that I'd probably be one of the first people to review it (outside of the Sundance Film Festival crowd). So
I wrote the review, the end.
A week later, I suddenly got an email about it. And then another, within an hour or so. Something was clearly up; you don't just start getting emails of nowhere, a week after a review goes up. Sure enough, Smith had posted a link to the review on his Twitter feed-- actually, he'd re-tweeted a link that someone sent him, adding his comments. To wit:
Via @ "4-1/2 Star DVDTalk RedState review: Way to go!" And I almost teared-up reading. s'like I wrote it.3:36 PM Mar 12th via web
So I appreciate the traffic, of course, and am glad that Smith enjoyed the review. More than anything, though, I'm glad that he read the last paragraph, where I cushion my praise of the film with (I think) a reasonable argument for why his jihad against critics was so ill-advised.
What is particularly interesting, of course, is that although Smith himself voiced no objection to that last graf, his KISS Army could only focus on that in their emails to me.
Email Numero Uno-- "Scott" writes:
I read your review of 'Red State' and... I don't believe Kevin's stance on film critics is childish. Why would anyone want to screen their film for someone who's job it is to force their opinions down everyone's throat? The reality is that people can form their own opinions, and they dont need journalists, that are one step away from being paparazzi, telling them how to feel. Fans should see the flick first, not a group of moody, "sophisticated" critics.
So "Scott" doesn't believe in film critics. Which begs the question: Why was he reading my film criticism?
Email Numero Dos-- "Lyn" writes:
I read your review of 'Red State' and...I was wondering why you chose to run it seven months before the film officially opens? Kind of an industry no-no.
Also, I too loved the movie but disagree that not screening it for critics is a childish move. How many times have you read a childish review from a biased critic who hates the movie solely because Kevin made it? i.e. After Sundance, Drew McWeeny called Red State "a failure on every level."
Anyone who avoids that kind of animus from the start is smart in my book, not childish. You will never make those kind of people happy so why let them grace your theatre screening just because they feel entitled to?
Thanks, Lyn, for your advice on "industry no-no"s. I'll defer to the director on this point: "From now on," Smith tweeted back in March, "any flick I'm ever involved with, I conduct screenings thusly: you wanna see it early to review it? Fine: pay like you would if you saw it next week." I paid. I paid way more than if I'd seen it in general release. I'm not sure what rule the reader thinks I broke, especially since she seems aware that a) it was reviewed previously at Sundance, and b) Smith had no objection to me reviewing it.
But to their other points: Scott, my work is not "forced" down anyone's throat. You wanna read what I thought of a film? You have a choice to click to it, or click away. THAT'S HOW THE INTERNET WORKS. You're right, people can indeed "form their own opinions," but that doesn't mean that someone who has a knowledge of film history, an analytical eye, and can put a sentence together is irrelevant. "They don't need journalists... to tell them how to feel." So we shouldn't have news either? I mean, people can go over to Libya or Japan and "form their own opinions," right?
And Lyn, I'll tell you how many times I "read a childish review from a biased critic who hates the movies solely because Kevin made it": the half-dozen or so Red State reviews that came out after Smith declared war on critics. Before that, believe it or not, most critics liked Kevin Smith, and cut him a good deal of slack. Do I think it's right that the critics who have reviewed Red State have let his attacks on our profession influence their opinion? Of course not, and I addressed that in the piece. Do I understand? Certainly.
But playing the victim of the media is as much a part of Smith's schtick as it is, say, Sarah Palin's. He'll decry the treatment of film writers, and take a big stand to keep critics away from his films, but he still has a publicist promoting the movie, and I still got plenty of press releases about the Red State premiere in the weeks leading up to it. On a lark, I emailed back before ponying up $100+ for my pair of tickets, just to make sure there were no media passes. "We do not have any press passes for the tour and none will be given out" was the terse response. So imagine my surprise, the day after paying to see the movie, when I read the following in Indiewire:
But who pays that kind of money for a 97-minute movie and the opportunity to witness Smith unfurl essentially the same routine he’s done probably hundreds of times before? (Not me. Despite Smith’s virtual fatwah against the press, he still hires good publicity to get them through the door.)
So yeah, I got played. (I've emailed his publicist twice about this "misunderstanding" and have still received no comment in return.) And I had a moment, after reading that, where I wanted to pull the review-- because fuck that guy, I'm not gonna help promote a movie that I was lied to about. And then I calmed down, and let it go. You've gotta deal with children by acting like an adult.
But I'm not gonna let his sycophants tell me I'm wrong about this.
No comments:
Post a Comment