The Hot Blog

Ooh, have fun! Totally jealous. You should try and sneak in Samson & Delilah while you're over there.

i just got back from Barcelona. Haven't travelled overseas in about 2 years. i was amazed at the amount of entertainment options at my disposal. The VOD stuff on Delta was excellent. I watched Adventureland, Star Trek, Transformers 2, a bunch of TV Shows. My wife listened to music It made the 10 hour trip fly by.

Love Rocchi's piece and dig his work. I also like the way the piece is really an insiders view to the junket system. He knows they're trying to butter him up, they know he's trying to butter them up. THAT'S the game, the job. Ask Eric Snider what happens when you don't play junket ball the right way, you get banned from junkets and press screenings.

"Critics" who accept trips from studios has always been a HUGE issue for me and that's because I know it's unethical. I had it pounded into my brain as a journalism major and as the editor of a small college newspaper. I know I've been a dick about it and maybe have made some unfair accusations to people, but the bottom line is- if you're getting paid to visit a set, you're getting paid to build buzz for the film. And that's not criticism, it's P.R. Or it's "reporting" but please show me any set visit report that's been anything other than fluff and I'll take that back.

Does anyone out there really think filmmakers (especially big budget ones) are TRYING to make shitty films?? If you get a few writers on the set of a film and let them see how cool it is (and it IS cool) they are automatically going to be swayed. Yes, yes...4-5 indignant commenters to follow, not you, but everyone who's human. C'mon. If you're on-set of "Iron Man 2" and Scar Jo and Downey Jr. are walking around and there's 4 star catering and lots of awesome professional shit going it, it's super, super cool.

And my issue aside from all that is- I've always felt if you just SAY you visited the set in your review, that's all that needs to be done. Some people don't care, some will be jealous, some will say "interesting take but hey, you did get to go to the set so..." Let the readers decide.

For instance, there's writers from 3 major internet movie sites in Ireland right now visiting a set. The trip (air and hotel) is paid for by the studio. Why is no one saying where they are, as David just did in his piece and as he did in the "V for Vendetta" and Carnahan set visits before?

Is it forbidden to disclose it? Are you on some top secret mission where you, internet movie writer, are the only one who can swoop in and tell them how to fix this pickle they've gotten themselves in?? No. It's like a fucking childish game where "Ooooh...we're somewhere cool and we can't tell you where but ooooooh!" As a critic, it irks me because it's childish and silly and is unprofessional to take gifts (and a trip to Ireland is a gift, sorry) but as a reader, it's like you're jerking my chain. (the movie is the new David Gordon Green movie "Your Highness" starring Danny McBride so **SPOILER ALERT**)

And I'm not taking some moral high ground here. I've been invited to go places by studios and filmmakers and said "sure, I'd love to. But then I won't be reviewing the film." That's just ME though. I'm not petty or mad or jealous of anyone, I just think you should be disclosing these things. If I befriend a filmmaker, I either will not review their films any more or I will say "Hey, this person is a friend of mine." It's not rocket science, it's being fair to readers.

And anyone who thinks a DVD screener is a conflict is just silly. There's nothing *attached* to that. And in fact, if I get one more DVD screener with those huge "PROPERTY OF ______" things on it, I'm gonna start a riot.

Ten years ago this summer, I made my last junket trip for my gig as film critic for an NBC affiliate. The TV station had a policy against employees accepting freebies -- but since I wasn't, technically speaking, an employee, but rather a free-lancer, it was strictly don't ask, don't tell in regard to my traveling. (I can only assume they thought people like Clint Eastwood and Denzel Washington dropped by my house for me to tape interviews in my living room.) And let me tell you, ladies and gents, I went out in style: An all-expenses-paid trip to London for the double junket of “The Mummy” and “Notting Hill.” Had a great time. Got some good interviews. And had no qualms whatsoever about trashing “The Mummy” in print and on the air when it opened. Come to think of it, it wasn’t the first (or even the tenth) time I panned a film for which I accepted a junket. But here’s the thing: The interview segments ran separately from the reviews on TV. So, yeah, I suppose the studios got their money’s worth.

But isn't the point that the studio is not paying for a good review, but for exposure -- the neutral exposure of those interview segments? Would you have returned from the junket and not used the interview segments on "The Mummy" at all?

I agree with Chris. Once you go on a junket, and accept anything, your credibility as a journalist is out the window. Doesn't matter whether you write favorably about the movie, or trash it later on.

Why do you think that news organizations don't allow their staff to be comped on campaign trails, and they end up paying for their portion of the flights on the private jets of politicians? I'm not saying that people don't get biased when they follow one candidate or the other, but at least the opposition can't point out that the staffers are being paid/comped to 'drink the milkshake'.

"An all-expenses-paid trip to London for the double junket of “The Mummy” and “Notting Hill.” Had a great time. Got some good interviews"

Joe-doesn't is make you a hypocrite, that you gained personal advancement ('good interviews' in your own words, that probably helped your career, even if it was small), from the studio (that paid for your entire 'personal advancement trip'), and then panned their movies? I'm not defending movie studios here, as I know their ethics are also questionable. But you really had 'no qualms' about the idea of personal advancement/professional responsibility?

No, chris, but you pretty much agree to run an interview piece if you ask for it. That's the deal whether it's a phoner, a trip down the block, or a trip to England. And generally you have to make that deal before you see the movie.

I think that like all relationships, it is more complex than some people want to make it.

The more often you take stuff, the more of a relationship that grows around that. It is unspoken in almost every case. But how can it not start to carry its own weight?

But on the flip side, taking doesn't prove that anything inappropriate is turning up in the work and more importantly, not taking doesn't either.

I hate to return to Finke, but that is a classic case. Literally 90% of what she publishes is handed to her by others who are seeking to sell their story, tone and all. Nikki Finke has NO personal relationship with someone like Marc Shmuger, except in as much as how much info he is willing to trade to her in exchange for not getting reamed by Nikki in the blog. And by that standard, he appears to be the most honorable man in Hollywood.

This doesn't mean that he is above reproach for the work he has done. But there is absolutely a quid pro quo in 90% of what is in Finke's blog. And the scary part is that there is very little attention paid to this when people reflect on what they read there.

Seriously... are you more concerned about whether Joe feels a little better about some movie than he might because he was in London for free covering it and got to talk to Julia Roberts or that Nikki spent months selling the false notion that MGM was a solid, ongoing concern until her source's boss lost his job and the source decided it was time to start burying the company because the source wasn't going to get checks from them to do otherwise anymore?

Get it?

And it's not just Nikki, who is ridiculously obvious about her non-reporting. As journalists, we are all susceptible to the people who we know best, who feed us the most info, who are generally the most honest, who have the best dirt, etc.

I understand why Nikki has been riding the "Fuck Sumner... Vote Brad!" train for over a year now. Brad feeds her everything he can first, much as Amy Powell feeds Harry Knowles every geek beat first. And when Brad gets beheaded, she will leap away from him as soon as she smells the blade and hop on the bandwagon of whomever gives her the best dirt. And she will tell them all that in so many words while she pretends to her readers that she is "investigating."

She literally has attacked executives' enemies for romantic peccadilloes while knowing full well that her EXCLUSIVE champion has had his own.

But again... there are all kinds of levels of this. And this town knows how to keep its enemies closer than its friends, so you have to know that scaring them is a far more powerful play than sucking up to them... even if it is a bigger lie.

We all get caught up in the petty stuff like this and ratings and t&a while much more serious crimes against journalism go on daily without anyone talking about them. Ignorance is not bliss, even if people act like it is.

"But on the flip side, taking doesn't proof that anything inappropriate is turning up in the work and more importantly, not taking doesn't either."

This is the part I'm admittedly guilty of thinking far too often, and I've been kind of a dick about it as well. I just feel true film criticism is dying/dead and alot of it has to do with readers not knowing who to trust any more. Obviously readers (or, film goers) may not even care WHAT film critics say any more too, but I do think many reader think we're all in bed with the films and filmmakers.

