The Hot Blog

I would have a hard time enjoying a film with those kind of watermarks on it.

I got that screener as well. The chiron is just the start of it. It moves around the screen. It darkens areas of the screen. It makes the movie really irritating to watch.

I've seen some really horrendous 'anti-piracy' stuff on screeners, btw, including movies that turn black and white for five minutes. It's really hard for me to reasonably review a movie like that just as it would be really hard for me to reasonably review a movie whose projection or sound in a theater was totally jacked up.

But as a professional, did you watch this film?

And did you review?

Dave, sorry but you're way off on this. A critic should not be expected to fairly judge a movie with several significantly placed, moving watermarks. It's a visual medium, and for a film like this it ruins the experience. I have no idea who Dann Gire is or how he comes across in other articles, but I think what he's saying here is not really up for debate.

I did! And liked it.

http://chud.com/articles/articles/19051/1/REVIEW-SLEEP-DEALER/Page1.html

Obviously you soldier on. That doesn't change the fact that Maya is shooting themselves in the foot with this, IMO, because they have a movie that's already easy for too many film critics - who have so little column space as it is - to ignore.

I've turned off festival screeners halfway through when the film was bad and the watermark was too oppressive. I didn't write about the films, but a movie I might have sat through if I was at the festival instead of reviewing remotely became one that was too annoying to bother with anymore.

You know something, David, if you want to call out Gire for what was written in the Daily Herald that's fine. But for you to take and reprint an internal memo sent amongst the members of the Chicago Film Critics Association for debate is a real dirtbag move on your part. Maybe not as much as the dirtbag who sent it to you, but all the same.

David: He's right, you're wrong. It's that simple. And trust me: Whenever I have told a filmmaker that I watched a watermarked video of his/her film -- every time, without exception -- he/she was (a)very apologetic, (b)wildly pissed and/or (c)extremely anxious about whether I would review a film for Variety based on that viewing. (BTW: I never do.) A time code? Distracting, but I can live with that. A burned in "For Reviewing Purposes Only," flashed fleetingly at various points during a film? Annoying, but I can live with that. But a watermark all the way through? No way.

It's a dirty little secret that a lot of films, especially specialty/arthouse titles, are reviewed via screeners with copy protection that mars the image. I can appreciate that these companies can't afford to ship prints around the country for press screenings, but they don't do their products any favors in these instances.

Non-anamorphic, letterboxed screeners are inexplicably still sent and inferior picture-wise, but I'll take that any day over what's in that screencap above. I've seen a Magnolia screener or two with a watermark that bounces around the frame every 30 minutes and has the image flip to black-and-white. There's no way this doesn't detract from the viewing experience and have the potential to affect reviews, fair or not.

Sorry, boys.

I didn't say that watermarks were not distracting.

But refusing to review a movie based on it?

And publicly calling out the distributor in the paper? That's right, Joe?

Nobody likes anything in their line of vision while watching a film. And as Mark notes... happens a lot on foreign films... and as Devin notes, on festival screeners.

It can be irritating as hell. But my position on indies is, like a doctor, first, do no harm.

I actually would have zero problem with him turning off the DVD and telling the distrib that he won't review off of the disc. It is not right to make it a public attack on a film.

And Erik... big drama... Dann has a bad habit of going on these crusades and you know who ends up paying for it in the end... other critics who studios won't send screeners to anymore.

Good for him. This crap is totally annoying, like those stupid network bugs. And where's the crusade? Is this the eighteenth time he made this complaint? Maybe he wants to start a crusade by getting others to join him. But there isn't one yet.

If the watermarks move, that is impossibly irritating. But that isn't what he said.

Watermarks that don't move are a fact of the game.

How about crusading against those braille-type markings that flash on actual public prints for the sake of copy protection?

Yes, boy, it's right. And yes, boy, refusing to review also is right. Any other questions?

Don't go preaching big drama, Dave. And way to bury the issue I brought up. You could have said everything you needed to say about Gire's cause and his column without ever having to reprint that memo. In fact who becomes the one inciting the flame war? Gire who sent a private memo to CFCA members asking for opinions (which he got, including my own that was not entirely off the points you made) or YOU who reprinted the memo with Gire's call to action? Dann didn't print that in the paper. I may not have taken the particular step that he did in the column he DID print, but I applaud the fact that someone in this dwindling critic culture that we have (in quantity AND quality) is willing to take a stand in the name of not the studios, not the marketing departments but the filmmakers and movies themselves. Again, my method may have been to just not review it and complain to them privately - but to insinuate that studios such as Maya are just going to stop sending out screeners to everyone is absolute nonsense. You said it yourself. When an indie film has no means to screen theatrically in certain markets (or to screen for critics on a big screen at all) what are they going to do? Say "sorry, but that one guy called us out for putting a watermark so now no one gets to see our wittle movie." Stop playing the role that you know what's best for film critics in this country.

