Ryan McNeil
It feels like it was only yesterday, but it was definitely further back than that. I was having a drink with movie-lover-extraordinaire Bob Turnbull, and somehow the conversation turned to a film that had been released that weekend. He waved a hand – the non-verbal sign that said “I haven’t seen it yet, please stop talking now”. Then after a moment, he pointed out a slight unhappiness with a growing trend.
“If you don’t say what you want to say about it on opening weekend, nobody cares” Bob said. I’m actually paraphrasing, but his point was clear. Film discussion had moved to a place where the chatter was at a fever pitch in the days leading up to a film’s release, and on opening weekend. Want to hash it out ten days later? Sorry mate, something new has opened: we’re talking about that.
Oddly enough though, I feel like something stranger has happened since that conversation a year or two ago. It feels like now the race isn’t on to make one’s opinion known, but that the race is on to rain on the parade.
The first example that comes to mind came last winter when ZERO DARK THIRTY was released. You remember that don’t you? American politicians went so far as to call it pro-torture or anti-torture depending on their party…some even went so far as to call for inquiries, believing that details in the script warranted a breach of national security.
The only problem? None of them had seen it.
The film played for certain members of the press, and a few hundred members of awards bodies, but at the time of all this fracas, none of the people yelling the loudest had seen it. Undeterred, they all wanted to brand the film before the public at large had a chance to decide how it should be branded.
More recently, I found myself distracted by Neil deGrasse Tyson’s tweets about the scientific inaccuracies in GRAVITY. As you might have heard, the brilliant astrophysicist dropped a series of tweets pointing out flaws like the proximity of The Hubble Telescope to The ISS and the debris orbiting the wrong way. Admittedly, my first reaction was to mutter that perhaps scientists shouldn’t be film critics…but I had to ask myself why I was so annoyed. It wasn’t that deGrasse Tyson was putting down a film I loved; people do that every week. It wasn’t even that he was examining it from a standpoint of scientific accuracy. What I realized was that it was his timing that was rubbing me the wrong way.
The Tweets were posted on Sunday of opening weekend. In the midst of an original movie for grown-ups being critically praised and making an unexpectedly massive box office take, here was Neil playing naysayer. It felt like he was interrupting the Stanley Cup trophy presentation to point out that The Blackhawks would never be able to repeat with the roster holes they faced going into the off-season.
To be fair, deGrasse Tyson has since clarified that he enjoyed the film, and pointed out many things the film got right. I don’t know about you, but I feel like that gets filed under “little, late; too”.
There seemed to be more dissent this weekend centred around 12 YEARS A SLAVE. I’m not speaking so much about negative reviews – not even one particularly notorious negative review. I’m speaking about pieces that seem to be built on a thesis of “It’s not all that”. They feel less like they are responding to the film, and more like they are trying to tamp down a particularly positive consensus. This with the film showing on only 19 screens in North America.
Once again – Chicago? Your defence will be a mess come training camp.
None of this is new. In years past, Oscar campaigns are usually littered with stories about how this political action didn’t happen the way it was depicted, or that humanitarian actually had more than a few skeletons in the closet. Thing was, in years past, this sort of pendulum swing in the other direction (“the backlash” if you wish) began weeks – even months – later. Now if this attitude hasn’t started by Saturday night of opening weekend, it’s because it’s been brewing since two weeks before release.
Is it possible that we’ve gotten ahead of ourselves? That we’re the guy in the board meeting who won’t stop shitting on people’s ideas? I realize in the age of social media that the conversation and shelf-life of these topics has shortened dramatically. However, if we don’t have the attention-span to talk about a topic for more than a few days, there’s no way we’ll have the attention-span to remember who pissed on it first.
I agree with your main point – as a society we are basing a lot of our criticism on a few reviews and almost just letting the zeitgeist tells whether the movie is good or not.
I’m glad you dropped back your statement about scientists not writing movie reviews. Tyson has just as much right and obligation to talk about movies, particularly those about which he has some expertise. But I think you’re right on the timing – opening weekend just makes his short, valid statements feel a little mean spirited, intentional or not.
Yeah, the timing of NDT’s tweets were what got me most. That and the fact that I know how funny and clever he is, it left me wishing he’d voiced himself in something long-form, rather than a series of Tweets.
I am fine with scientists and politicians weighing in on a film, assuming they have seen it, as they are also film lovers like the rest of us. However, I do not think twitter is the proper forum to do it. Twitter is more of a shouting match, in an already noisy room, than a tool for meaningful conversation. I found Tyson articulated himself far better when he explained himself clearer in a full post/article.
I think there are two factors that play into the short lived discussion and quick hate of films. The first is the sheer volume of titles that get released each week. Like studios who only focus on opening weekend numbers, many critics and film writers only care about being first to speak at the table. They will often gain far more notice if they pan a film everyone else loves rather than joining in on the praise. After the first few days they are already looking toward the next new and shiny thing.
