The Hot Blog

The play premiered in the U.K. Why not unveil the movie in the U.K.?

BTW, that lukewarm In Contention review (which was very well reasoned, btw) has been seconded by The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw. Like you, I'm hoping for the best, but I don't think this is quite the blunder you're making it out to be.

You're embarrassing yourself. Consistently.

I don't get it Dave.
Isn't it their choice even if 'you' think its a ridiculous one?

"Bitterness they have to overcome" says it all.
Ego maniacal critics who think the sun shines outut of their asses.

You say writers, plural. Who else is in a tizzy over this?

Yeah Kris... try to call me out in public because you are feeling personally insulted. Yet again. Ouchie.

And JBD... YES! That is the point. You react to it as though there is some lesson for "Ego maniacal critics who think the sun shines outut of their asses," but no one at any studio is trying to teach lessons to critics. They are trying to launch their movies.

And just the same as, indeed, it IS the studios' choice to do with their films what they want no matter what any outside influencer thinks - absolutely including me - the reality of how writers will respond to being left hanging IS a part of the consideration. And if it is not, it is a mistake.

It's just the same as any other choice. And just because you think that some of us are overpapmered whiners - a fact that would be hard for me to argue - it does not make it a non-factor. And as a factor, it should be smartly addressed, the same as choosing to do a Super Bowl ad or to send the film to college campuses or whatever other effort is made to put a positive spin on the release of ANY film.

"the reality of how writers will respond to being left hanging IS a part of the consideration. And if it is not, it is a mistake."

So we can expect a negative review from you? That what you're saying?

It's not right for me to name names, Della... but it's the same answer as Sarah Palin had about what papers she reads...

Did you read the rest of the piece, Kris?

God forbid that a review should be written by "some movie lover."

I don't call myself a critic, Mr Poland, so please don't accuse me of playing at being one. I am, however, a freelance film writer who has been a regular contributor to InContention for over six months now.

I'm not sure what credentials one needs in order to be permitted to review a film on a popular website. I have completed various film degrees and dissertations I could bore you with, but they're as irrelevant to the issue as any other qualification. Does one need to be paid a certain amount to be credible? Does a portfolio of one's work need to be approved by a holy panel of late Cahiers du Cinema critics before it's fit for public consumption?

Or is it possibly enough that my editor likes my writing style, assigned me to review "Frost/Nixon," and trusts my work enough to post the review on his own site, where it happened to catch the attention of other bloggers, including yourself?

I'm sorry you didn't get to see the film first on this occasion. I can relate, believe me -- I live in London, after all. Getting something this fresh is a novelty for me. But taking your frustration out on reviews like mine is a curious way to handle it.

Incidentally, though I support the right of AICN to post their perspectives as fully as I do mine, the prose stylist in me can't help but take offence at the comparison you make on your MCN page. If you could elaborate on what specific stylistic and/or structural concerns you have with my writing, I would be happy to take them into consideration.

Guy - I knew a month ago that I would not see this film before the London premiere... no surprise. And you were - and are - a minor part of the issue here, which, again, is not about Me, specifically, seeing the movie.

I was just innocently sitting here, working on other stuff, and the wave of bile from across the critical community started coming this way. And this is my reaction to dealing with it. The alternative was simply to ignore it... but that's not really what I do.

Happy to get your perspective on what you do. I have no problem with your writing. I do have a problem with a review from someone without a history being touted as a "first review." Context matters in criticism. Always has. No need to be in the NYT to qualify... just need to have a reasonable relationship to your work. I hope that will become the case in time.

Glad to have that cleared up then.

For the record, nowhere did I claim to have the "first review." That came from other bloggers. I wasn't aware the review would land first when I wrote it -- it just lucked out that way.

Is it completely heretical to opine that I kinda wish boomer filmmakers would take a breather on Nixon and Watergate for a couple years?

I'm even interested in the period and I'm all for passing on the "lessons of history" and all. And I recognize for most of Hollywood's middle age elite power players, that chapter in history is THE defining moment.

But for people now as old as *40*, we didn't live through it in any cognizant way.

Then again, Baby Boomer directors still produce roughly 174 World War II movies each calendar year, so I guess we get at least another three decade of SHOCK! at Nixon.

Even if the movie is great, LexG, your feelings about it may well be the norm amongst potential ticket buyers.

Every time i read a piece like this, i have this visual of a man slamming his hand on a podium screaming PAY ATTENTION TO ME! I AM FUCKING RELEVANT!

It's ego. There are no rules. They change at the studio's whim. The internet changed the game. Control is the key word now. For W. it makes sense. Playing the hand close to the chest is the smartest thing they could have done, since it's kind of a story everyone knows, the depths of which Stone goes to remains secret, keeps everyone guessing, and both sides go to see it. The more you hear about W., the less people would want to see it.

Still, if you're looking for rules Dave, you're going to spend so much time slamming your fist into the podium that you wind up with a broken hand.

As always, leave it to Kristopher Tapley and his dogs to put their "movie" spin on what is, essentially, an industry column.

Well, David, I get it.

It's not about Critics and their worthiness. It's about the studios and how they make decisions AND spend money AND miss out on other opportunities and ultimately end up jeopardizing the very thing they did all of the above in the first place. These other alternatives are right in front of them and how can they not see them?

No offense to you Guy personally and I don't even mean guys like you in general (and you may even be 100% right in your take, heck, knowing Howard you probably are) but this is an INDUSTRY column first (at least before it became and Obamablog) and the simple fact is, studios cannot afford taking chances on people like you being among the first to posting their reviews.

Because if things start going wrong there is no NYT rebuttal they can post, no Variety Column they can write. Stench. Because in the end, it's just another honest blogger who was invited to offer his views. There's no tracking back to that person. He's a new face but no one on the outside will care. That's AICN style.

And good executives, they know if things will go wrong. They don't sample small. They let individual voice drown out. And another thing they don't do is they don't screen movies for trades prior to screenings only have to their views posted after the fact.

You said it yourself Guy, you didn't call yourself first. It was other who did that. Score one for the good guys, right? That how you are trying to sell. Why do you even feel like defending yourself. This here isn't about you and please don't let Tapley make you feel otherwise.

But it's not even about who was first, it's about who was there at all. It's a comment about how by making critics feel like they are unworthy (and that's how critics feel - don't act all shocked and blame Poland) to see the movie, while other people, from their town can, they start off on the wrong foot.

So as you see, it's not about the critics or jealousy at all. It's about the stench.

Kris, how can you claim to have expertise in predicting movies' award trajectories when you don't even grasp as simple and essential a concept as stench and how it spreads?

And yet you are going to go back to your chart and update it again based on today's events without really ever learning your lesson.

You know, I wasn't even going to post anything until I saw the "You're embarrassing yourself" line. And I remember how ridiculous and helpless you looked on that live blog you did a couple of months back. You are the one who should be embarrassed. Pick you fights more carefully, buddy.

And that column of yours that I had forwarded to me really got me annoyed.

Tapley baby, AICN-style refers not to the style of writing but the style of posting. No, I'm not refering to the way holyshitexclusive kind of way that it was posted. I am talking about how this review spread around.

You see, when over 90% of people who read you review aren't your visitors, you just scored a big stinking AICN style goal. There isn't a more apt way to describe it. Consider that a compliment though.

It will be a good thing for your site and it will push you that much closer towards the kind of legitimacy where you to will understand why being left behind is a big deal.

Sorry you (and David) take such an issue with the review landing at IC first. Don't think for a second your sideways interpretation of the matter will keep us from doing what we do, however, which hasn't changed in the three years IC has been live.

By the way...what dogs??

Wow, is it just me, or has it gotten hot in here?

Regardless, it's been an interesting last week. "Changeling" and "Frost/Nixon" have both taken big hits, and now word comes that "The Road" might be pushed back in favor of a campaign for "The Reader." Man, "The Road" must be baaaad if an adaptation of the most critically acclaimed book in recent time is being thrown out in favor of a movie with the amount of baggage on "Reader."

