Pity the critic, ladies and gentlemen. Even the theater seats have turned against him. (Rex Reed rescued from a carnivorous chair… by a blogger? Oh, the indignity!)
It’s been a tough week for critics. We’re clearly in existential crisis, caught between self-righteous defiance, profound self-loathing, and, saddest of all, theater seats. On top of that, M. Night Shyamalan, having predicted the critical drubbing of his Lady in the Water during the writing process, inserted a loathsome film-critic straw-man into his fairy tale.
The tension among critics, filmmakers, and audiences has always been palpable. But it’s nearly erupted into a shooting war of late. The question of who owns American popular culture (something that didn’t even exist as a discrete concept 20 years ago) provokes an almost nationalistic zeal in people these days. So when Joel Siegel curses Clerks II in a media screening and histrionically departs the theater, you’d think he took a crap on the Dome of the Rock.
Between you and me, hundreds of thousands of readers, this is nothing new for Siegel. It may be the first movie he’s walked out of in "thirty *&#%@! years," but it’s not his first screening-room outburst. I was present at a showing of Starsky & Hutch where Siegel, as the lights came up, stood and pronounced the film "the most anti-Semitic movie I’ve ever seen." No elaboration was forthcoming — at least not for general consumption. He started talking to Katie Couric. Potted plants like myself went for our shoulder bags and contained our amusement until hitting the street.
Look, the guy’s a TV personality, which means he’s given to at-times crude absolutes. That’s his job. And while I’m clearly not saying "what happens in the screening room stays in the screening room" (considering I just violated that unwritten rule of the critic brotherhood), I’m feeling curiously defensive of Siegel’s right to be rude, flamboyant, and theatrical in his disapproval, at least while moving amongst the herd of his fellow media types. I don’t agree with him in the slightest — in fact, I think it’s fair to say our tastes are almost diametrically opposed. But this wasn’t a commercial theater: This was a critics screening. You see the same people, over and over. It’s like an awkward family reunion, with Siegel playing the role of Old Uncle Mustache.
Smith would probably argue that this makes Siegel’s behavior even more reprehensible: He was pulling the focus of his fellow critics and blatantly attempting to influence their opinions with hissy-fit performance art. All true. And yet… some movies are circuses, and every circus needs a clown. Anarchy loves company. To me, the meltdown, the freakout, the Rite of Spring riot–they’re all part of the big, madhouse polylogue we call free expression. (And let’s face it, the notoriously thin-skinned Smith oughta pay Siegel for the free publicity this trumped-up "controversy" is netting him.) So don’t hate Old Uncle Mustache too much. He was moved to fury by this movie. That’s significant.
Critics are under fire. I wonder if someone connected to the movie or studio blogs the paper or station saying the critic is bad and should be put down after a bad review. Also, the sheer number of movies released has jumped dramatically the number, not the quality.
Lately, I have paid more attention to rotton tomatoes because it’s the ratio of positive or negative reviews not one bozo from ihateevrymovie.com.
A someone who’s been gotten into a fight with Kevin Smith for having the nerve to dis one of his movies, I understand Scott’s point about Smith being a bit thin skinned. My man can get a bit defensive when folks who are otherwise fans say something bad about his movies.
That said, I gotta go with the folks who feel Joel Siegel was unprofessional and his act was a cry for attention by a prima donna. If he thought the movie was bad, he could have sat through it and dissed the movie in his review later. I mean for real, wouldn’t movie critics of all folk be the most offended when someone causes a major distraction during a movie?
I don’t think Kevin Smith is being thin skinned at all, he said he was disapointed that Siegal didn’t want to do his job and sit through a movie he was paid to watch, but if he wanted to walk out on it, so be it. What really upset him was the childish, “look at me” antics Siegal engaged in, I think it’s really pretty pathetic.
Um, aren’t we allowed to have our own opinions about films? Aren’t we allowed to voice how we feel or what we thought about a certain film? I think it’s awesome that a lowly film critic made this much news (did you hear about Kevin Smith’s backlash against Siegel on his MySpace blog?). I loved what Roger Friedman had to say in his FoxNews column: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204515,00.html
Joel Seigel had every right to do what he did at the critics screening. He had the right to say his disgust, walk out and not finish the movie. His job is to express his views on “Clerks II”, and he (very clearly) has made his statement.
Kevin Smith was also correct in everything he did in defense of something he made with his heart, soul and mind. This was his “product” and any entity that claims it to be of substandard quality should be corrected if need be.
They’re both just doing their jobs.
Joel Siegal absolutely had the right to get up and walk out if he wanted to, and then rip the movie a new one on his show. But when you start yelling and making an ass of yourself during the movie, that is crossing the line, it is not by any stretch of the imagination, professional behavior.
I find it funny that Joel Siegel works for Disney (ABC is a Disney holding,) and Kevin Smith has spoken out against all of the censorship and nonsense that Disney put him through. As far as Joel in his old age trying to be a shabbier, more self-righteous Michael Medved, well it’s just sad. I’ve noticed that the current crop of “respected” critics are far too old to admire anything new. Recently “Ebert and Roeper” were counting down the “worst so far”–and while some of them were truly heinous movies–the general comment was “I didn’t get it.” <– and that is the problem with "critics" they sometimes use their own lack of understanding, antiquated frames of reference, or reliance on the "great" films that they've seen over the last 30+ years to pan a movie that the uninitiated may enjoy. Critics are looking for pandering to their personal tastes, and not the interests of thier audience.
Joel Siegal is a hack, and even he knows it, ergo his hysterical outburst.
Maybe I’d think Joel was in the right if he were actually a good critic. I’ve seen way too many crap films on the video shelves sporting a good quote from him
what exactly is the news here? Plenty of critics have walked out of movies before, I’m sure having had words with the audience beforehand… why give credence to this guy (a guy who also compared Jake Gyllenhaal’s character in ‘Brokeback Mountain’ to that of a sexual predator: a sexual predator!)
People haven’t taken him seriously for years…
I’m curious if Siegel raised this much of a fuss during the donkey show discussion in “The 40 Year Old Virgin.”
Either it’s all offensive, or not of it is.
Did you guys catch his interview on the Opie and Anthony show? They were interviewing Kevin Smith at the time and got him on the phone.
I’ll admit it took stones to go on that show because he was pretty much being ganged up on – but at one point he didn’t even know he was talking DIRECTLY to Kevin Smith.
He’s out of touch. That’s the bottom line.
In regards to Liz’s post…
Um, ya we have a right to voice our opinions on the films we watch. And Joel Siegel has every right to praise, bash, eulogize, attack any movie he wants…but in his reviews! Not during the movie while it’s still playing. People pay 10 bucks to watch the movie, not to hear some obnoxious jerk’s critique of it.
*I liked PoTC:DMC a lot, especially that part when the guy in the second to last row gave his thesis on why the movie doesn’t work while doing a Jack Sparrow impression!!!*
Going to the movies is not the Apollo Theater. Or British Parliament. It’s not an open forum for discussion. That stuff is for after the movie, when it’s completed and seen in its entirety, then it can be judged fairly.
I can’t believe people are defending Siegel’s behavior, no wonder we’re constantly reminded in those ads to be quiet and to keep our cell phones off during the movie…too many people think like Liz.
Good point.When WAS the last time Joel Siegel had any credibility?
Who wants legal mumbo jumbo? I want Bob Loblaw! Sorry to go OT, but that name and post kicked azz.
Shifting gears, is anyone else disapointed that Joe Siegel or the allegedly thin skinned Kevin Smith have not gone on to popwatch to give their interpretation of all this? Last time anything remotely critical of KS was said here, hiz azz was in here like white on rice. Maybe he doesn’t want to give Siegel any more free publicity?
On the flipside, I gotta assume that if Mr. Mustache, one of the least respected film critics in the country (and that’s really saying something), is walking out of the movie, a few folks might go just to see what the hubub is all about. After all, controversy about sex made 2Live Crew go from an unknown Miami rap group to platinum selling superstars.
Anyone else think it’s funny that someone is championing free-speech while linking to Fox News? By the way, Siegel isn’t wasting anyone’s $10 ticket purchase, since it’s a critics’ screening he disrupted. Still, Scott Brown’s defense of Sielgel is a bit off. Smith isn’t saying Joel should censor himself and not be given the right to voice his opinion, he’s accusing him of not being professional about his job, so the issue isn’t really free-speech. Smith is saying Siegel has every right to voice his opinion, but he should use the forum that has been granted to him by his employers, since he is acting as a representative of his employers. The idea that critics’ screenings are a family-affair/circus doesn’t really enhance my opinion of the entertainment industry. I do think Siegel acted unprofessionally, but I also think Smith is acting insanely immature, but both seem to be par for the course. I’m just puzzled by Smith being so wildly insecure about a momentary disruption at a screening, considering it really won’t hurt the general reception of the film itself, since his films are rarely effected by critics (his target demo doesn’t really care about reviews). I also think every film critic should state in their review that they did walk out of a screening because I think it’s fairly deceitful to review a movie you didn’t actually sit all the way through.