I believe in The Work.

Readers who don't do the legwork get what they have earned.

There has always been a lot of bad work in criticism - print and TV have been as guilty if not more guilty than the web will ever be - and many of us pretend otherwise. Smart people turn stupid bowing at the alter of mass media. There are some terrific mass media crix, but most of these guys - and it's mostly guys - have no business claiming to be critics because they are not only uneducated, but they are mostly uninterested.

Consumers need to work harder to be informed... and studios do too.

The illusion of criticism is, in my opinion, in more trouble than criticism as a form.

When I worked for The Houston Post, from 1982 to 1995, there was a very firm policy in junkets: You never accepted plane fare, you never accepted comped lodging. The paper paid all my expenses for every trip I made, everywhere, with only two exceptions I can remember. (Both involved last-minute personal invitations to New York from actor/filmmakers who, evidently, were familiar with my work. My editors acquiesced only because, each time, I got one-on-one interviews.) When I was a free-lancer for TV, I accepted more junkets than I can count. And while I had the occasional out-of-pocket expense – booze, hookers, emergency room co-payments, etc. – the studios took care of my airfare and lodging. So, you see, no matter which policy I followed, I never paid a dime to attend a junket. Someone else always picked up my tab. So, really, I never had to worry about whether my opinion might be shaped or shaded because of my access to the stars, or a free plane ticket, or because I could order a bottle of Beaujolais and a yummy slice of chocolate cake from room service at the Four Seasons. Because it never happened. Ever. And here’s the funny part: The whole time I did TV, I never – repeat, never – had a studio rep tell me that because I panned a film after attending a junket for said film, I would never be invited to another junket by that studio. (And remember: During this period, I would not only pan the movie on TV in Houston – I might also pan it in print, for two or three fairly large alt papers throughout Texas, and, occasionally, for MSNBC.com.) Maybe things are different today for people on the movie beat, I can’t say. But I know what worked for me, and how I worked it.

And no, even now, I would never think of attending a junket and not doing anything with the interview material. Why on earth would I waste my time like that? Hell, I wish I had done even more TV junkets when I had access to them, and had kept more of the videos so I could post more of them on You Tube today. They’re the gifts that keep on giving.

Agree, David. And there really is 2 "types" of criticism; true film "critics" who don't delve into plot too much, talk about the film as if everyone reading has seen it, focus more on the intent, etc. And then there's "reviewers" which I think has morphed to include "bloggers" as well. These are more surface level writers who are kind of in the trenches with the film from page to screen, etc.

Nothing wrong with any of these kinds of writers, it's all about what you want to be.

BTW: David has a great point about relationships. Because, really, what do you think is more likely to color your opinion: An all-expenses-paid trip to London (during which, by the way, you likely won't see much besides a movie theater and your hotel, unless you want to pony up the extra bucks for a few extra days) or your long-term acquaintanceship with a publicist?

The other thing about junkets that I don't see being discussed is actually a bit less of a grey area: Do you tell the IRS that you've received a pair of business class tickets to London and however many nights in an expensive hotel? Because, where they're concerned, that would seem to be a nice bit of income.

According to my accountant -- seriously -- this is not a problem.

Yeah, that's not income.

I've never been to a proper junket, where the studio flies you somewhere to be buttered up by and do some buttering up to the people attached to a project. Nor have I ever been on a set visit as a journalist. So I can't speak about the grey areas, per se, but I can't imagine that plane tickets to the Bahamas and a hotel room and free food could be considered taxable income. If the studio is also giving you a per diem, absolutely. But Rocchi et al are not being paid by the studio for the coverage. They are being paid by their respective employers, and that is the taxable income.

"Consumers need to work harder to be informed... and studios do too."

As do critics. I've known more than a few who literally only go see the specific movies they're assigned to write about.

That's someone who doesn't love the movies, IMO.

Hush, you (LYT). I just got commissioned to see COUPLES RETREAT and do a video review for Rotten Tomatoes.

I actually kind of like being asked to review stuff I wouldn't normally see. Sometimes I'm surprised (pleasantly) and other times it's just funny to bag on something.

Me too... I'm talking about people who ONLY see those, and don't attend screenings any other nights, or see movies for fun, or feel any obligation as critics to see the movies everyone is talking about.

GOOD QUESTION to follow, please all critics/journo types consider it:

With all due respect, is there maybe a slight chance those of you (here and elsewhere) who report on the film biz, especially just lay critics who do the publicity-tour celeb/director interviews and junket scene etc... Is there a chance maybe some people in your biz take the ETHICS of that stuff ENTIRELY too seriously?

I know a lot of film-biz writers have that journalism background, but sometimes it seems like you're applying Woodward-and-Bernstein level seriousness, paranoia, responsibility, and integrity... to a job where you watch movies and hobnob with pretty people. A lot of film critics still retain that journalism 101 intensity, reviewing movies like they're standing around a crime scene in a PRESS hat with a scratchpad, and not wanting "to reveal your sources" like some victim or C.I.'s family could get whacked...

but, yeah, you're not working Watergate, you're working a "Couples Retreat" junket.

I say, fuck it, take the bribe, chill with Malin Akerman for 10 minutes, have a pina colada with the director, and give the fucker four stars in your print review. Who cares, really? As many have said here already, lay people don't really care what any critic has to say anymore; They go by the recommendation of their friends or whatever the group wants to see. I don't think Michael Phillips or A.O. Scott are gonna talk ANYBODY out of seeing (insert movie) if they've already made their mind up to see it.

I understand that the reportage of the behind the scenes shit that affects actual people's livelihoods needs to be on point and responsible, the kind of things where jobs are on the line.

But, damn, if I was a film critic, I'd be ALL ABOUT getting more time with the celebrities and actresses and directors (fuck the writers, they're boring), and if the choice is:

1) HANG OUT WITH HOT ACTRESS FOR 10 MINUTES AND GO EASY ON THE MOVIE BECAUSE OF THE DELIGHTFUL TIME I HAD BEING SCHMOOZED...

2) STICK TO JOURNALISTIC PRINCIPLES, GIVE THE MOVIE A SCATHING REVIEW, BUT PASS ON MEETING THE HOT CHICK?

Fucking take 2) seven times a week and twice on Sunday.

All a studio would have to do is send a hot escort to my hotel room and I'm be quote-whoring that movie till the ends of the earth.

I honestly don't know why this kind of thing is frowned upon. Who would you rather be, some tweedy stuffed shirt writing dry shit and being no fun at all, or some partyin' motherfucker chatting it up with the A-list?

They need a movie critic who's like the HUNTER THOMPSON of film criticism, getting all loaded and making himself the star of every situation and talking about all the movies only through his own skewed perception.

Oh, wait, that's what I've been wanting to do for years but I'm too lazy. Plus I want to just be an actor, not a critic.

See what I just did? I brought it all back to the most important subject in the world-- oneself.

Actually, LexG, I think you can do both: Enjoy the comps, drink the booze, hang with the hot chicks, close down bars, bury the cost of hookers on your expense report -- and then drop the 500-pound shit hammer on lousy movies.

"But, damn, if I was a film critic, I'd be ALL ABOUT getting more time with the celebrities and actresses and directors."

That's not being a film critic. That's being an entertainment writer.

I am a film critic, and I don't give a flying fuck about getting any time with the celebrities and actresses and directors, with two caveats:

1) If it's someone on the level of Woody Allen or John Sayles, a filmmaker whose work I have admired for decades and they are out supporting a film I enjoyed.
2) If it's for a film I truly feel deserves to find an audience and I want to be a part of getting it to an audience.