I'm in the minority here, but from the get-go I just don't think "Frost/Nixon" (I have seen the play) works well as a movie that's been hyped to the level it has. Behold the power of Opie.

Anyway, this is off-topic, but it relates to review-embargo breaking, and I've been dying to ask this for ages....why the HELL is Emanuellevy.com the first site to break probably a third of the time...even often ahead of Variety. (Joe? thoughts?) The reviews over there, are frankly, dry as bone most of the time and often have some crazy typos when they first go up. Also, I link to the site a few times a week (ONLY because they break first so often) and I know for a FACT that if Levy breaks a movie and he's off-base with the consensus he lowers the grade later on and alters the lead. (Body of Lies, formerly a B+ and The Heartbreak Kid come to mind)

Levy is a GREAT Oscar prognosticator, but that doesn't explain why he breaks early so often. Answers???

Wow. That was longwinded.

In regards to Guy, anybody who likes Girls Aloud is alright by me :P

What can I say? Manny is a hustler.

Having now actually seen the MCN headline, I will say that it was an incredibly dickish move from whoever writes the bylines and quite childish. It might as well have said "Also, he smells!"

This is the problem wiht internet movie sites. We want to hear about the movies. Nobody cares about two different sites bitching at each other about review etiquette. You all have way too big egos about yourselves.

I am a friend of Emmanuel, so take this with that in mind.

His work prognosticating... well... he was once a Guru... you go back and figure it out.

As for why he is endlessly seeing movies early and is allowed to break embargo... it is his HFPA membership. They seem most things very early and studios are afraid to enforce embargo on him because he has a vote. So he takes advantage of this.

You are complaining about someone who wrote a review for seeing it at a festival, come on! Guy Lodge’s viewing of the film had to do with the fact that he is actually IN LONDON and you’re argument doesn’t extend there, so leave him out of it. If the festival was in LA, I’m sure it would have been shown to the LA press like it was in London.

And yeah, sorry to say it, but Variety and THR are far more influential than your site, regardless of how “yawn” worthy their reviews are. It’s been like that forever.

I get you’re mad and all, that’s fine, but you are just acting like a spoilt brat and it isn’t cool, maybe that’s why you didn’t get invited – you feel entitled to it all because you consider yourself a “pro.” Come on buddy, get real.

If only David had done those townhalls the studio suggested.

reset...

Did I even mention Guy Lodge on In Contention in my entry here?

I just looked and realized the answer is, "no."

So why has this thread been hijacked?

And why am I even wasting my time responding?

What I am exercised about - what I wrote about - is equity within the professional community, which does include Kris. The choice of LIFF is just a small part of it... a hinge. Like critics being pissy, it is just a part of the map.

I think Kris is done cursing me for the day, so I don't want to tweak him for sport, but the whining about 3 or 4 words in a headline - a minor part of the headline, I should mention - is classic web overkill.

And thank you for your assessment, Nick Plowman. I will give it every bit of weight it deserves.

If it showed at a festival, that makes it all the more ridiculous that it isn't being shown to the press at large.

But then I guess that's why the trades now send people to Butt-Numb-A-Thon to get first reviews.

I'm pretty past caring about whether something is or isn't screened for me, though it's always interesting as to why it may be (as with W).

What is funny, though, is that I was at an event for a particular horror movie not so long ago, and I asked a publicist why all horror movies tend to be hidden from the press, as opposed to showing them to critics who they knew were horror fans, for example.

The response was that it wouldn't be fair to show a movie to some critics and not others.

I think one of the things I like about David Poland is that he literally doesn't care if he pisses off every single person who ever has contact with him. I mean, that takes a certain degree of integrity. And I truly mean this in a non-snarky, non-ironic, totally honest kind of way.

"Sorry you (and David) take such an issue with the review landing at IC first."

You certainly didn't get the point of my post so I'll make it clear to you: stop accusing people of something that they are not doing.

"Don't think for a second your sideways interpretation of the matter will keep us from doing what we do, however, which hasn't changed in the three years IC has been live."

Well, I didn't think you'd stop being a tool.

But keep doing what you do, for the most part I don't think it's bad. However, as I said before, I personally will not read it.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: