Curveball
“While some critics feel personal relationships [with filmmakers] don’t affect what they write, that’s not been my experience,” writes L.A. Times film critic Kenneth Turan. “I’ve even found that meeting filmmakers in the course of writing stories from film festivals, though helpful in understanding creative decisions, can be problematic for reviewing. It’s not that you change your opinion of the film from black to white, it’s that friendship can make you take a little off your fastball, so to speak — make it harder to be as blisteringly candid as you ought to be.
L.A. Times critic Kenneth Turan; Exploding Girl star Zoe Kazan.
“That’s why, as an astute colleague of mine once said, when Hollywood wants to influence a critic, they don’t do it with gifts or money, they do it with access to talent.”
Turan wrote the preceding as part of a 3.28 Critics Notebook piece about feelings of personal and professional conflict in reviewing Bradley Rust Grey‘s The Exploding Girl (Oscilloscope, opening 4.2 in Los Angeles). Turan has known the star, Zoe Kazan, most of her life as a result of a long friendship with her parents, director-screenwriters Nick Kazan (Dream Lover, At Close Range) and Robin Swicord (Jane Austen Book Club).
But whatever happended to the idea that a real friend is the one who honestly tells you what’s up? You know, the one who says your fly is unzipped, you shouldn’t date this person because she/he is a skank/player and a liar, or that you really need to stop being such an asshole?
Maybe the meaning of friendship in the film industry differs from the meaning of the word to everyone else.
but your fly is unzipped is a less expensive friendly piece of advice compared to telling them their $30 million movie is a piece of crap and they should never be allowed to direct again.
when a critic has a real relationship with a filmmaker or cast/crew members, they need to not review that film. My favorite was a few years ago a critic reviewed a movie that had him thanked in the credits. You pass that over to the other critic on the staff. Otherwise it’s a reacharound.
pic of Turan and Kazan looks like a preview of a very special Dateline. He’s creepy when he smiles
I’ve met and briefly chatted with Kazan twice now — right after seeing The Exploding Girl a couple of weeks ago, and late yesterday afternoon at Le Pain Quotidien in the West Village, where she and b.f. Paul Dano were quietly hanging and reading. And even this has slightly affected my views of her work. Because I personally like her, I can sense a very slight softening instinct taking hold. So I’m going to double-down on what I really think.
Her performance in the film is genuine, “real,” undeniably exposed. It’s feels a bit underplayed at times, and at other times curiously intense. You come away thinking, “Yup, she’s interesting, all right.” But The Exploding Girl is not a ripper. It’s a drifting mood/character piece about a developing relationship between Kazan’s character and a wimpy-dweeby guy with red hair and a sweet personality. For me the film is languid and even a bit smug, in a sense. It feels caught in a concept that insists upon an avoidance of a compelling story or any dramatic fundamentals whatsover in order to ratify its credentials as a cool little low-budgeter.
But Kazan is a comedic hoot in the currently running A Behanding in Spokane (which I also saw yesterday afternoon, just before the random encounter). Everyone in this play — Christopher Walken, Sam Rockwell, Anthony Mackie — has a great time with the extreme dark humor of it. Once again the theatre was mostly filled with off-the-bus types, and they all had a blast. Watching this play is almost like being at a Yankee game. The feelings of awe and appreciation for Walken when he steps up to the plate are palpable.
Isn’t Turan being a little redundant? This homely young woman is a working actress solely because of her personal relationships (i.e., the family into which she was born).
Wow, Rob, bitter and uninformed much? Also, you think only non-homely women ought to be working actresses?
Anyway…good on Turan for giving this matter some consideration. One thing about being a “real” journalist is that it somehow obliges you to at least try and observe “real” journalistic ethics. As opposed to the Twitterific Kidcrix who fraternize (and more…much, much more) with their mumbly-corey pals like it ain’t no thing and never deem to reveal their conflicts of interest when writing up their usually indefensible raves of their “work.”
Sorry, that final “their” obviously is wrong…but you get the idea…
Thanks for saying that Glenn. Now please allow me to elaborate a bit.
Rob, you’re a sexist asshole.
Let me ask you something, do you apply the same standard when you look at pictures of male actors? If Wells posted a picture of say, I don’t know, Paul Giamatti, would you have even thought of criticizing him based on his looks? Would you refer to any male actor that way? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
And besides, you’re clearly blind. Zoe is quite pretty in my eyes.
I understand your point, Rob. And you’re probably right that she has, what some might call, an unfair advantage because of her parents and grandfather etc and so on.
But nepotism in show business is par for the course.
Jake and Maggie Gyllenhaal had a lot of connections too. And what about the more blatantly nepotistic Will & Jada Smith brood? The list goes on and on. So maybe you should accept that and not be all bitter about it, cause there is really no point. The world isn’tt fair. Life isn’t fair. Deal with it. Move on.
Critics may be affected to the extent that they may be less acerbic in the case of movies they wish to pan, or be more enthusiastic with movies they wish to praise, but the detailed analysis and conclusions should not change and readers should still come away with an objective impression of the film.
I actually saw you, Jeffrey, yesterday at the matinee – you were one row over from mine. You’re completely right about Kazan, though. She is hilarious in the play along with everyone else in the cast.
And another good point about the so-called Mumblecorians, Glenn. Their sycophantic “critic” friends have helped to legitimize their work in many people’s eyes. But with the exception of maybe Andrew Bujalski, I find most of their “work” to be quite insufferable. Especially Joe Swanberg’s.
Rob is out of line with the homely remark, but maybe not so much with the suggestion of nepotism. I grow weary of all the offspring who get breaks because of the family connections. Would Jason Reitman be making films without his old man’s coattails? Perhaps, but with the same level of early career success? Doubtful.
I should have mentioned Reitman, Budd. But connections will only get you so far.
I’ve seen Reitman’s short films, and it’s clear form his early work that he has talent. And it take him five years to raise the money for TYFS because his father insisted that he raise the money through the system and not rely on financing from Montecito.
Not homely at all. Cute. Though oddly I thought it was a very young and blonde Sally Hawkins for a second.
I apologize for hijacking this thread one last time but, there are exceptions.
I recently saw Cracks, that Eva Green movie directed by Ridley Scott’s daughter and I could not help but think how poorly is was shot. And I was pulling for the film to work.
And Michael Mann’s daughter is in preproduction on a movie that he’s producing through Forward Pass–and she’s got like one credit to her name. And that was one off thing, she directed an episode of her father’s show, Robbery Homicide, and now she’s moving up to features with a 50 million dollar plus project. And she has clearly not earned that opportunity, either.
I wish there were female Paul Giamatti equivalents! The homogeneity of the actors and especially actresses that get work is a huge, huge problem. But let’s be honest – when a young actress of less-than-traditional beauty, whether it’s Zoe or Rumer Willis or Mamie Gummer (who I think is lovely, but not in a CW/Maxim kind of way), starts getting breaks, there’s always a family connection.
I got nothing out of Zoe’s performances in Rev. Road and It’s Complicated, but I haven’t seen her onstage or in Exploding Girl, so she may really shine there. I’m sure she’s hard-working and very accomplished. And I apologize for the harshness of the earlier comment.
But c’mon.
Completely agree with Turan’s assessment, and is yet another reason why I’ve cherished critics over film bloggers, who are far too easily swayed by rubbing up against talent, like last year all of the fawning over George Clooney, etc. Usually when one sees multiple raves coming in for a film early you can almost always count on the fact that that blogger has been in close proximity with talent.
That said, I firmly believe if Jason Reitman hadn’t been Ivan Reitman’s son he would have won that Oscar.
film critics ought to be like food critics – ghosts that wander into a seat unobserved and aren’t beholding to the chef in their review. But they aren’t. They’re part of the machine because they must exist off the favor of seeing a sneak preview of a film so they can have their copy ready to roll on Friday morning. And they get cut off and told buy a ticket, they whine that they aren’t treated like the normal moviegoer.
And what’s worse are film critics who want to pass through the screen and get real jobs. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but when you’re shopping scripts or being wined and dined for a studio gig, you need to quit reviewing films. Cause a reviewer doesn’t want to kibosh the deal by panning a piece of crap being released by their future employer.
A movie reviewer shouldn’t owe anyone or ask a favor of anyone to do their job – if they want to come off as the high and mighty critic. Although Turan also knows that being a film critic is a risky job and if you can’t establish connections and land a few major star interviews, he won’t be seen as worthwhile to the paper. They can freelance hire any college dofus to write about How to Train Your Dragon or the latest Miley Cyrus epic.
Glenn Kenny raises a point that is worth further examination. I kind of hate to bring this up, because I genuinely like Karina Longworth’s writing a lot, and I’m genuinely happy to see her as an editor at LA Weekly, but I attended a screening of the mumblecoreish HARMONY AND ME last night at USC, and Ms. Longworth was facilitating the Q&A with the director. And it was *way* obvious that she and the director were *way* palsy-walsy with one another — to the point where she didn’t feel the need to ask him any real questions because, well, it was obvious she already knew all the answers. There is an effusive piece about HARMONY AND ME in the new LA Weekly — which is a fine enough small-stakes comedy, but also structureless and shitty-looking and not really the crowd-pleaser Ms. Longworth wants us to believe it is.
Also, the director opened the post-screening interview by complaining about how few people stuck around. I thought that was kind of crappy.
“I wish there were female Paul Giamatti equivalents”
I would say during the 90′s that was Kathy Bates. The only time PRIMARY COLORS came alive was when she showed up as the political operator. The gun to the guy’s package scene was too much, but the rest was great – especially her last scene when she realizes she backed the wrong horse breaking her heart.
Plus – and the young’uns and misogynists on this blog lack the empathy to grasp this – her hot tub scene in ABOUT SCHMIDT took major stones to do.
Homely??????
Whoa, still having a hard time believe the girl in that (very, very appealing picture) is the annoying chick from Revolutionary Road.
She’s CUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUTE.
Also: Nick Kazan RULES. At Close Range is a stunning work of art and the In Cold Blood of its time.
Didn’t he also direct that movie where Spader gets owned by PRIME-ERA Madchen Amick as an evil femme fatale? DREAM LOVER POWER.
Now I want to see her feet.
I agree with Lex, that pic of her is very nice.
If memory is correct, Andrew Sarris (during his tenure at THE NEW YORK OBSERVER) disclosed his friendship with Robert Benton–and still wrote about Benton’s films anyway.
You are correct, Terry. It went back even farther than that; Sarris made references to his friendship with Benton in reviews I remember going as far back as his Village Voice notice for Benton’s “Still of the Night” in 1982. Of course the logic was, once the disclosure was made, the reader was free to accept that as a grain of salt or entire salt lick to apply to the remainder of the review. This is substantively different than not making the disclosure at all.
HARMONY AND ME is an ungodly piece of shit. Talk about “homely.” Makes Joe Swanberg look like Nicholas Ray.
Karina Longworth just took a credibility nosedive. Of course, we can track her conflicts of interest on Twitter, so that’s gotta be…something.
Wow, I just watched the trailer for Harmony and Me and it looks exactly like every single one of the rest of the mumblecore crap.
I would rather masturbate with a hot curling iron than have to sit through another small relationship genre about droll, hoody-clad, listless 20-somethings trying to find their way through life.
In fact, if I ever see another movie where any character is wearing a hoody that is not performing some feat of athleticism, I might just spontaneously combust.
I would agree mostly with Mr. Kenny in that it can be an obstacle to true objectivity, so to speak, when you’re writing a review: if you like the dude or are remotely conscious of a relationship with that filmmaker on a personal level, it’s going to affect you. But I would also say that general impressions, interpretations, or even subconscious predilections are equally dangerous, which means that as a critic the only ethical obligation is to confess your feelings in as articulate a way as possible. If you love torture porn or hate period dramas it’s all part of the same process, quite frankly, and the more aware you can make your readers (actual or hypothetical) about those feelings, the more interesting and valuable (be it intellectually or monetarily) the article becomes. Roger Ebert effing LOVES Alex Proyas and as a result he’s eager to see the best in his work, but knowing that makes his critique of the material – the benefit of the doubt he automatically gives his work – a weightier sheen and makes it more impactful if you agree or disagree.
More ZOE, please!!!
I thought that Turan handled this about as best as could be. Honestly, critics should not be reviewing films in situations like this, but if it DOES happen, the way he went about it by going overboard with the laying of the all of his cards on the table is the right move. Otherwise you risk becoming Jann Wenner giving yet another Yoko Ono album a four star review in Rolling Stone. At a certain point no one will ever trust your reviews again.
Roger Ebert has a known friendship with Werner Herzog (Herzog even dedicated his Antarctica doc to Ebert), yet Ebert continues to review his films. And he tends to give them four stars across the board. I guess for some reason I don’t mind it as much because a) Ebert seems pretty incapable of anything other than honesty in his reviews and b) I completely agree with Ebert in his assessment of Herzog.
Since kingofnails posted his comment, somebody else has steered me to Longworth’s LA Weekly plaint about the distribution situation for “Harmony and Me,” which is blithely free of any mention of her social connections to the filmmakers.
http://www.laweekly.com/2010-03-25/film-tv/harmony-and-me-and-frustration/
I rather doubt that Drex Heikes would be concerned with such a breach; guys with a background in investigative journalism tend to hold “arts writing” in at least mild contempt anyway, and he’s probably just happy to have hired a “brand.” As for Longworth, it’s entirely probable, given her background, that she’s unaware that such ethical provisions exist, even tacitly. Or she believes that the internet changed everything. Or that what was good for Pauline Kael is good enough for her. Which brings to mind, of course, Marx’s famous opening lines of “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon.”
First off, Giamatti is probably the absolute worst example possible, because he did get pretty far solely based on his father’s name [yes, you're all movie people, so you may not have heard of Bart Giamatti, but he was huge even before he was the commissioner of baseball]. You think it’s a coincidence that the son of the president of Yale got into Yale drama school? Ha!
But, second:
“Their sycophantic “critic” friends have helped to legitimize their work in many people’s eyes.”
That’s simply ridiculous. Mumblecore is only legitimate in the eyes of people who make the movies (and, sure, their critic friends). It’s not a real movement, it’s nothing that anybody seeks out or enjoys. It’s just a name for cheap shit that gets made because the indie world hasn’t figured out what to do with digital video yet.
I think Glenn makes a good point about disclosure. However, I think that they should also contact the actor, so that “Oh, I’m totally friends with him, we knocked back a few and shot the shit.” could be followed by, “Uh, who? Oh, right, sure, he was in the group of people. Did he actually say anything? I can’t remember.”
Because, let’s face it, the real problem isn’t that too many critics are *actual* friends with the filmmakers. The problem is that the critics allow the filmmakers/actors to essentially seduce them. What’s amazing it, is also opens up the thing that Jeff himself has done repeatedly, where the critic gets petulant if they *aren’t* treated special by the movie, and then they really go after it.
Almost any situation —good or bad— is affected by the cheap prada shoes attitude we bring to.
It’s so true, personal relationships with filmmakers is important if we are going to write something about their movies. An in depth knowledge, an insight of their works and who they are as a person helps writers to supply to the people accurate informations. We cannot judge a film maker based on the films they make. Whether the articles are related to films or some other subject being well versed about the topic is what attract readers and spectators.
Bellacere real estate
It’s so true, personal relationships with filmmakers is important if we are going to write something about their movies. An in depth knowledge, an insight of their works and who they are as a person helps writers to supply to the people accurate informations. We cannot judge a film maker based on the films they make. Whether the articles are related to films or some other subject being well versed about the topic is what attract readers and spectators.
Bellacere real estate
the gilr looks well.But i think may be you like it wholesale jewelry
wholesale fashion jewelry.
Thaks for your news! that is very advantageous! mulberry bags mulberry handbags mulberry bags sale mulberry bags uk mulberry bags outlet designer bags mulberry alexa mulberry alexa bag
Thaks for your news! that is very advantageous! mulberry bags mulberry handbags mulberry bags sale mulberry bags uk mulberry bags outlet designer bags mulberry alexa mulberry alexa bag
Thaks for your news! that is very good! Like the monster beats! beats by dr dre monster headphones beats headphones dr dre headphones monster beats by dr. dre monster beats by dre monster beats studio monster beats pro monster beats solo
Thaks for your news! that is very good! Like the monster beats! beats by dr dre monster headphones beats headphones dr dre headphones monster beats by dr. dre monster beats by dre monster beats studio monster beats pro monster beats solo