The second factor is that the discussion about a film does not start two weeks prior, but an entire year before a release. We simply know far too much information about a film prior to its release. The fact that Oscar pundits start making their list based solely on a film’s casting news is baffling to me. I remember a time pre-internet when you only heard about a film from your local paper, or magazine, the week it was released. Now we can track a film from production to every festival that it plays. We formulate our possible reactions to film (e.g. “must see” or “I am going to pass”) based on the level of festival and critical buzz it gets when it opens. This often results in creating impossible expectations for a film that it cannot, or ever claimed it would, meet.
RE: Two Factors
1 – You’re right – swimming upstream will certainly get a critic noticed. However, are they doing it because they believe the work is too flawed to be hailed the way it’s being hailed? Or are the doing it to gain attention. The second option is what turns our heads towards Armond White every six months or so, and I think we can agree that’s not a good course to be taking.
2 – Again, you’re right…and the fact that we’re champing at the bit so early isn’t good either. I mean, I know that directors like Spielberg, Scorsese, and Fincher have my money the moment they sign on to do a film…but dissecting every piece of production news strikes me as doing more harm than good, no?
I certainly think there’s plenty of knee-jerk reactions, especially on the internet, but I think it works both ways. People are quick to praise films as one of the year’s best and then end it having it on the fringes of their best of the year list by the time December rolls around. I’m just more interested in people taking time to develop some time to develop a thoughtful reason as to why they feel about a movie in whichever direction.
My hard and fast rule is that I don’t say anything about a movie until I sleep on it. The few times I’ve broken that rule, I’ve almost always regretted it. Therefore, I think Bob’s a bit closer to the truth: the problem is more about being the first one to the conversation and not necessarily about taking the time to be thoughtful. In haste, we’re quick to talk in extremes and I think that can lead to a conversation that honestly I’ve kinda grown sick of being a part of. I’d rather wait until heads cool down and write something with a bit of distance from initial passions than get a wider readership by being one of the first and most hyperbolic opinions.
Ah yes, the knee-jerk…
A very good point that a lot of “critique” isn’t always measured as much as it is gushing praise. Does that tempt a dissenter? Maybe. But should they take the bait? Maybe not. It’s as if the critic doesn’t like the dinner talk, so rather than sit quietly and eat (or leave the table), they yell over the conversation.
I think it’s a whole other post, but you’re bang-on…there’s a lot of breathless giddy praise that seems like it was feverishly typed in the theatre lobby moments after the credit rolled. I do wish that would slow down too.
I’ve really noticed this trend during the past few years. The reason for me is that I rarely see movies on the opening weekend or sometimes even in theaters due to having young kids. I’m often watching movies weeks, months, or even years later. I’ve unsubscribed from most blogs that focus too much on news. Like Courtney says, the discussion starts so early. People are worn out by the time a film is released. The Internet and rush to get hits is a big part of it, but I’ve noticed it even on Twitter from people who are just talking. The barrage of films and news just gets overwhelming, and it gets so easy to tear down something or dismiss it without giving it a chance.
It’s like the 24-Hour News Cycle, right? There isn’t more things happening than there was in the past; there’s just more time spent talking about it and more people doing the talking.
I think that Tyson reaction is very telling of society as a whole. I always think of the Ebert quote: “A movie is not a logical art form.” And I think Tyson understands that, which is why he’s willing to admit that he liked “Gravity”. But, as you point out, he admits it quietly, after the fact. He LIKES playing the role of the persnickety scientist, just as so many LIKE playing the role of persnickety plot-hole-picker-outers.
Which is not to say teardowns of films can’t come from honest places. They can. But you do have to wonder how real they are sometimes, and how real raves are for that matter, and whether their only purpose is to incite reaction.
I think James hits on the real tragedy of all this – a failure to let films breathe, to let them expand in our mind, to give time for proper and private consideration. But, you know, why wait when everyone has a personal megaphone in the form of Twitter?
I think I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve said “It’s. A. Movie.” Over the past six years…but that was my first reaction to Tyson’s tweets. It’s like my friend Matthew Brown pointed out in his own well-spoken reaction to NDT’s Tweets: When he first saw CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, he never once wondered how the fuck The Mothership could possibly fly. However, here we are, in a time and place where a person needs to say to over one million people at once “What’s up with Dr. Stone’s hair?”
Like you, I was a late-adopter of Twitter…and moments like this make me regret it somewhat.
I LOVE THIS POST, DUDE. I feel the same way. I touched on it a bit in my (very too-late) review of GRAVITY, but it happens all the time. If a film is too popular, too successful, and too shiny, people feel the need to knock it down. It’s a similar phenomenon to when someone gets super-duper famous, and then we relish their fall from grace, or laugh and point at their terrible outfits. Anything to make us feel a little superior. What’s worse is I don’t think I’ve always been above it, either.
In the end, and this is both the greatest and worst thing about film criticism, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even if it’s unfounded, or unfair, or they haven’t even seen the movie (although, that’s really annoying). The real losers are the ones who miss out on great cinematic experiences only because they didn’t want to jump on a bandwagon. The real losers are the ones who hate movies just to hate them, or who hate them inherently and then hold on to that feeling after seeing it if, for some reason, the film failed to change their minds. If you’re closed-minded about a film, you’ll never be able to enjoy it. It’s something we all have to be aware of when writing about film.
DAMN HIPSTERS!
I agree with you on every point, except one:
If a person has not seen a film, they are NOT entitle to their opinion (myself included). They can say “I have no interest” or “I don’t think I’ll enjoy it” but that’s all.
Can’t knock what you haven’t tried.
I’m in total agreement with this, and it doesn’t even start with opening weekend. Just rumors (even “confirmed?” rumors) can stir a complete frenzy when frame one hasn’t even been filmed yet. I’m with Dan, seeing films often a ways after their initial release and with only a few exceptions, mainly podcasts, I avoid reading many new release reviews at all. Though I am still privvy to plenty of Twitter buzz, I’m pretty good at taking everything with a big grain of salt, probably also because I’m often just as much a fan of some bad movies and quite possibly uninterested with excellent awards fare.
So you lead me to something of a sub-question:
If you only follow a handful of critics/bloggers, are there any you’ve found whose tastes line up with your own? The reason I ask is because in that case, if that person was the one swimming upstream, you might find yourself giving the topic even MORE consideration.
Absolutely, there are a couple bloggers especially whose tastes match my own much more often than not (Today I Watched A Movie & Morgan on Media) and because of that I would consider their opposing view on a recent movie much more closely. Even if it doesn’t always work out, like when TIWAM rated RIPD fairly high compared to all the negativity while I found it pretty mediocre. He has since clarified that the rating was partly due to the comparitive nature of the day’s previous 2 movies: Red 2 & Turbo.
Aw man, this is good. This is something I particularly hate about awards season, because people are more inclined to dislike it if its up for multiple awards, probably not because they think it is a bad movie, but because they want it to be a bad movie. It’s this whole bloody hipster culture, which I hate with a passion. People just have to be different. And that’s another thing: you lose credibility if you love the Oscar favourite, you lose credibility if you hate it. Not everyone can love the independent/arthouse/foreign fare that the “seasoned film connoisseurs” can love. If Gravity is to be my favourite film of the year, so be it.
There’s no getting away from the knee-jerk reactions. Also, trying to get the timing right on when to chime in with your two cents on the biggest movie on the block is extremely hard in the blogging world. There are some movies you can let sit and wait for a few weeks before you pop up with your opinion. Gravity was hard because *everyone* saw it, and after a week it was pretty irrelevant reviews wise. Everyone was quick to give their praise, but one of the things I was thinking about in my review was how well the movie was going to stand up in the future. I think about this all the time. I find it strange how the biggest buzzing films of 2010 were films like The King’s Speech, Winter’s Bone and The Kids are All Right…and how often do they crop up in conversation now? Gravity could become another relic of our past, or it could be the film like, say, The Godfather or Alien etc which we look back on fondly in our old age.
I think I just veered off topic wildly there, but yeah…that’s where I stand on things.
Ever wonder how I came up with this site’s motto? It’s because I believe both passion and perspective are important when considering a film.
It’s for those reasons that I try not to be quick to trash, nor quick to effuse. Certain films might feel like being game-changers as they happen (AVATAR). Others might feel like that in retrospect (IRON MAN as a launchpad for “The Marvel Universe”). Still others might get mixed reactions at the time, but grow to be seen as a touchstone of their time (MUNICH). Still – we all speak in capital letters and feel like making our mark in seconds.
That’s why I wish the dissent could wait *just* a little bit. Wait and see if a title takes over the conversation before smearing it. It might just be that time proves your point anyway – perhaps even making it a little clearer!
The mud-slinging has already started on ’12 Years’ and it reads like a push-back instead of thoughtful reviews.
http://moviemezzanine.com/newswire/12-years-slave-dissenters-reminder-oscar-season/
I didn’t dig too deeply into other reviews on 12YAS, but I know that it has its haters. That’s totally cool, as long as they are digging on the film from a place of honest discontent, rather than reacting to their peers’ opinions.
I fear its the latter.
This is why I like my thing of seeing a movie at least a week after everyone else has, and reviewing it maybe two-three weeks after everyone has already reviewed it. So I can totally distance myself from these often exaggerated, cyclical conversations that don’t really contribute much to the actual discussion. And be completely irrelevant to the film critic “scene” haha.
I’m definitely guilty of dumping on films that everyone else likes, though, but generally it’s AFTER I’ve seen the movie!
…and I LOVE that about your work!