3
Showing posts with label Film Critics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Film Critics. Show all posts

Friday, April 22, 2011

KIDS FIRST...film critic boot camp! Calling all E! Reporters!









Oh, I can feel the competition breathing down my neck already!

Nonetheless, I'm all for plugging the KIDS FIRST "Film Critics" boot camp which revs up in the next few weeks.

Do you think that your kid has what it takes to become a movie reviewer?

Or, at least a cub reporter along the lines of Lois Lane or Jimmy Olsen at the Daily Planet?

If your tween-aged child has a hankering to be the next Roger Ebert, there’s a camp where they can train to build a foundation of knowledge and skills to one day attain that goal.

KIDS FIRST is offering up its 2nd Film Critics Boot Camp this summer in four cities across the country - Los Angeles, Albuquerque, Annapolis and Santa Fe (June & July).

For those who are not familiar with KIDS FIRST, the organization has a web site for kids where they can log in and participate in every aspect of the film industry.

Smart intelligent children - keen on filmmaking - even vote on movies each year and give them a popcorn rating!

Creating the KIDS FIRST! Film Critics Boot Camp was a natural next step for the 20-year-old organization, according to the organizers of the annual event.

In essence, the budding young stars are taught how to judge and critique media - and likewise - how to perform on-camera.

Kids ages 8 to 13 will get a chance to watch the latest films, meet film critics, and learn interview techniques.

In sum, the boot camp affords up-and-coming raw filmmaking talents (and critics) how to develop their creative skills.

And, they will do just that, under the tutelage of professionals in the field.

The goal is to help tweens build self confidence while they develop skills that will stay with them a lifetime.

A successful well-known 1st assistant director - Janet Davidson - is one of the teachers that will be at the helm at boot camp this summer.

DATES AND LOCATIONS

Warehouse 21,
1614 Paseo de Peralt
Sante Fe NM

June 13th – 17th

Quote…Unquote
519 Central N.W.
Albuquerque NM

June 20th – 24th

The Georgian Hotel
1415 Ocean Avenue
Santa Monica, CA

July 11th – July 15th

Filmsters
107 Annapolis St., Ste J,
Annapolis, MD

July 18th – July 22nd

Tuition $549
Early Registration $479
Materials, snacks, and lunches inclusive

Ages 8 - 13
Enrollment limited
Maximum 25 children per class
(some partial scholarships available)

Contact:

http://www.kidsfirst.org/

http://www.thetattler.com


Saturday, November 1, 2008

AFI FEST...Publicity Director John Wildman lashes out! The man is off his rocker...



Yesterday, I penned a post noting a couple of screw-ups that occurred this past week at the AFI Film Fest, due to the incompetence and inexperience of John Wildman and his staff in the publicity department.

In particular, I pointed out that information Mr. Wildman provided to me was incorrect, which resulted in a bit of an uproar in the film community.

For example, Wildman informed me personally that Meryl Streep would not be appearing on the red carpet at the Premiere of "DOUBT" slated for screening on October 30th.

Ms. Streep did stroll down the red carpet the next night, in fact.

Subsequently - I was forced to edit a post to explain the snafu to my readers and film buffs - especially in view of the fact that one AFI supporter (unfamiliar with the facts) blamed me for reporting erroneous information.

In addition, I pointed out in the post that Mr. Wildman's staff provided contact information for Ms. Streep and Joaquin Phoenix which was also incorrect.

In a response communication, Mr. Wildman tried to wiggle out of blame.

For example, he noted for the record that AFI updates information and sometimes get it wrong. (okay!)

Instead of resting his case there, he proceeded to snidely remark:

"But, seriously Joaquin Phoenix? Meryl Streep?"

John, I have copies of the e-mails that confirm my allegations to be true.

Some of the issues he addressed related to my comments about his shoddy set-up at the Roosevelt Hotel.

For example, I noted in my post that when I stopped into the publicity director's office at the Roosevelt on Wednesday to pick up my media badge, it was obvious from the poorly-set-up press headquarters that Wildman and his staff were not only inexperienced but incompetent as well.

His reply?

"I'm a publicity director. Not an interior decorator."

I don't expect you to be, John.

An intelligent "boss" in charge of a department such as yours - with an ounce of experience and know-how - would have simply farmed the task out if they weren't capable of putting together a professional presentation themselves.