Wow, Joe, do you really expect Dave to agree with you after doubling down on your argument and calling him 'boy'? I mean, there is such a thing as backing a person into a corner, rhetorically.

"I actually would have zero problem with him turning off the DVD and telling the distrib that he won't review off of the disc. It is not right to make it a public attack on a film."

He didn't attack the film. And isn't posting private memos the sort of thing you always rip on Finke over?

Er, Jeff: I was repeating his "Sorry, boys" comment. Go back and.. aw, shit, why am I even bothering to reply to an asshole like you?

Joe, politely ignoring your last comment, (a) I agree with you, in principle, on this subject, and (b) calling someone 'boy' has a different connotation than 'boys'...Oh, never mind.

Point being, I think you're right, and David isn't, but lacks an incentive to recognize your rightness.

Jeff: You need other people to recognize your rightness. I do not. As I have said before: I am a critic, not a pollster.

Stay on target, Joe. Jeff is in agreement with the room. And is talking about Dave's incentive to respond favorably to anything snarky. Not your incentive to agree with Jeff. You're both on the same page here.

Erik: Jeff placed himself in the line of fire.

I don't think he was taking a shot at you though, but rather a sarcastic one at someone else. More like he was DeNiro at the poker game in GoodFellas. Which would actually make you Spider in this analogy. Sorry, didn't mean that. Point is we're all on the same page. Let's not start issuing paper cuts.

Erik: And you expect David to admit he was wrong, right? Like, you expect Santa to drop down your chimney next Christmas, right?

David,
I also found the screener unwatchable. You are not quite correct to say all indie watermarks look this this. I cannot recall ever before seeing the type CENTERED on the screen. Usually it is high or low, and frequently it isn't onscreen for every frame, but fades in and out every ten minutes or so. I just watched a screener of "Enlighten Up," where the watermark was across the top of the screen. No problem. But planted across the actor's faces? Get real. If I were a director, I'd rather have my film pirated.
Roger

So we have a choice here: Roger Ebert is right, or David Poland is right. David, admit it: This was another one of your tired-ass attempts to dis a print journalist. And you've been called out on it. Now, will you admit you were wrong and apologize? Are you man enough to do that?

Random thoughts...

In my (limited) experience, most of the stuff I've received from this or that small studio has some kind of mark on it, some more severe than others. Yes, some have studio logos in thick, non-transparent text and some have moments where the film goes to black and white. It's part of the trade off for not having to trudge down to Hollywood or Beverly Hills on a weeknight in rush hour to see the film on a screen the size of an extra large HDTV.

I can't imagine why any studio would plant a big thick disclaimer on the center of the screen, and then put something on each corner. In that case, I probably would have told the studio of the situation, in which case they could have just ignored me or sent me a non-marked copy (their choice either way). I might have also tried to contact the filmmaker in case they cared. But, in general, markings on a screener or a non-perfect image is a more than fair trade off for being able to watch a film in question in my own home, with my wife, after my daughter has drifted off to sleep.

Point being, while I'd always prefer a flawless screener, I'll gladly take a slightly flawed screener for the sake of being able to spend time with my daughter AND cover a new movie.

So Scott: What you're saying is, newspapers, magazines and websites shouldn't hire film critics with small children? And before you get pissed, my friend: I, too, am a father. And if anyone, anywhere, anytime, can point to an occasion where I used my kid as some kind of an excuse to accept a screener that a filmmaker really wouldn't want me to see, then take me in back of the barn and shoot me now.

Watermarks are stupid, period. The studio (or whoever sent out the DVD) is basically saying "no one in their right mind would want to watch a pirated version of our movie with this HUGE stupid watermark on it!" So by that philosophy, they send it to CRITICS?? Idiocy.

I get plenty of screeners with a logo or watermark and it is absolutely, eternally annoying while trying to watch the film. It takes me out of the experience 100%.

What really bugs me is that lack of thought that goes into catching film pirates, especially indie film pirates. Just find a way to put a teeeeeeny tiny note in the film that will dictate which critic put the film out to be pirated. It's just pure laziness to slap a watermark front and center and if they really wanted to know who was selling them down the river, they'd number each promo DVD and imbed that number IN the movie.

Don: Yes.

".... hen take me in back of the barn and shoot me now" ... hmmmm ... can't everyone be right - it seems like a fuzzy issue with the center being the specific breaking point, why didn't the guy just wait until the film opens then see the film and review it maybe just online? ... I got one screener and my name was in the the top right hand corner, kind of like the personal touch ... if he had just not run any review it would have spoken volumes instead of a namby pamby they sent me a bad screener review ...

".... hen take me in back of the barn and shoot me now" ... hmmmm ... can't everyone be right - it seems like a fuzzy issue with the center being the specific breaking point, why didn't the guy just wait until the film opens then see the film and review it maybe just online? ... I got one screener and my name was in the the top right hand corner, kind of like the personal touch ... if he had just not run any review it would have spoken volumes instead of a namby pamby they sent me a bad screener review ...

Berg: Here's a cookie. Eat it, and go to sleep, OK?

"And while I agree that I prefer not to see a film through a faint chyron, I can still see a film clearly enough for both review and simple enjoyment in this mode, as any professional could"

It isn't a matter of what a professional "could" do so much as what a professional SHOULD do. If the chyron is as intrusive and distracting as it appears to be in this case, wouldn't it be a professional's duty as a critic to graciously return the movie to the distributor and explain that the anti-piracy measures have inadvertently resulted in damaging the viewing experience and therefore isn't reviewable at this time? Seeing as how the entire point of the screener system is to garner reviews, a distributor would get the message rather quickly and with a lot less petulant rancor involved.

Hallick: Yes.

what about films they don't screen or send screeners at all ... films like Good Bye Solo ... here Summer Hours wasn't screened or screenered, nor was Limits of Control ...

Well, maybe they thought watching Summer Hours on VOD was good enough for us poor folks in flyover country.

Well, maybe they thought watching Summer Hours on VOD was good enough for us poor folks in flyover country.

I don't need Joe to think I am right, J-Mc.

I do think this is an example of how people respond to an issue and what it means to them personally and really don't think past it.

Yes, Hallick. A completely reasonable option.

(corrected... by Joe.)

Joe... not sure if Roger is still reading this... but do you think he'd run a nasty piece about the movie's screener instead of a review?

And I wrote this to diss print journalism? What is that all about, Joe?

I wrote this because, as in the screener wars, that distributors do what they do for their reasons and writers and critics do what they do in response. What is 100% unacceptable to me is to beat up a small movie because of something like not liking the stuff on the screener they sent.

You want to skip the review until you are allowed to see a proper disc? 100% reasonable, though most would soldier through. But to attack it in public and to try to rally the troops to do the same? No.

And if Roger disagrees, he disagrees. He will surely do it because it is his opinion, not because he has some odd competition with me that I am not party to.

"Stop playing the role that you know what's best for film critics in this country."

You and Dann first, Erik.

"I do think this is an example of how people respond to an issue and what it means to them personally and really don't past think it."

Huh? Think you're missing a word or two in there, sport. That, or you've reversed a word or two you didn't mean to.

Either way, though, you're wrong. Just plain wrong. And it would appear the overwhelming majority here agrees with my take on it.

Oh Joe... you're so 9 years old sometimes.

Roger did do that infamous column where he talked about watching the first few minutes of some low-budget movie on screener and then turning it off.

He apologized later, though. And went back and watched the whole thing, if I recall correctly.

You know, David, it's really pathetic to see someone say something stupid, and then get called on it by his peers -- and, yes, his betters -- and still have nothing but childish insults to offer in response. And, by the way, Erik is right; This is the kind of stuff you call Nikki and others out on. I wish I could say you disappoint me. But the truth is, you're starting to bore me.

I'm of two minds (and an awful lot of these posts don't really add to the discussion). There are some things critics just deal with: the dick who sits behind you at a press screening and won't shut up no matter what, the screening that begins with you fuming because you had to wait 45 minutes for another critic to show up, the screening that has a momentum-killing, half-hour intermission because someone in the projection booth screwed up. The watermark is arguably worse than any of those, but they're all on the same continuum. I'm thinking the argument is how best to serve readers and (as Gire suggests) respect the intent of the filmmaker, so I'll be interested when Rivera inevitably weighs in to see if he knew his film was being mangled and how he feels about that.

Chris: Good point. As I've said elsewhere -- if filmmakers knew how their films were presented to critics (not just on screeners, but in screenings) blood might be spilled. Seriously. Remind me to tell you sometime about the time Sydney Pollack learned that the sound was temporarily off for a few minutes during a NYC junket screening of Tootsie. He was not happy.

"You want to skip the review until you are allowed to see a proper disc? 100% reasonable, though most would soldier through."

As a consumer of film reviews, I don't really want to read the piece written by the guy or girl that soldiered through in spite of a horrendous amount of screen bugs. If I were the filmmaker whose movie was on one of those discs, as grateful and honored as I'd be that a critic buckled down and sat through the whole film, I still wouldn't feel like they saw the actual movie I made any more than had they reviewed a version of the film shown on network television edited down for time and content.

You do have a handle on the childish insults thing, Joe.

Is it possible to disagree or do you have to win?

P.S. Easy to build a majority when you are more than a third of the comments on a thread.

Not that Devin didn't do a good job in his own right with his review of "Sleep Dealer", but if something is making the movie really irritating to watch, especially something as basic and integral as the image itself, the experience is obviously impared and it has to damage the positivity of the movie's review no matter how professional a critic tries to remain.

All I have to say is that this entry was very entertaining, thank you.

Hallick... I don't think that any review of a theatrical release should come off of a disc.

No one should be watching movies on DVD to vote on awards - including critics, not just Oscar voters - either.

The movie experience and the DVD experience are different.

That said, DVDs are a part of the business equation for studios and journalists alike. I try to avoid them and manage to, during awards season, see every single major contender at least twice on a screen before the first week of December is over. But when studios didn't want to send out 15,000 dvds for every movie to critics and other voting groups, bloody murder was screamed.

I occasionally see a new movie on DVD... almost always indie... usually because someone wants me to do an interview and there is no other way to see the film in the allotted time.

My issue with Gire is that he turned a private issue into a public one. And ironically, I have enraged Erik Childress by allegedly doing the same. (If Gire is so right, why is Erik so angry about his words being quoted?) Though to me, the difference is that a notice posted to any community as large as CFCA is a public notice. And any expectation of privacy is a bit silly.

Note that I feel the same way about studios' group communications to critics groups... and have one publicist that still won't deal with me much because he got hoisted on his own attempt to back door against the rules years ago.

I don't ever publish private communication with anyone with explicit permission. And unlike work product, which I have taken Nikki and AICN to task for publishing, a letter broadly e-mailed within your organization is not work product.

"The movie experience and the DVD experience are different."

True -- but of course the experience of a critic seeing a movie on Thursday afternoon at the Sunset screening room is also considerably different from Saturday night at the AMC full of texting and talking teens.

A huge percentage of critics seem to me to enjoy sitting at the very back of the theater (which is also usually the area studios reserve for them), which sometimes does make me wonder how different the experience really is, especially if they have a huge flatscreen with surround sound at home.

"A huge percentage of critics seem to me to enjoy sitting at the very back of the theater (which is also usually the area studios reserve for them)..."

I think you've said that before, and it's the kind of thing that totally kills my fantasy that early critics' are some moviegoing paradise. Didn't you say they rope off the VERY BACK section at the Grove for critics? Holy shit, that's like watching something on a 13-inch TV from a chair 20 feet away.

WHY do critics prefer that? It kinda supports my theory that critics watch from a cold journalistic remove like it's some science project or assignment instead of becoming actively invested in the experience, all sitting way, way in the back scribbling notes like they're wearing their vintage PRESS hats craning their neck at a crime scene.

Fuck, if you're someone awesome (like me), you're not allowed to break off and go sit in the very front section so the entire experience envelopes your senses?

Ebert always has that rule about how far back to sit, but that seems way removed from the experience... Hell, even at as nice a theater as the Vista in 11, I think the LONG LEG ROOM aisles are all too far away and look like TV, but then the first five or six rows which are optimal INTENSIVE distance are spaced too close together for comfort.

At the Arclight I only do A, B, or C. The Grove I'd want last row of the front section, so nobody's behind me. Same at most AMCs.

Critics can be so fussy and non-visceral and coldly removed. BOO.

Are you kidding, Dave? I mean seriously - are you kidding? An organization such as the CFCA should not expect any privacy when an internal communication is sent out to its members? Just out of curiosity – what number do you draw the line at an expectation of privacy? The CFCA has around 55 members. Is 50 the magic number? How about 25? If just the CFCA board members sent e-mails to each other discussing CFCA business or where they are meeting before the evening screening, should they be looking over their shoulder if you were to get your hands on one of the e-mails? Honestly, if its no big deal then I’m sure you wouldn’t mind sharing with the class who sent it to you. Or is that where you would cite journalistic ethics and refuse?

Maybe this is where you suggest that the CFCA board should be wondering why someone within the organization feels it necessary to forward such memos to you or the local publicists. Sabotage? Curry favor? Maybe someone simply thought the issue warranted further opinion and thought it might be something you were interested in. Whatever the case is – reprinting that memo makes you no better than all the Nikki Finkes and TMZs in the world that you call out.

And maybe Gire, myself and the CFCA don’t have all the answers for what’s best for film critics in this country. But dammit we’re going to keep fighting the fight and soliciting opinions on how to do that. Even while guys like you keep trying to sabotage the efforts. You can disagree with what Gire printed in the Daily Herald all you want. That’s fair game. You have your opinion and the majority in this thread have shouted you down with theirs. I think there are bigger fights for film critics to band together against but I’m glad to see the opinions being voiced here and can recognize this as a bigger concern than I initially thought. But think of the potential damage you’ve done by reprinting that memo. How can any member of the CFCA be expected to offer their two cents (even in disagreement) without worrying that what they said might not end up in your blog? Did you ever consider that? Of course not.

I'm losing track of the argument here -- or, I guess, there are several. The argument certainly isn't going away, though, since I hear one of the Hollywood majors has stopped screening entirely in a pretty big market. But my favorite movie last year ("Edge of Heaven") and my favorite so far this year ("The Chaser") were both viewed on screeners, were both released by companies that usually don't, and probably can't afford to, screen. I'm glad I saw 'em. So if the argument is "Better watermarking," I'm all for that. But if it's "Screen everything," that's unrealistic.

I like to sit at the back of the theater, apparently like the critics. I don't think it's so I can maintain some icy distance. It's because I like to be able to take in the whole screen at once. I enjoy the movie more that way, not less. I would think at least some critics are the same way. (I seem to recall reading that Pauline Kael had the same preference.)

Like the rest of the critics on here, I frequently get these watermarked screeners. Some are worse than others. Fortunately, I saw Sleep Dealer at Sundance, in a theater; having seen it that way, I can't imagine how these incredibly obtrusive watermarks would not interfere with appreciating the visuals of the film, which are one of its strong points. This is a smart, imaginative film, and Dann is right, the distrib hurts the film and the filmmaker. I'll watch a screener with watermarks or time stamps, or uncorrected color or whatever (those things are usually noted) in a pinch, but I really hate it when a screener is watermarked all the way through like that, even if it's just across the top with a "property of ..." stamp. It's distracting, it pulls me out of the film, and pretty soon instead of focusing on the things the filmmaker probably WANTS me to focus on, I'm focusing on how annoyed I am by the watermark.

It's just as annoying as having the subtitles blur in a screening of a foreign film (that's happened twice at SIFF so far in screenings I've been in) or the sound way off, or the entire imagine very slightly blurred. If I were an indie filmmaker, the last thing I would want would be for the people who might actually help generate enough interest in my film for people to see it to see an inferior, distracting version of it.

As for the issue of Dann going on a rampage here ... I think he's right about the obtrusiveness of the watermark being an issue, but agree with you that he didn't necessarily have to publicly attack the distributor. I wonder if he went to Maya or the filmmaker privately first and asked to be given a non-watermarked copy to view. I sympathize with his frustration, though.

berg, the reason you can't get a screener of Goodbye Solo is because Ramin Bahrani HATES to have critics see his film on screeners. He shoots them to be seen on a big screen, and he wants the people reviewing the film to see it the way an audience would see it. Knowing him, I rather expect he would rather have fewer reviews than have critics reviewing his film off a screener.

Lex,

I hate sitting at the back of the theater at public screenings. My preferred location is last row of the front section, right-hand side, on the aisle, or if it's stadium seating, first row of the second section, also on the right-hand aisle. Not that I'd get into a physical fight or anything over having my preferred seat, but it's where I prefer to be. I hate sitting in the middle of a row, so always get to screenings early enough to ensure I have an aisle seat, and politely ignore requests from radio station promo people to move over so late-arrivers can get in the aisle seats. Screw the late arrivals, they can scooch in wherever they can. I get there early to get that aisle seat, dammit.

Long time reader, first time poster. As the only person (I think) to weigh-in from the indie studio side of things, I have to say you're all wrong but you're all right but the issue has spiraled beyond whatever Gire wrote as his "review." So is everyone more concerned with who started the fire or who fanned the flames? And I know you are all going to disagree with me about these points but look at it from the other side for once instead of just feeling marginalized for getting a DVD that isn't perfect because unless you see the film projected it's never going to be the filmmakers vision.

Let's start out with the first point about the DVDs. I think Maya showed just how amateurish their distribution staff was/is by even making a DVD with those kind of markings in the first place. Yes it's distracting to watch a DVD with anti-piracy text on the screen but it's really as simple as just having the text run across the screen for 5-10 seconds every 10-15 minutes. That's it. Doing anything more than that is really just too cost-prohibitive on an indie film that could spend more money in anti-piracy tech than the film will gross in that market. I'd rather send a DVD with basic anti-piracy stuff and spend more money on ads in that market. What Mara did was overkill but maybe the film was more prone to piracy or something, who knows. If that's the case then don't give out any DVDs and pay the nominal cost to screen it for Gire in his market. And I may be overstepping my assumptions here but it seems clear that Maya is not familiar with Gire at all because if they were they would have figured out that he was at a breaking point overall with watching certain types of screeners. Their regional publicist should have communicated to him before the DVD was even sent that for whatever reason they decided to put more anti-piracy restrictions on this DVD than a normal studio would. I also fault Gire for publicly hurting the film in his market and denying his readers a review. How is that professional? He's bringing himself down to the level that he is claiming Maya is doing to him.

The second point of contention was that David included a private email from Gire. I think it provided context that Gire had a problem with DVDs overall because his "review" made it seem like he's just calling out Maya when in fact his crusade is apparently against all studios that use watermarks. Why didn't he write a separate article in the Daily Herald or on a blog about that to bring attention to the matter, thereby allowing himself to make a smart argument, instead of just whining in his "review" and then again to his fellow CFCA members? Plus the better question about the private email that should be asked is: did David pro-actively contact another Chicago critic to get the email, or did a Chicago critic pro-actively forward him the email, and if the latter is the case, what was the critics motivation for sending it? Seems like he/she didn't agree with what Gire had to say.

And the point that Gire was trying to make in his letter to the group was flawed because once a studio sends out a DVD you really have no idea what's going to happen to it or where it's going to end up unless you specifically get it back from the critic (and if Maya had such an issue with piracy they would have made that a requirement upon sending the DVD). Do critics keep every single DVD that they don't return to the studio? How do they dispose of it? Do they break it in half or do they just throw it in the garbage for someone to find? The fact that he is railing so hard against anti-piracy means he has lost track of the overall issue and has blinders on. Consider this: I ran into a problem a few months ago when we gave a TV critic a screener of a film (given as an exception because the critic missed the screening and we were on deadline) who then turned around and gave the screener to a print critic to review from. Are you telling me that's okay? Where is the accountability there? Isn't this more of an issue with sending out DVDs to press than Gire's "I am also aware that no member of the CFCA has ever been accused of piracy" argument?

Everyone is losing sight of the fact that ultimately the film is hurt in that market because the critic threw a public temper tantrum, which is wrong, instead of privately dealing with the studio directly. But as I stated at the beginning, Maya is just as wrong for what they did to the DVD and not knowing how to communicate with a film critic who is the head of a prominent film critics group. The foolish behavior is on both sides.

That said, I agree 100% with what Gire said about seeing the film for review "as close to what the creators intended as possible" and think Maya needs to learn how to work with film critics.

Alex, some good points in there but again that's a LOT of writing about what is really a very simple matter: Movies sent out to critics for review should be reasonably free of visual distractions that compromise the image of the film. Note that word "reasonably". Most regular minded people will be able to sit through a film that has a small, consistent watermark on it. We've all gotten accustomed to "the bug" on TV broadcasts, and while not ideal, it's OK for a feature film. More than one bug, or certainly any watermark in the middle of the screen, has compromised the film enough that it's no longer reasonable for any professional critic to be expected to give a fair review under those circumstances. As far as I can tell, Gire was simply taking a stand for something that has gotten out of control. I'm honestly surprised that it's taken this long for critics to take a stand against these practices, but to me that just shows what a weak bunch they are.

Again, I ask....in what way is a watermark stuck onscreen throughout an entire film an "anti-piracy" measure??? If someone pirates the film, that watermark isn't going to make someone stop watching it because a watermark is sure as hell less distracting than some nitwit who films a mainstream release on his camcorder and cut off the left hand side of the screen. That's how about 90% of pirated films look.

If they really want to catch someone or stop piracy, they need to include something that traces the disc back to who it was sent to. Then that person needs to FRY big time so people get the hint. Splashing a logo across the screen does nothing but irritate someone trying to enjoy your film.

Sorry Erik, but I think you are full of shit and trying to change the conversation.

Had Dann not made this a public issue by mocking the film and its distributor in printed review space, none of this would have been a public issue at all. But he did. And the group e-mail is just an expansion of his thinking.

I am fascinated by this upsetting you so much. What is the thing? I'm sabotaging your efforts? Methinks you have had a little too much "me" juice, man.

As Luke can attest, there are all kinds of fights amongst LAFCA by e-mail, some of which occasionally ends up in my inbox. But those are personal fights, no pronouncements by leadership. BFCA has boards too. I'm sure the same is true of NYFCC and HFPA and on and on.

The e-mail calls for "professional critics" to take this stand... not just Chicago critics. The manifesto and the printed slap are grandstanding because something pissed him off and he happens to be in a position of authority, which I believe he abused by taking it public... even though I would be willing to support him in principle about the issue itself.

I never understand what the thinking is when someone slams down the gauntlet and then whimpers when someone notices.

Also... I know it's fun to throw Nikki and TMZ back in my face, but it's not accurate. The only time I have slammed Nikki for it was when she posted work product and when she exposed her source. I don't think I have ever mentioned anything like this with TMZ, scum that they are.

Finally, I appreciate that two of you want to keep saying that the majority has shouted me down, but I don't see that. Aside from Erik and Joe, I see a reasonable, balanced conversation that mostly takes Gire to task for printing what he did and also HATES those screeners, which I do too.

Thanks, Alex, for stepping in to offer the view from the other side. And I happen to agree with everything you said.

If someone broke into my home and wanted to start a film festival of current circuit product they could. I make it a point not to let anyone borrow anything I get before it is actually released because you never know.

I didn't mention in my initial entry that the first Academy member kicked out over piracy of screeners was sending a pal discs in the midwest. You don't have to be a villain to end up on the wrong side of this. My nephew and niece would like to borrow screeners, but they used to live in a building with people who, I was told, had all the current films on DVD before release... piracy. So I never let the kids take a disc home, because what if they lent it to a friend who just happened to not think it was a problem to put online? Even if I was not specifically linked to that disc, it would be wrong... even if (love this excuse) it was going to happen anyway.

Don... you hit on my issue with so much of publicity... and I am sympathetic that it may be a matter of money... but there is a weird thing where the publicists do everything in mass numbers and only deal with individuals when they stick out somehow, either creating trouble or being from what is seen as a major outlet.

Same thing as embargo issues. If studios and publicists were doing the job of really knowing who they were dealing with, there would be a basis for building trust and with trust, much of this goes away. On the critic side, that means acting like adults who actually care about how publicists have to do their jobs too.

But as long as we act like a bunch of whinny, entitled children, they won't trust us. And I understand why. The reverse is also true. Until they treat us like individuals and have a real concept of the jobs we all do - if you are inviting us, you must value us... and if you don't, you shouldn't be inviting us - we will never respect them.

Sorry David but you couldn't be more full of shit if you had six bran muffins, ten cups of coffee and slammed your ego into D. Jones Manure Truck.

Who precisely is trying to change the conversation here? I said in my posts that I didn't exactly agree with what was printed in the Daily Herald. And if that was all you had printed this would be a non-issue as far as where we disagree.

Gire's e-mail to the CFCA may have been a rallying cry for all professional film critics, but he didn't print that in the Daily Herald nor did he send it to every film critics organization in the country. It was sent to 50-some members of the Chicago Film Critics Association hoping to rally the troops into a discussion. Where in that e-mail does he make an intention to go further with this and where in that e-mail does he say "please send this e-mail to two friends and two bloggers and tell them to do the same?" If CFCA members disagreed (and some have) it either would have died on the table or a refocus of his efforts would have been put forth. Precisely where are you not understanding the difference? He took a personal experience he had with a screener public in the paper. (That's one issue.) He sent a private e-mail to the membership that wasn't going any further than that and wouldn't have gone any further without consulting the members of the board first. But YOU decided to make it public. You didn't have to consult anyone and are now blaming Gire for writing an e-mail and not having the foresight to know that someone like you was going to make it public. How dare he!

It seems like you sure support a lot of the same principles of your fellow film critics but just never seem to agree with the manner in which someone wants to act upon them. And the other person is never right. You would have done it better. Always. Only you never seem to be the one making the rallying cry. In your world and in this blog you are always right and everyone else is always wrong. That's some kind of miracle. If I'm drinking the "me" juice then you must be the manufacturer and CEO.

And now all of a sudden Gire is mocking the distributor AND the film according to you in his Daily Herald post. Who is twisting the issue there? Say all you want about the manner of publicly shaming Maya Entertainment but he was doing it out of respect for Alex Rivera and the film itself. You can see the responses here through David-colored glasses all you want - the majority here has made it clear that they are equally annoyed by watermarks and anti-piracy issues and a few have chimed in to diss Gire's method - but I don't think anyone here disagrees that Gire's intention, for better or worse, was looking out for the filmmakers.

When you are constantly arguing things as "always" and never," it is impossible to take you too seriously, Erik. It's the language of someone who isn't interested in dialogue.

The only mention of CFCA in Dann's e-mail was in saying that no one in the group had ever been accused of pirating a video. This was not an e-mail saying, "We should discuss this important issue." It didn't say, "I consider this important and we, as an organization, should consider taking a position."

In fact, the only reference to anyone but himself and how he feels about it is, "As always, I look forward to your thoughts on this subject" at the end of the note.

And I still don't understand, aside from your argument of principle, why you are so upset about this call to arms being made public?

There are, indeed, principles in which I believe as a journalist. Always have been. Always should be... for all of us, whether we agree or disagree.

I'm not going to get into a battle with you about how I have worked in the name of film criticism and the internet with studios for over a decade. All I can tell you is that I am rather comfortable with the efforts I have made, the small effects I have had, and the methods. That really has nothing to do with this blog.

But what guys like you never understand is that every time you get all publicly militant about access to movies being distributed by companies that are either in deep financial shit or are big companies that no longer care about criticism, but only manage it, you are not only burying yourself, but you are burying other critics and writers who don't even know you exist... and will then wonder why Roger and Michael are once again the only ones getting screeners for certain movies.

And that is when I say something. When I think someone has shat themselves in public and it could become a problem for the entire community. Nikki and The New York Times do almost everything in public right now, so I respond accordingly. I think the last time I had a thought about Dann - aside from saying "hello" at a screening a couple of months ago - was when you guys were planning some similarly over-the-top effort to boycott Fox over screening policies.

Finally, I agree with the efforts of many critics and organizations to make things better for critics and other film writers. But most of the real progress that I have ever witnessed takes place in private, not by grandstanding. When people grandstand, taking on The Man, they are not engaging the people who, like Alex K, may agree, but need to manage the ways in which the situation can be improved.

I have private conversations every year with every studio about how things can be improved in how both internet and regional press are managed. Always comes down to the same thing... have a real relationship, embrace those who prove trustworthy, don't embrace those who do not. Of course, the problem is that there are plenty of bullies and wannabe bullies out there who force the issue and shift the way that distributors and publicists play the game.

And again... in closing... I wonder... why are you so angry about this? If you support Dann, shouldn't you be thrilled that everyone knows - and as you say, so many agree - with what he thinks? Why are you behaving like you got caught doing something bad?

Erik - Slapping a film for ANYTHING in print is an act that damages the film. It taints the film. It doesn't matter who the target is.

Dann made a dumb, self-indulgent move. We ALL agree that it is in the best interest of the film to have it shown in the best format possible. But you don't take out your anger at something like a bad screener on the movie, in public.

Devin was the perfect example. Hated the disc. It's worse than I thought (also echoed by Roger). But he reviewed the movie and in his case, reviewed it positively.

Dann wants to not review off the disc he got. Fine. Dann wants to send a CFCA letter to Maya saying that the quality of the disc made a proper review impossible. Fine. Dann wants to write about the problem of screeners with markings all over them. Fine... I would publish it if he asked me to.

But running snarky comments about a screener in lieu of a review is not good for the film or the filmmaker. And I don't think many people - except you and Joe - think it is.

This is where we are so strongly disconnecting. Public vs private. How we do our work vs the work itself.

Look out, Erik. . .looks like there is an ironically designed Twitter poll that is obviously meant to put you in your place.

I am angry, Dave, because the initial nature of this blog post was to shame Dann Gire for what he wrote in the Daily Herald. As I have said countless times, that was public consumption and you have every right to take him to task for it. But you took it a step further. To emphasize your point you took an e-mail that you received first-or-secondhand from Chicago and reprinted it just so you could get readers to go “hey, look at this idiot and what he’s trying to do.” Gire didn’t post that in the paper, on a blog or on the CFCA website.

Believe me, I’m thrilled that the readers are showing support for what he was saying. Maybe it will inspire more to take a stand about something for our industry. But now that it didn’t inspire precisely the kind of reaction you were hoping for – now you don’t have a leg to stand on as far as to what business it was of yours to post that e-mail. If you honestly believed what was sent to CFCA members to be the cherry on a time bomb that was going to hurt film critics (known and unknown) across the country, then why would you print it in the first place? Why wouldn't you contact Gire privately and say he's wrong and where he might be best served on presenting an issue that you say you agree with in principle?

We’re not disconnecting on the manner in which Dann (in your words) hurt the film by what he wrote in the Daily Herald. Never once did I say I agreed with it. But it’s not like this was an Academy screener that Dann was taking a stand against saying that he couldn’t possibly vote for in the year-end awards, something he could have (and in most cases, should have) seen in a theater. If this were, say, a screening of a big-budget summer film and we were told by the local studio reps that this was going to be the only opportunity we were going to be given to see the film before it opened that week – then – we settle into the theater only to have the left side of the theater have its sound muffled, the projector set at the wrong aspect ratio, a reel put upside down or the projector just breaking down not once, but twice. How would you be expected to review that film? Better yet, how would you feel if you found out this wasn’t the only screening before opening and that this whole thing could have been avoided if there was just some other option available to you? Maybe YOU don’t review the film. But what if you worked for the New York Times or the Chicago Tribune and your readers were expecting a review? Do you leave a hole in that coverage or do you write a little explanation on why there’s no review? Even if it meant saying that the studio decided to hold the film until the last possible moment and then treated critics (and likely their promo audience) to the worst possible presentation? We shame films all the time when they open without press screenings – and that’s without ever seeing the film and basing that they suck on assumption. Is that any less damaging than a critic saying he couldn’t in his heart of hearts review a film because the presentation was not up to its best standards?

Do you think a company like Maya or some independent filmmaker at a festival is going to stop sending screeners to film critics? These films need the coverage. They want the coverage. Maybe they’ll think about those watermarks next time. Are film critics going to cry if they don’t get these screeners? Hell, one less film to write about. That’s one of the beauties of what we do. There’s always another film on the pile waiting to be discovered. And if someone doesn’t want to send a screener, is it our loss or theirs? It would be great if we lived in a perfect world where we could see every movie in a theater or screening room, but we don’t. We can just try to help wherever we can and the studios can either choose to make it easy or difficult to help us help them.

And for your information, our discussions with Fox worked. It nearly backfired because, again, someone who got a hold of what the CFCA was discussing sent it to people like you. When various members of the press caught wind of it that’s when they came with questions for Gire. He answered them, was misquoted big time in one and that’s when you got involved. We had a deal in principle in hand before you attacked us. All of a sudden the people we were dealing with at Fox started having second thoughts. Mainly because of what you wrote. You, of course, turned it around on us. But the fact remains that despite your criticisms we worked through the issues and have had no problems with Fox screenings since those talks. It’s a shame other markets still continue to have issues. Which brings me back to one of my original points when I was first received the e-mail sent to me as a member of the Chicago Film Critics Association – we have bigger issues to solve in working together with the studios (big and small) in securing an equal and productive working relationship over something we both purport to love – film.

"But as long as we act like a bunch of whinny, entitled children, they won't trust us."

BONER.

GOOD POST.

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