tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post6589625110379903375..comments2024-03-10T07:42:17.071-04:00Comments on The Film Doctor: Harry Potter, the Deathly Hallows, and the mystery of the suspicious Entertainment Weekly reviewThe Film Doctor http://www.blogger.com/profile/03073505923746994988noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-12403250262796361002010-12-06T02:54:24.513-05:002010-12-06T02:54:24.513-05:00My pleasure, Craig.My pleasure, Craig.The Film Doctor https://www.blogger.com/profile/03073505923746994988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-1933077294802166392010-12-05T19:40:49.798-05:002010-12-05T19:40:49.798-05:00Aw, FilmDr, did you delete your "HAL" co...Aw, FilmDr, did you delete your "HAL" comment? It was the perfect capper!<br /><br />I can't speak for Jason (oh, who am I kidding: yes, I can), but we genuinely enjoyed this thread. Thanks for indulging us.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-51285175503063166122010-12-04T18:37:22.557-05:002010-12-04T18:37:22.557-05:00We're through the looking glass now, people......We're through the looking glass now, people....<br /><br />(ominous strings)Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-75406338587209637482010-12-03T22:35:43.946-05:002010-12-03T22:35:43.946-05:00At the moment, I would like to go see Burlesque.
...<em>At the moment, I would like to go see Burlesque.</em><br /><br />FilmDoc: Keep it civil!Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-75947267395793538342010-12-03T20:10:18.573-05:002010-12-03T20:10:18.573-05:00Gentlemen! Keep it civil.
I feel bad now for i...Gentlemen! Keep it civil. <br /><br />I feel bad now for insinuating anything about Schwarzbaum. Maybe I was wrong. I don't know anymore. These long comment strings wear me out. <br /><br />At the moment, I would like to go see <i>Burlesque</i>.The Film Doctor https://www.blogger.com/profile/03073505923746994988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-3361946738953139002010-12-03T19:05:59.142-05:002010-12-03T19:05:59.142-05:00So, now we've moved from suggesting a critic i...<em>So, now we've moved from suggesting a critic isn't being fair and truthful with a positive review on a heavily hyped movie, to her not being fair and truthful with a negative review on a heavily hyped movie....What?</em><br /><br />Craig: See, all I'm trying to do is refute the suggestion that the C+ review proves that Schwarzbaum is "not a suck-up." At the same time, I'm trying to avoid implying charging Schwarzbaum as being otherwise disingenuous -- giving a C+ review as a critical pose to say "see, I'm <em>not</em> a suck up!" All I'm saying is that it <em>could</em> be that. It <em>could</em> be that normally Schwarzbaum feels incredible pressure to churn out positive reviews about certain stars, perhaps with certain agents, and so it could be that she felt this was a great time to <em>appear</em> to be unbiased by offering an assessment of "average" one week after the <em>EW</em> cover provided the best promotional coverage the movie's marketing agents could hope for by showing Jake and Anne naked on the cover. It would be the equivalent of Bill O'Reilly interviewing George W. Bush and saying, "Face it, Mr. President, 'misunderestimated' isn't a word!" -- giving the appearance of being a tough interviewer on an issue that's of little impact. Following me?<br /><br />Having said all of this: I'm more than comfortable with the idea that <em>EW</em> is wonderful about giving its critics the freedom to write about whatever the want, say whatever they want to say. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm not that cynical. I'm just proposing that the C+ review doesn't <em>necessarily</em> tell us anything about whether Schwarzbaum is or isn't a "suck up." Because it could be that the movie is an absolute F and C+ was the highest she felt she could go without being a blatant Armond-on-Spielberg-esque "suck up." <br /><br />You bastard!*<br /><br /><em>* I thought I'd make it personal. :)</em>Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-91208969235636100812010-12-03T16:01:36.039-05:002010-12-03T16:01:36.039-05:00başarılı bir çalışma tebrikler.başarılı bir çalışma tebrikler.film izlehttp://www.filmizlenir.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-6272613835866365332010-12-01T18:37:41.668-05:002010-12-01T18:37:41.668-05:00Addendum: This discussion reminds me of when Siske...Addendum: This discussion reminds me of when <i>Siskel & Ebert & the Movies</i> was gobbled up by Disney: speculations of favoritism abounded, including a funny political cartoon of Gene and Roger giving the thumbs'-up sign, wearing mouse ears. Their ratings of Disney movies before and after might make for a nifty quantitative thesis, but the anecdotal evidence of my memory recalls no sudden bias in favor of their films. As I recall, maintaining their journalistic integrity was part of the bargain.<br /><br />Incidentally, who's spreading that rumor that Lisa Schwarzbaum and I are dating? Completely unfounded!Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-2487620631933826752010-12-01T17:45:29.319-05:002010-12-01T17:45:29.319-05:00I'm not arguing here that Schwarzbaum is being...<i>I'm not arguing here that Schwarzbaum is being less than perfectly fair and truthful in her review. I'm just saying that it would be a pretty good time for a good ol' C+ review, given the previous cover story.</i><br /><br />So, now we've moved from suggesting a critic isn't being fair and truthful with a positive review on a heavily hyped movie, to her not being fair and truthful with a negative review on a heavily hyped movie....What?<br /><br /><i>I mean, truly, which is more likely to have an effect on the movie's box office: two young sexy stars naked (with an article talking about how much they have their clothes off in the movie), or a C+ review?</i><br /><br />Given its lukewarm extended opening weekend, I'd say neither. Regardless, EW's critics have both talked about the complete lack of editorial pressure to contribute to a movie's hype. (And I'm too lazy to provide a link right now, but off the top of my head I believe there's a rockcritics.com interview with Owen Gleiberman where he says as much.) Criticizing the hype itself is more than valid (that's why I canceled my subscription over a decade ago), but from what I gather EW's hands-off policy toward its film criticism is relatively admirable -- certainly when compared to Charles Taylor's story about a fellow newspaper critic who got yelled at by his editor for panning "Men in Black II." (Again, Google it, and you'll find it.)Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-33485562846795752202010-12-01T08:54:21.051-05:002010-12-01T08:54:21.051-05:00Jason,
I agree. I disliked the way the publicizi...Jason,<br /><br />I agree. I disliked the way the publicizing of <i>Love and Other Drugs</i> emphasized celebrity nudity instead of focusing on what the movie ultimately concerns--Parkinson's Disease. The trailer makes no mention of the disease. I found myself walking out of the cineplex with cognitive dissonance. What was the film that they were advertising? The movie struck me more as a compendium of nods to different audiences--guys who like raunch, ladies who like romantic comedies, those who weep at Lifetime melodramas, those interested in pharmaceutical reps, and so on. Otherwise, the movie has no reality and no soul. It's all marketing, with Hathaway and Gyllenhaal's charms being the most exploited.The Film Doctor https://www.blogger.com/profile/03073505923746994988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-89107185302032509432010-11-30T23:47:40.738-05:002010-11-30T23:47:40.738-05:00See ... but I saw that cover and thought, "We...See ... but I saw that cover and thought, "Well, sure, now that <em>EW</em> has done it's naked cover, why not ...?" I mean, truly, which is more likely to have an effect on the movie's box office: two young sexy stars naked (with an article talking about how much they have their clothes off in the movie), or a C+ review?<br /><br />I'm not arguing here that Schwarzbaum is being less than perfectly fair and truthful in her review. I'm just saying that it would be a pretty good time for a good ol' C+ review, given the previous cover story.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-6120565625764222102010-11-30T17:51:53.679-05:002010-11-30T17:51:53.679-05:00Good point, Craig (although I still don't want...Good point, Craig (although I still don't want to generalize about the rest of Schwarzbaum's work). Damn straight <i>Love and Other Drugs</i> deserves a C+. That film left me extra irritated because of the way it besmirches the (otherwise mostly good) careers of its fine leads. I plan on eventually posting something about the movie called "<i>Love and Other Drugs</i> and other reasons to throw a brick at the screen."<br /><br />I still wonder, though, what it is like to write a review of a film owned by the parent company that also owns the magazine one writes for, and to write for a publication that clearly has a major investment in promoting the said movie. It must create strange pressures on reviewer and editor alike.The Film Doctor https://www.blogger.com/profile/03073505923746994988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-60337352804036605662010-11-30T14:48:15.111-05:002010-11-30T14:48:15.111-05:00Just noticed that Lisa Schwarzbaum gave "Love...Just noticed that Lisa Schwarzbaum gave "Love and other Drugs" a C+ following EW's ballyhooed nekkid cover spread. Not a good critic, but evidently not a suck-up.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-52656411938535712602010-11-27T19:22:12.288-05:002010-11-27T19:22:12.288-05:00I agree. I still consult with that book in the mi...I agree. I still consult with that book in the midst of teaching film.The Film Doctor https://www.blogger.com/profile/03073505923746994988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-80417295087566526782010-11-27T13:47:51.423-05:002010-11-27T13:47:51.423-05:00I think the best thing Entertainment Weekly ever d...I think the best thing Entertainment Weekly ever did was produce a "100 greatest films" special issue/book that included both Last of the Mohicans and Celine and Julie Go Boating. And that was written by Ty Burr.Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-42881437870533747702010-11-27T07:07:16.077-05:002010-11-27T07:07:16.077-05:00Thanks for your thoughts, Craig. I don't, how...Thanks for your thoughts, Craig. I don't, however, have an opinion about the rest of Schwarzbaum's work, having never paid much attention to specific writers of the magazine except for Mark Harris, and that's mostly due to his <i>Pictures at a Revolution</i>. This one Harry Potter review in the context of the rest of <i>Entertainment Weekly</i>'s highly approving editorial slant just struck me as questionable.The Film Doctor https://www.blogger.com/profile/03073505923746994988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-56539103207242730322010-11-26T13:00:33.044-05:002010-11-26T13:00:33.044-05:00I gave up on EW years ago, and I wasn't a big ...I gave up on EW years ago, and I wasn't a big fan of Schwarzbaum even then. Gleiberman is by far the better writer (also crazier, more unpredictable). From the looks of it her prose has degenerated considerably. Either that, or she has a young daughter who wrote that piece under her mom's name.<br /><br />I like your idea here of breaking down a piece of criticism paragraph by paragraph. Hope you do it again.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-29128532933053138662010-11-26T08:45:35.047-05:002010-11-26T08:45:35.047-05:00Thanks, Jason,
I agree that Craig's review is...Thanks, Jason,<br /><br />I agree that Craig's review is more broad-minded. I've heard that <i>Entertainment Weekly</i> has given grades like a B- to Potter films in the past, so perhaps Schwarzbaum meant what she wrote, but the review still seems weirdly hagiographic. It seems that one of the problems with a franchise is that one can scarcely review the movie itself. One can only look at it in the context of all the others, in which case one is more likely to view as a return to hanging out with old friends. <br /><br />Thanks, Hokahey,<br /><br />I've heard that Rowllngs tends to go for <i>deus ex machina</i> devices like the cloak of invisibility to make the next plot point viable. That's the main reason why I dislike so much magic--there's no sense of friction in getting whatever you want, hence the need for desolate gloom to add oomph.<br /><br />Thanks, Movieman,<br /><br />You may well be right. In the midst of 8 pages of the same issue of <i>Entertainment Weekly</i> that promote the Potter film (including its position as Number 1 in the Must List), an actual review might feel a bit odd if it doesn't fall in line. I find it weird how <i>EW</i> will promote a film to the heavens and then pan it in the next issue. No one needs to be burdened by that weird dissociation this time.<br /><br />Thanks, Craig. Perhaps I'm wrong about Schwarzbaum's review, and I'm being unfair in thinking something is rigged. My take on this matter also reflects my growing disenchantment with <i>Entertainment Weekly</i>. I used to look forward to reading it every week, but now it seems like so much glad-handing promotional gossip that revels in its shallow glib affirmation of all things corporate (with naked celebrities on the cover). It's like watching that "magazine" of stuff before a movie at the Regal Cineplex. There's something robotic and manipulative about its enthusiasms.The Film Doctor https://www.blogger.com/profile/03073505923746994988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-61555036294465827442010-11-25T21:09:18.839-05:002010-11-25T21:09:18.839-05:00I'm fine with not liking these films, but I...I'm fine with not liking these films, but I'm baffled by the suggestion that there's something underhanded (or immature) behind a positive response. The studio marketing behind the Potter films may be cynical but the filmmaking clearly isn't: If it were, Chris Columbus would still be running things. (As for Rowling, my understanding is she's always kept herself out of the process.) Much as I hate to quote Glenn Kenny's <a href="http://movies.msn.com/movies/movie-critic-reviews/harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows-part-1/" rel="nofollow">patented non-review</a>, I think he's right about one thing: these movies (or at least the last three or four) have been honorable efforts to capture the enjoyment of the novels.<br /><br />Unsurprisingly, the effort doesn't work for everyone (including plenty of critics, the response to Deathly Hallows being generally positive but also fairly measured, Schwarzbaum being more of an exception than the rule). But if you're looking for an example of pure cynicism, think Indiana Jones. Or a comparison to the '76 Eagles -- also Indiana Jones.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-4167254228956380612010-11-25T21:07:09.504-05:002010-11-25T21:07:09.504-05:00I'm having a hell of a time submitting a comme...I'm having a hell of a time submitting a comment, not sure if I'm taking too long or the comment is too long or what. Trying again, and I apologize if you're seeing about four or five versions of this, because I'm not seeing any....<br /><br />Basically, I wrote that EW has a long history of combining big suck-up cover pieces with brutal takedowns from their critics Owen Gleiberman and Lisa Schwarzbaum. So while Schwarzbaum is far from my favorite critic -- and her review of Deathly Hallows, plainly, stinks -- I've never doubted her sincerity. I think she truly loves the movie. Stephanie Zacharek has genuinely loved the Potter movies too, and <a href="http://www.movieline.com/2010/11/review-harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows-part-1.php" rel="nofollow">her review</a> is good film criticism. (Part 1 of 2....)Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-64435405437474413182010-11-25T19:13:46.350-05:002010-11-25T19:13:46.350-05:00Never got into the whole Potter phenomenon, and st...Never got into the whole Potter phenomenon, and still have no interest in it. So that's where I'm coming from.<br /><br />As for Schwarzbaum, Jason's right but I don't think this is a matter of the fix being in - or rather I think she fixed herself. For years now (think Richard Corliss' about-face on blockbusters, or the overwhelmingly positive response to King Kong) many critics have been dumbing themselves down. They're afraid to grow irrelevant and out-of-touch and as their profession becomes an endangered species, who can blame them? They desperately want to drink the kool-aid.<br /><br />I'm not saying Schwarzbaum didn't enjoy the film, but it seems much like my enjoyment of The Phantom Menace when I was 15 - i.e. I'm GOING to like this movie, damnit (even if I have to see it 11 times to prove to myself that I liked it)! And then I never ended up buying that one on DVD, when all was said and done.<br /><br />Just one more nail in the critical Establishment's coffin.Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-37566957759905835602010-11-25T16:51:27.048-05:002010-11-25T16:51:27.048-05:00I feel the same way that you and Jason do about th...I feel the same way that you and Jason do about this non-movie. Funny that you should allude to <i>Monty Python and the Holy Grail</i>. When you have the three Deathly Hallows cropping up as a plot element - as if the horcruxes are not enough - I can't help but think of the line from <i>Life of Brian</i> when Brian is trying to sound like a soothsayer. John Cleese says disgustedly, "He's making it up as he goes along." That's how I've always felt about Rowling's plot gimmicks.Richard Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12397053921647421425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704583061723470804.post-69287769595535868812010-11-25T12:50:37.025-05:002010-11-25T12:50:37.025-05:00"After a review like that, what is the minus ..."After a review like that, what is the minus for?"<br /><br />A very fair question. Whether there was any pressure -- to bow to the Time Warner machine or to the Harry Potter-loving masses that, no doubt, read <em>EW</em> -- I don't know. But Schwarzbaum's review sure reads like the response of someone who had already decided what she wanted to feel going in. I'm not saying that's accurate; that's just how it reads. For a praiseworthy review that seems a little more, shall we say, broad-minded, see <a href="http://themanfromporlock.blogspot.com/2010/11/loneliness-of-long-distance-wizard.html" rel="nofollow">Craig's</a>. <br /><br />Later today, I hope to be able to assemble my Harry Potter review out of the various pages where I've been scribbling it out in pieces over the past week as time has allowed.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.com