It's the details, man!

If Mr. Wildman was a mature individual - with a smaller ego and a bigger IQ - he would have fessed up to his shortcomings without any qualms.

After all, it's not very intelligent or productive to ignore the obvious.

Has the man such little self-awareness?

In the communication he zipped off, without much thought or reflection, he even tried to toss the blame on me.

For example, in a condescending manner, he inferred that I didn't know any better.

After all, her asserted, I was "new".

Ha!

As I noted in a response e mail today, I am certainly not new!

If anything, I am getting long in the tooth.

In fact, I have been involved hands-on in show biz and the film industry - in a myriad of capacities - for over thirty years!

I was in front of the camera when Mr. Wildman was still pooping his drawers!

And, his mother was wiping his snotty little nose.

Oh, but Mr. Wildman had so much more to toss into the fray.

He chirped that I didn't know anything about festivals or how they worked!

Because he has handled a couple, he's suddenly the expert, eh?

Well, I had a big guffaw over that one!

I have been attending and reporting on festivals for years!

I not only know how they work, but why they don't, when they don't.

When a Director at a Film Festival is "pig-headed" - doesn't know who key players are in the industry, and allows an overblown sense of self-importance get the better of him - then it's time to call it a day.

Mr. Wildman concluded his little diatribe by lamenting that I must have had a bad day.

On the contrary, my week was smashing!

In closing, he tried to put a muzzle on me and restrict my right to free speech.

He issued a directive that I focus on the filmmakers.

"They are the story. Not me."

Duh!

As I noted in a follow-up, I don't just report on the films and their makers.

On the contrary!

I also pen commentary on the scuttlebutt - on the red carpet, off of it - and behind-the-scenes.

Don't expect me to wax poetic in a phony puff piece to bolster a star's ego, though.

I may be inclined to throw a spotlight on the AFI FEST, however, and what I perceive as a "clubby" elitist organization run by a handful of snobby individuals who are under the mistaken impression that their sh** doesn't stink.

To cast a blind eye all to that would be a ludicrous notion.

Quentin Tarantino once said:

"I don't believe in elitism. I don't think the audience is this dumb person that is lower than me. I am the audience."


Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Patrick Goldstein...Los Angeles Times writer pens pap! Wasted column inches...



Well, Patrick Goldstein is at it again.

Once again, he's penning ignorant musings for the morning daily, to satisfy his overblown sense of self-importance.

Just a few days ago, everyone was savoring a big chuckle over a silly piece he threw together on the Roger Ebert scandal.

If you recall, Roger Ebert confessed on his blog, that a nifty review on the feature - Tru Loved - was crafted without disclosing the fact the rotund little critic only screened about eight minutes of celluloid.

In response, Mr. Goldstein jumped into the fray (to rustle up some much-needed publicity for himself, no doubt. Poor baby!) and wildly predicted that Ebert's shame-faced admission would spark trouble for all critics around the country.

As I quipped at the time, baloney!

When I opened the newspaper and turned to the Calendar section and started to peruse his latest article this morning, I literally laughed out loud!

After noting that he attended a screening of a comedy this past week (Role Models), the ingenuous hack proceeded to ponder why the Academy didn't award more Oscars to that popular genre.

Duh!

In fact - he noted in the overly-long shallow piece - that after the screening he found himself "wondering" why the Oscars didn't recognize good work in comedy the way they do drama, animation, cinematography, editing (oh boy, he left no stone unturned on this one) - etc. etc. and so forth and so on!

The man is a piece of work, isn't he?

For starters, the subject he was whining about has been thoroughly covered - ad nauseam - for about two decades by a handful of top entertainment writers in the industry.

More galling, perhaps, is Goldstein's deceitful bold-faced effort to conjure up the impression that his take on the issue is a fresh insight!

Mr. Goldstein, do you honestly think everyone in the biz has lived in a vacuum for the past twenty years?

Or, just maybe, you thought we were born yesterday?

At this juncture, I think it's obvious why the Los Angeles Times is losing credibility (and suffering circulation losses) in recent months.

Who wants to read the tired old news that Mr. Goldstein is offering up under the pretense that it is his own original thought-provoking material?


Years ago, Frank Sinatra caught a lot of flack from the media for referring to journalists as a bunch of hookers.

In Mr. Goldstein's case, the label is right on the money.


If I was the managing editor at the daily, I would give Goldstein's butt a swift kick into the "Want ads" department.

His writing would be better-suited for drafting copy for used cars.

After all, his propensity for selling pre-owned properties, makes him well-suited for the task.

Monday, June 16, 2008

CineVegas Film Festival...gossip & scuttlebutt. LA TIMES stinker & screw-ups.



Yesterday, I checked with the staff at the ticket office, and they informed me that Box Office for the CineVegas Film Festival has been boffo this year. A number of features have been either booked fully or sold to near capacity.

"Sales are higher this year than the past couple of years," one CineVegas volunteer proudly announced.

So, the fest is steaming ahead and garnering stature on the Festival circuit.

But, as I trotted around behind-the-scenes and covered red carpet events in recent days, it has become evident to me the Festival is experiencing some growing pains; consequently, there are issues that need to be sorted out if CineVegas is to continue to surge ahead (and gain respect from the Industry).


Mr. Hopper (Chairman of the Festival), Mr. Greenspun (President of CineVegas) and Trevor Groth (Festival Director) have been dotting on the festival-goers - attending screenings, circulating the events - and ably fulfilling their roles as good-will Ambassadors of the event.

But, it appears that staff in the lower levels of management and in the publicity department are either slipping or not experienced enough to professionally handle their tasks.

A case in point.

Last night, I attended a chi-chi function at Dos Caminos (at the Palazzo Hotel & Casino) and proceeded to engage guests in a bit of dialogue to rustle up feedback about their CineVegas experience.

At one point, I alighted next to a lovely couple at the warm outgoing event.

The smartly-attired well-manicured woman was curious as to who I was, and subsequently, lifted up my press pass to get a gander at it to determine my association with the Festival.

At this juncture, we engaged in a spirited discussion, and I learned they were contributors to CineVegas.

Sadly, the woman informed me that her and her hubbie felt a little out-of-sorts that day at the "Get Smart" screening. In spite of the fact they were sponsors of the festival, staff placed them in lousy seats near the rear of the theatre; consequently, they felt neglected.

Another woman I have become friends with at the Festival also ran into the same problem. In spite of the fact she paid $600.00 for a Festival pass, the local art dealer was placed in a spot "outfield". Boy, was she miffed!

She proceeded to request better seating elsewhere in the theatre. And, got it.

The couple in question didn't venture down the same path because they didn't want to cause a fuss or throw a damper on what they surmised would be a satisfying cultural experience that afternoon.

So, there I was smoothing over the waters trying to make things better.

What else could I do?

As the old saying goes, "That's not my job!"

Also, it appears that staff in the publicity department have made some poor judgments calls which reflect negatively on their integrity and ethical standards.

For instance, when members of the press or photographers arrive at the CineVegas Headquarters lounge - Kelly Frey, Francesca Torre, and Taylor Banks - don't even bother to introduce themselves as staff in the Publicity Department or welcome guests to the festival. Imagine that!

Another problem occurred when one local Vegas press person went to pick up his ticket for the feature film - "Your Name Here" - and was informed that last-minute an LA TIMES reporter swooped into the press room requesting a ticket.

Instead of noting that the screening was sold out, they gave the man's ticket to the columnist without batting an eye, nor did they show any remorse for their questionable conduct.

That su**s.

The press are required to submit RSVP's for special events and request tickets with appropriate advance notice. If the Los Angeles daily screwed up, or arrived late, why should the other man suffer?

Last minute - I decided to attend that screening - but was told the theatre was sold out.

That was okay in that circumstance as far as I was concerned; after all, I was just going on spec an hour or so before the curtain fell - so I was forced to accept the consequences for not planning farther ahead.

But, in my case there turned out to be a Feature Film God!

At the event last night, I nonchalantly slipped into a seat at the bar next to the marketing person (Jennifer C. Lai at Everstudios) promoting the film and she proceeded to arrange for a copy of "YOUR NAME HERE" to be delivered to me so that I could screen it privately.

Other press folks didn't get tickets to events they registered for. For example, when a few media types arrived at the PR Office, staff coldly informed them that their paperwork was either lost or had not been processed for some inexplicable reason. They were SOL.

Oops!

Someone is not going to get coverage from a handful of media outlets due to staff error, negligence or incompetence.

And, that hits home.

Two weeks ago, I personally notified the PR Office that I wanted to attend the Murakami Event, scheduled later today.


I covered Murakami's Los Angeles show, so as a matter of continuity, I desired to follow through with an in-depth analysis of his exhibition in Vegas.

No one has followed through or confirmed if my ticket has been processed.

So, Mr. Murakami loses coverage because of staff oversight?

Then, there have been some problems with staff getting in the way of the photographers at red carpet events.

A handful of paparazzi complained to me that as they are lining up to shoot the stars at the premieres, staff stand in the way and screw up the shot.

One photographer noted that when he complained, the staffer shrugged casually and remarked in an off-handed way, "Just photoshop it."

As a professional photog pointed out, when shots are submitted to editors at magazines and newspapers, they are inclined to pick the stills that are ready to publish. So, the photographer may lose out on a sale because the publicity shot has a hand, shoulder, or back of "someone" in it.

And, the star may not get coverage as a result, either.

It appears that staff in the PR office are not familiar with the Hollywood publicity machine or how it works.

Another filmgoer expressed her dismay that a film she took in was quite ragged and that the production values were poor.

"A festival of this stature should not have such low quality films," she argued.

Personally, from a critic's point of view, I will sometimes overlook the fact that a first-timer's project is a little rough around the edges - if the message is strong, the material is highly original - and it impacts on a deeper level than that of the purely visual.

But, the woman did have a point.

Another film - "South of Heaven" - was rife with images of women being beaten or tortured. As the tale unfolded, I cringed. Ironically, as the thought crossed my mind that the project might offend women, a few ladies got up and walked out.

It is one thing to make a statement about a relevant social and/or political issue, but when a film exploits torture and violence and has no redeeming value, one has to wonder...what is the point?

Orson Welles once said,

"A film is never really good unless the camera is an eye in the head of a poet."



Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Film critics...squabble over "Art"; put down bloggers!



Today there is an amusing article in the Los Angeles Times Calendar section about a feud erupting among self-proclaimed film critics.

According to Patrick Goldstein, "Hollywood has never been so full of nasty denunciations, agonized hand-wringing and self-monitoring rhetoric."

Apparently, a movie reviewer (!) at the LA WEEKLY has been bitchin' and complainin' about a handful of fellow reviewers, and at one point accused some of being, "...white noise taking up valuable column inches that could be devoted to legitimate (!) Film criticism."

For starters, I rarely read the weekly because I generally find the articles strive for lofty heights that the writers are creatively and intellectually incapable of achieving. The cheap sex ads - which pay for the writers' salaries - are too cheesy for my taste, as well.

Generally, I flip through to the "Rocky Horoscope", and peruse Savage's sex column - at which point - I use the overly-thick throw-away for something practical. In case you were unware of it, the LA WEEKLY makes a great liner for the kitty litter box.

A couple of critics have been accused of casting aspersions on "bloggers", who - some claim - are out of their league, for want of a better term. Just because an individual blogs does not mean he or she is lacking in formal training or professional credits, you know?

For example, I majored in English Literature and Art.

My own background education included a focus on the "art" of critiquing, with foundation courses in the "History of Cinema", and actual hands-on experience in the technique of filmmaking.

I was also a journalist with a major daily newspaper. In addition, a handful of literary works have been published by reputable printing houses. For a couple of years, I poured over dozens of scripts in my capacity as a Literary Agent, representing script writers in the area of Film and Television, as well.

For a short duration, I produced low-budget features for cable.

Why do I love my blog?

For starters, the fact no editor is breathing down my neck, appeals to me. Also, I savor the privilege of penning my articles, without censorship. Of course, it's also a creative joy to conjure up catchy captions for my posts and personally select eye-catching, thought-provoking images, to enhance my articles.

In contrast, many filmmakers have no training or background in the arts. In some instances, a rambunctious logger literally snatched up a video camera, shot reams of raw footage without much reflection, edited and shaped the ball of wax on the fly, then - flogged the humble offering at local film festivals...with an eye for distribution, a production deal, instant fame and fortune - you name it!

As to critics - well, it's a given.

Each has a varied educational background, unique vantage point, opinion about the cinema - a specialized taste, whatever. Consequently, reviews reflect a myriad of insights, musings, and harsh criticisms.

One critic referred to in the LA TIMES article, allegedly slammed the establishment, film foundations, and - in particular - awards outfits...went so far as to lament the "Hollywood Foreign Press Association" was, "...one of the most corrupt, pathetic, kow-towing groups of award voters imaginable."

True, their selections often boggle my own sensibilities. In view of that, on occasion, I've pondered what sinister outside influences - payola perhaps? - may be afoot, lurking in the shadows.

I understand the frustration. After all, in my humble opinion the feature film - "Eastern Promises" - was the worst movie of the year...a piece of celebrated junk. Yet, it garnered a couple of "Golden Globe" nominations.

Years ago, one of my professors gave me a great piece of advice, I'm still inclined to adhere to. She articulated quite succinctly that, "When you view a work of art - be it a painting or film - you should stand back for a moment and figure out what "washed over" you."

"Were you seduced or manipulated?" she asked pointedly.

In my critiques, I strive to be constructive...and, when I literally loathe a movie, often turn to filmgoers in the theatre for an outside opinion to be fair. Usually, I am astounded by the fact that so few filmgoers noticed the obvious flaws and shortcomings of the filmmakers.

In sum, it appears that most moviegoers are "open" to the film experience, without any inclination to critique from the offset...yeah, they appear to be content to settle for a couple of hours of solid, tangible entertainment.

What's wrong with that?

The "Joe" public may not know what celluloid art is, but they know what they like.

For this reason, you can't ever second guess 'em...in spite of a rave review or vitriolic jab.

A last word to the critics?

Elbert Hubbard probably said it best,

"To escape criticism - do nothing, say nothing, be nothing..."

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Film critics...a cry-baby points fingers!


Like any other animal, film critics stalk their territory in all stripes and colors.

Each reviewer has their own educational background, wide-range of eclectic tastes and aesthetic influences, prejudices.

It's a given...one writer may vote thumbs up on a blockbuster or Indy film, another down.

On occasion, a wide-release is such an obvious piece of **it, that it's panned all across the board.

On occasion, a reviewer may cite another critic - give them the nod as a matter of professional courtesy - because they've made an astute observation.

And, often quote a specific analysis - to contrast with their own opinion - just maybe, to give balance to the playing field.

This past week, a critic took a nasty swipe at his peers because the lot of 'em knocked a big-budget film he had fond musings about.

Heh man, there are myriad points of view - all valid, worthwhile takes on things; trying to silence a voice because it's not in accord with yours crying out from the wilderness - is unprofessional, in poor taste.

The film critic in question is a hypocrite in my opinion; go figure, the lad pens for a counter-culture newspaper that has become that which they once hated most.

What is the role of the film critic?

According to the Boston Globe,

"A film critic's manifesto takes directors down a peg, puts writers on top, and turns Hollywood on its head."

Obviously, the lament was made tongue-in-cheek!

Leading critic Clive Barnes noted from his perspective,

"One of the difficulties of criticism is that you are remote from the people you're criticizing for. You are probably more sophisticated than your average reader. You've certainly seen more than your average reader. Just the same as the ballet master or the choreographer doesn't represent the audience any more. So you do have to be very careful that you're not adopting too elitist a view, or be aware when you are adopting an elitist view."

In my opinion, a critique should be a thoughtful, intelligent analysis of the key elements of a film, to determine the aesthetic value on a multitude of artistic levels.

Ultimately, the film critic is a guiding light for the filmgoer...

Reviews spark lively debate, Sir - put a spotlight on a film - and on occasion have the potential to launch obscure little gems into mega-hit status.

Do filmgoers really listen to critics?

In recent months, a handful of major films garnered rave critiques, yet - they bombed at the box office.

The filmgoing public are prone to scan a review for a quick synopsis, a slant on the release, whatever.

But, it's generally the buzz or word-of-mouth that gets 'em into the movie houses.

If critics and producers could second-guess the movie-going public, less films would be taking a dive on opening weekend.

At this juncture, it's obvious you're out of your league, fella.

Poor baby!

Critic

Webster's definition
Main Entry: 1crit•ic
Pronunciation: 'kri-tik
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin criticus, from Greek kritikos, from kritikos able to discern or judge, from krinein
1 a : one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique b : one who engages often professionally in the analysis, evaluation, or appreciation of works of art or artistic performances
2 : one given to harsh or captious judgment
 
coompax-digital magazine