I'm sure Malin Ackerman is a very nice woman, but I'm not going to get anything really good out of her in a junket situation. The best interview I've done was me and Adam Rifkin sharing dinner and drinks across the street from The Lot in West Hollywood. Away from all the junket and press day in a hotel bullshit. Just two guys (and a publicist) shooting the shit about the industry, influences and how he was going to fit one of his favorite in-jokes in to his primordial comedy. It might not be the best read on the page, but it's the best interview for me in terms of not having the pressure that goes with trying to ask a question during a roundtable or press conference situation (especially when one specific uncouth "entertainment writer" is present) or the very limited time-frame that goes with a junket interview.

Edward is SPOT ON. I think some kind of crazed ego's have taken over some people. They want to be called CRITICS but are reviewers or entertainment writers. And there's not a thing wrong with being the latter. But these people get their ego PUMPED UP because someone cares enough about their web traffic and the way they write and dammit, I AM a critic because my opinion matters and I got my name in a trailer.

As Rocchi pointed (and points) out so perfectly is...it's a job. These people are not your friends. It's a give and taqke. The minute you start cozying up and thinking "OMG. Malin Akerman winked at me. She genuinely likes me!" You're lost.

And Edward is also right in that sometimes, an actual organic conversation between film lovers happens. Usually with a third tier (or lower) guy or gal, but still. That's real. Bora Bora and Vince Vaughn is not real. Ireland with Danny McBride buying you fucking...Irish car bombs is not real. I mean, it happened, but he's an actor and he's acting like he's your pal and that will come out in the review later. (FTC full disclosure: I have no evidence Danny McBride did this. It was an example.)

12 years living in Ireland, I never heard of an "Irish car bomb" as a beverage name.

When I discovered it was one here, it seemed a little shocking. In Ireland, most people know someone whose life was taken by the real thing.

Yeah, but this was my question:

When you get down to it, DON'T ALL CRITICS kinda wanna hang out with the stars and hobnob?

Look, Ken Turan and Roger Ebert are critics of utmost integrity and reputation... but when they get tasked with chillin' with Clint Eastwood and Spike Lee, respectively, neither can contain their obvious boner.

You'll NEVER convince me that 99.99999999% of film critics AREN'T guys who'd rather be writing or acting.

Shit, just look up at the TWO POSTERS directly before this post -- one an aspiring actor, the other an active low-budget filmmaker.

If being a FILM CRITIC is such a beloved and noble occupation, why are so many of you guys (yes, you who post here) trying to be actors, screenwriters, and directors?

It used to be that just stuffy book critics sort of segued over to film 'cause it seemed like a sweeter gig; Now wannabe filmmakers review some flicks for a blog or a website on the side till they catch their break; It's less taxing than waiting tables, plus you get to hobnob.

"If being a FILM CRITIC is such a beloved and noble occupation"

It's not. It may have once been, but nowadays it's a job that would barely pay your daily bar tab.

I got into it when I did to help get my name out there, and because at the time, it seemed like a more "realistic" way to make a living. That changed.

I really only get star-struck by WWE superstars, though. Lunch with Stone Cold, fuck yeah I had a metaphorical boner. Other actors, a bit less so.

^ The world's last honest man.

AUSTIN 3:16 YEP YEP.

But it's all about PAUL MR. WONDERFUL ORNDOFF and ROWDY RODDY, and maybe NIKOLAI MOTHERFUCKING VOLKHOFF.

Hey Lou when you rolled with James Duval, is he all pissed off that that pretender Lou Taylor Pucci has stolen his entire appearance and essence and run with it? They are THE SAME PERSON, except Duval RULES and I had to look up the other guy's name.

I don't even know who Lou Taylor Pucci is. But I remember when people thought Jimmy was a rip-off of Keanu, only better at acting.

Lex-
Dude, sure. We ALL want to be accepted and acknowledged for our taste and talent for bird dogging great films. But, and it's ironic I say this with "you" as the recipient to this but it counts for all, meeting "big" actors and filmmakers is a design job. Like meeting an escort or going to like, a sports collectors convention. They all will meet you and be your best pal for the allotted time frame then, grab you shit and get out. Leave the currency on the table.

For me, I came into criticism backwards after being a (very) part time staff guy and 10+ year volunteer at Sundance. I have friends to this day that I volunteered with who have become filmmakers, actors, programmers...all that. Those connections mean so much more to me than ALL the "stars" I've met. In fact, my most awful, awkward encounter was with John Sayles! Total. Dick.

But again, as James Rocchi said; this is a job. These are not your friends. And even though it seems like it, they aren't. AND I assure you, they don't wanna read your script, go get a drink, any of that. They're high paid escorts and junketeers are the johns.

WHAT PART DO PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTAND:

TAKE SOME NOTES, because CELEBRITIES ARE BETTER THAN NORMAL PEOPLE. Just fucking ADMIT IT, get on your knees, and thank whatever nonexistent bullshit god you pray to that you got your 10 Minutes with TRUE GOD COME TO EARTH, if it gets you thru the day of your mundane existence.

This is why ESCORTS (Don Lewis made the analogy, so don't delete this) and Hookers are TRUE HONESTY, and REAL LIFE DATING and real life BULLSHIT is the rub. Spend your 10 mins. with a hot actress and you are ON TOP OF THE WORLD like after a really good lapdance; Yeah it's not THE REAL THING but in most cases THE REAL THING is some bitchy chick at a bar throwing a drink in your face, or settling for a LIFE THAT IS SO MUCH LESS THAN WHAT YOU, AS A GOD, DESERVE.

Fuck it, I'd roll into every junket drunk and have a giant boner for every actress in sight, and at the very least I'd go back to the hotel room and TAKE MATTERS INTO MY OWN HANDS.

And you CANNOT TELL ME that there aren't "critics" who get off on talking to these FAMOUS CHICKS then use it as fantasy material later.

YEP YEP.

ALSO: (take some more notes):

Contrary to what every sour film critic in the world says, aren't MOST movies good? As in, at least entertaining? As in, AT LEAST better than reading?

I've said this before, but if I see roughly 100 movies a year, I'd award at LEAST 65, probably 70 of them, at least a B-minus, or 2.5/3 stars out of 10.

Yet almost every dick critic seems to go into movies ACTIVELY looking to hate it, with this smug, tired, cynical "you better impress me" attitude. Unlike most dicks who get paid to do a CUSHY JOB and throw in some vague socioeconomic BULLSHIT to justify their salary, I have a good time at virtually every movie I see. So I'd have NO PROBLEM taking bribes and chilling with the stars and doling out a nice FOUR-STAR RATING for ANYTHING put in front of me.

WHAT THE FUCK, you only live once.

You rather be chillin' on the red carpet having pictures taken of you with THE ENTOURAGE GANG and KEIRA KNIGHTLEY, or be some stuffed shirt in a tweed coat looking down on EVERYTHING?

Not saying Ben Lyons is a hack or a shill or a quote-whore, but I AM saying at least it LOOKS LIKE THAT GUY'S HAVING FUN.

Does Ken Turan look like he's having fun?

When I go to the movies, Lex, be it as a "film critic" or an "average joe," I am not looking to be impressed. I want to feel the time I spent watching the screen was well spent, be it a comedy about stoners, a football drama or a documentary about the Holocaust.

If your statements are honestly reflective of who you are as a person, and not just some bullshit posing behind a fake online persona, I'd say you've never actually spent any time doing the things you think are awesome. If you're working the line at a red carpet premiere, you'd not chillin'. Well, maybe you're cold because it's night and maybe it's raining, but it certainly ain't no fucking party. It's work, and anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fantasy world.

And yes, Ben Lyons is having fun. He is a USDA Grade AA starfucker who seems to only live to hang out and have his picture taken with anyone who can remotely be called a "star." And if that's how he wants to live, God bless him. I get my kicks in other ways, and it has nothing to do with the artifice of Hollywood.

Seriously... the next time I go to a Hollywood premiere, with after-party access, I want to take you, Lex. I want to see if you're actually like you are here and on HE, and I want to see if it at all lives up to the illusions you present.

havens -- he'd never have the balls to go with you....but if he does, give me a head's up so i can rsvp and bring the flip.....

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: