Respect

Film criticism is not dying, and will never be dead. That much is clear. Film criticism is also a vital part of discourse. Film criticism is as important as music criticism, book criticism, theater criticism, and the like. But film criticism gets no respect. That's actually not fair; criticism in general gets no respect. Because, technically, anyone can be a critic, the art of criticism (and yes, if you read the right people, you'll realize that criticism is indeed an art) is often denigrated. Not everyone can paint something that Monet did. Not everyone can compose what Beethoven did. Not everyone can make a movie as Paul Thomas Anderson does. But everyone can be a critic, right? Everyone has an opinion, and that's all it takes to be a critic.

Well, no, actually. An opinion gets you halfway there, but you need to do the rest. See, if I can paraphrase Ratatouille for a minute, everyone can be a critic, but not everyone should be a critic. For example, if I see said Pixar film, and someone asks me what I think, me saying "I loved it!" is equal to my opinion. You might have noticed that none of the remaining critics in the print industry will ever write a review that short and, thus, lacking in explanation. I can say that I love Ratatouille, and that might be my opinion, but the art of criticism is telling people why. Great critics love great art, but great critics attempt to convince their readers why the art is great and why they should seek out great art and tell the readers why they think the art is so damn great.

I bring all of this up for two reasons. The first is that, as was announced yesterday, At The Movies, currently hosted by A.O. Scott of The New York Times and Michael Phillips of The Chicago Tribune, is going the way of the dodo. The show will have its last airing on August 14, and then the show that was made famous by Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert will no longer be on the air. For so many reasons, this is a shame. Though I would initially be in the camp of those who believe that the show really died when Gene Siskel did, there's no question that, in all of the channels available these days and with all the crap airing 24/7, there should be at least one half-hour available for even a half-thoughtful look at the newest Hollywood releases.

So where did the show go wrong? I don't need to say a damn thing about Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz. Their time at the helm was disastrous beyond belief. Scott and Phillips were extremely knowledgeable (and still are, of course), but without either Siskel or Ebert around, people lost interest. I don't know that Rotten Tomatoes or blogs or Twitter killed the show. Yes, people can read opinions about films, but the great joy of watching Siskel and Ebert, or Ebert and any of the many guests he had, go at it was that they went at it. Even when they agreed, it was fascinating to watch, because the men knew what they were talking about. I was never a fan of Richard Roeper's, but even he knew what he was talking about some of the time. Scott and Phillips came after the two Bens, and it would have been a miracle for them to save the show, which was also placed at the worst possible timeslots across the country. How to watch a show you can't find on the dial?

A disappointing story, to be sure. One of the many choices the executive producers made when Ebert went away for his surgery-turned-permanent absence was having bigger names join Roeper, from Aisha Tyler to Jay Leno to Kevin Smith. But wait, you're asking me, not Kevin Smith! How could Kevin Smith, someone who so despises (while not understanding) criticism, subject himself to being a film critic, if only for a few minutes? Yes, friends, it's true. And yes, this is the other reason I've been thinking about criticism. Smith, an avid Twitter user, went on his most misguided, childish, and hypocritical rants yesterday. You may or may not know that, last month, Smith's first effort as just a director was released in theaters. It's called Cop Out. The film didn't do too well on the Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer, garnering a 19 percent rating from critics.

And yet the film has become Smith's highest-grossing entry, even though it's only made about 45 million dollars. That's not great if you're Michael Bay, but if you're Kevin Smith, that number is gold. So he should be happy. What's more, it was announced this week that Smith's long-gestating movie Red State is going forward, and he's also got a project with Seann William Scott in the works. This is a happy man. Well...no. See, he's on Twitter. And he uses it a lot. And so he went nuts yesterday, because someone mentioned that film critics must be idiots, right? Because they don't have any fun. And movies are all about fun, right? Smith took the ball and ran with it, complaining that the critics who disliked the movie were...well, I'm going to be culling this from the sterling article written by Devin Faraci at this link. So check that out for the full thing.

But Smith said, among other things, "So many critics lined-up to pull a sad & embarrassing train on #CopOut like it was Jennifer Jason Leigh in LAST EXIT TO BROOKLYN. Watching them beat the shit out of it was so sad. Like, it's called #CopOut; that sound like a very ambitious title to you? You REALLY wanna shit in the mouth of a flick that so OBVIOUSLY strived for nothing more than laughs. Was it called "Schindler's Cop Out?" Writing a nasty review for #CopOut is akin to bullying a retarded kid who was getting a couple chuckles from the normies by singing AFTERNOON DELIGHT." Further down his screed, and it was even more incomprehensible, he said the following, "So we let a bunch of people see it for free & they shit all over it? Meanwhile, people who'd REALLY like to see the flick for free are made to pay? Bullshit: from now on, any flick I'm ever involved with, I conduct critics screenings thusly; you wanna see it early to review it? Fine: pay like you would if you saw it next week. Like, why am I giving an arbitrary 500 people power over what I do at all, let alone for free? Next flick, I'd rather pick 500 randoms from Twitter feed & let THEM see it for free in advance, then post THEIR opinions, good AND bad. Same difference. Why's their opinion more valid?"

Hoo boy. Where do we begin with the completely batshit insane, wrongheaded and, more to the point, motherfucking stupid argument Smith has levied. Let's begin at the beginning. He claims that the title, Cop Out, isn't a very ambitious title. I agree. Here's the difference: he shouldn't be making that point. By making that point, he's owning up to not caring about the movie. He directed it, but fuck if there's any ambition behind it. So, in defending his film, Smith has already claimed a lack of interest. He doesn't respect his own work. Next, he says that those who apparently went out of their way to slam Smith (and I'd love to hear some names, because I'm not able to cull any from memory) and the film that isn't very ambitious is akin to bullies making fun of a mentally challenged child. So, now Smith considers Cop Out to be a mentally challenged kid lacking in ambition. Not only is he denigrating his own work, but he's denigrating the work done by everyone else in the movie.

The cynics out there will say, "But, Josh. It's Cop Out. How much work could have been done?" Whatever opinion Smith has of his own movie, and it's obviously very low, here's the skinny: a movie is hard work, even if it's a bad movie. People are paid to make a product. Some are good, some are bad. But work is always involved. I'm willing to acknowledge that fact, and I don't even work in movies. Smith's disrespecting everyone involved in the production by making the comparison, and embarrassing himself by not realizing how self-loathing he sounds. Don't drag everyone down with you, Silent Bob. He then goes on to say that it's not fair that 500 arbitrary people (ooh, Kevin, you need to look at your dictionary again, buddy! We both know you meant a word aside from "arbitrary", right?) get to see the movie free, while those who want to see it for free have to pay. First, the people who write up the movie after seeing it for free are, by and large, doing so because they are paid to do so. And they already spent money on gas or transportation getting there, so it's not like they're going on their publication's dime. Second, there are plenty of free screenings for anyone who's interested in watching it; I've been to all-press screenings and mixed crowds; what's more, when the crowd is mixed, it's heavily in favor of the "randoms".

Here's another thing: people who write these movies up for money don't get paid the same handsome salary that Kevin Smith gets. Let's be clear on that: Kevin Smith is not panhandling. He's got money. Enough money to, say, take an airline aside from Southwest (another rant for another day, readers). So him bitching about the online and print journalists who struggle to get by mocking his movie (or him, apparently, in his delusion) is a real fucking treat. What's more, his final suggestion, that 500 random followers get in free and all critics are barred from the show, is crazy for so many reasons. First: hey, Kevin? Good luck with getting the studios to follow your every whim. Because, as we all know, you're a wildly successful director who can ask for whatever he wants. Or, you directed Cop Out as a director-for-hire to impress studios. Second, good luck picking random followers who will apparently love your next movie, just because they're seeing it for free. That's how it works. People love it because it's free, but critics...hate it because it's free? I don't get that logic.

Kevin Smith has no respect for his movie. He has no respect for his fans (some of whom are--shocker--critics! Interesting true fact: Dogma, Clerks, Clerks II, Chasing Amy, and Zack and Miri Make A Porno: these are the films that all have a Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, from those pesky critics, and Cop Out is the lowest-rated of his films). He has no respect for film critics, who, again, don't hate him. But, since I'm writing on criticism, I'll throw in a bit of my own, and guess what? Kevin Smith wouldn't tell me to fuck off. See, I paid to see Cop Out. So my opinion, apparently, counts. The movie sucked. It sucked for many reasons: the bored Bruce Willis, the unmanageable performance from Tracy Morgan, the inconsistent tone, the unfunny script, the weak subplot, the subpar directing, and the list goes on. What I did there was very quickly provide a critique of a movie. My opinion is that it sucked. My critique is why it sucked. Not a bad thing. Kevin Smith will move onto another project, another rant, another dick joke. The rest of us will grow up, as he regresses.