Reading, 'riting, and reviewing
To remind everyone, I've written fiction before: published short stories and comic books as well as unpublished attempts at novels and screenplays. By that I mean good fiction, unlike Russ's mediocre episode of animated Star Trek, the main thing he's known for. I'll put up my writing abilities against his any day of the week.
Not that someone has to write fiction to read and review it. As I've said before, you don't have to serve as president to criticize the president. You don't have to fight in Iraq to criticize the war in Iraq. You don't have to fly to the moon to criticize the manned space program. Etc.
I could go on and on with these analogies. Russ has never addressed them because, well, he can't. It's not even clear to me that he understands them, although they're painfully obvious.
Hilariously, Russ misstates the "logic" of his own analogy. If one should read a book before writing one, then one should see a movie before writing one. Not write a movie before criticizing one. Duh.
If you can write a book after reading one, it follows that you can criticize a book after reading one. And that you can criticize a movie after seeing one. Why? Because both writing and criticizing a book or movie require an understanding of plot, characterization, and so forth. Yet criticizing a book or movie is a simpler task than writing one. If you can write a long book or movie script, you probably can write a short critique.
Newspaper Rock's posting policy
After two years Russ still hasn't grasped this blog's methodology. Even when it's staring him in the face. How dumb can you get? Pretty dumb, apparently.
Again, to state the painfully obvious: The majority of the items I post are excerpts of other people's writings. I post them because I think they have valuable things to say...because they've experienced things I haven't...and because they're (often) Native and I'm not.
I follow this practice for every subject. I've literally posted thousands of articles on matters I have no personal experience with. Tanka Bars. The Hualapai Skywalk. Nike's Air Native shoes. Chief Illiniwek. Ward Churchill. The Makah whale-hunt controversy. The Crazy Horse Memorial. The Trail of Tears. Pine Ridge Reservation. Etc., etc., etc. Why should movie reviews be any different?
Journalists like me often interview the actors or directors of films, or write about the making of films, without seeing the works in question. Although Russ doesn't seem to realize it, this is standard journalistic practice. Similarly, I post people's articles about films and reviews of films even if I haven't seen the films myself. In each case I'm letting the writers (the journalists and the critics) speak rather than speaking for them.
Of course, I've also written hundreds of my own reviews. Russ has written about one. Yet because he's penned some half-forgotten TV episodes, he thinks he knows the art of reviewing better than I do? Based on what, exactly?
The evidence proves this isn't about me. Sure, Russ slams my reviews, but when I post other people's reviews, Russ slams them too. The common denominator is that he can't or won't dispute the reviews themselves. It's a classic case of attacking the messenger when you can't attack the message.
TV writers aren't filmmakers
Let's note that Russ is a screenwriter at best, not a filmmaker. He's more of a fading TV teleplay writer than anything else. His "major" claim to fame is his Star Trek and Isis scripts from the mid-1970s. If he's ever had a screenplay produced, it isn't listed on IMDB.com.
In other words, he's about as much of a filmmaker as I am. Not being a filmmaker, he has no credibility on the subject of whether it takes a filmmaker to judge a film. Moreover, I've never heard of a filmmaker who holds this opinion.
Conclusion: Russ's view is stupid and childish. Clearly he's trying to inoculate himself and his Hollywood buddies from having to defend their flawed works. Too bad he can't do anything except complain about criticism he doesn't like.
I suggest you learn how to write better, Russ. Feel free to share this advice with George Lucas, Mel Gibson, Larry McMurtry, and the other white writers you shill for. If the lot of you learns how to fashion better movies, people like me won't have to criticize you so much.
For more on the subject, see Educating Russ About Criticism and Why Does Rob Keep Criticizing?
Below: One of dozens of historical flaws in the Spielberg/Lucas Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
9 comments:
Writerfella here --
First of all, that line about 'before writing a book, you should read one first' came from a recent episode of NCIS. Thus, it was a joke. BUT --
To understand motion pictures (which DO NOT spring whole cloth from the mind of the director or the producer), one truly has at least to have attempted writing one. THAT was not a jest but in fact was a statement of truth. The mechanics of screenplay writing are so complex that it compares with almost nothing else of writing on this earth. You have a time limit, you have a space limit, you have a page length limit, and you have limits concerning plot, back story, characters, events, and story progression, to name only a few. That is the main reason 'critics' so often miss the point of films. AND they totally disregard a singular set of circumstances: any film is a COLLABORATION made up of all the other people who of necessity accomplish the film. The screenplay always is first, but that does not mean it becomes translated into film on its own basis. Essentially, unless the writer is hired as an 'Associate Producer,' what the screenplay becomes in others' hands either follows its content or it varies wildly from its written existence. Writers from THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY until now mostly have had to sit aside and hope that their vision was realized. The proviso still being taught in screenwriting and film courses is this: don't trust them to get it right! That means, YOU have to get it right when you write it. Period.
Without such an experience, 'critics' cannot understand what the writer intended -- the result itself is all that they criticize. And most times, they cannot even fathom a film's original construct and intent...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
I think the best movie reviewer by far is Roger Ebert. That is not a radical opinion: many hold him in very high regard, at least.
He has written countless reviews, and several books. Russ said "To understand motion pictures... one truly has at least to have attempted writing one." I have found nothing so far to find out that Ebert is a frustrated or would-be screenwriter.
Can anyone deny that Ebert really understands motion pictures?
"Without such an experience, 'critics' cannot understand what the writer intended"
But they can understand the result, which is more important to reviewing and critiquing a movie than knowing what a writer was thinking (but never told anyone) or what the writer wrote on drafts that were tossed in the trash.
"And most times, they cannot even fathom a film's original construct and intent..."
True, but what are the reviewers reviewing? An "original intent" film that never existed? Or the actual movie, which represents the mixture of the writing, acting, directing, and other unpredicted chemistry?
Does someone have to know writers' ideas that were rejected from the final product in order to know the movie? I dont think so.
Writerfella here --
Don't just Google Ebert, dMarks. Go to the Internet Movie Data Base (IMDB.com) and check his profile there, and you'll find he co-wrote BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS. Not an auspicious effort, to be sure, but it was filmed...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
Good catch, Writerfella. But do you you really believe that this is what qualifies Roger Ebert? And that if he did not have this experience, his reviews would be invalid?
Writerfella here --
No, dMarks, but even you would have to admit that Ebert came to know AND understand the process! The next thing that is expected is that, though Ebert knew the process, he was left-handed, as Rob Schmidt would state as a disqualification...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
DMarks, you nailed the obvious fallacy in Russ's position: "[W]hat are the reviewers reviewing? An 'original intent' film that never existed? Or the actual movie, which represents the mixture of the writing, acting, directing, and other unpredicted chemistry?"
Why should anyone have to write a movie to understand the acting, directing, cinematography, etc.? Or to point out historical mistakes and stereotypes, which have nothing to do with a script's construction? No reason that Russ can state, clearly.
Note how low Russ has set the bar. Now you don't have to complete a screenplay, you just have to attempt one. Nice try to cover up the fact that you're basically a failed screenwriter, Russ, but no sale.
Did you even understand what I wrote? Here, read it again: "To remind everyone, I've written fiction before: published short stories and comic books as well as unpublished attempts at novels and screenplays." So by your ridiculous standard, I'm qualified to review movies. Oops...you lose again.
Now what? I imagine you'll set the bar even lower. That's because you're not arguing from any established principle. You're arguing only to puff yourself up at the expense of others.
As I said before, you're trying to inoculate you and your buddies from having to defend your flawed works. You have such a lofty opinion of you and your fellow hacks that you can't stand challenges to your ego. In your overinflated mind, only a member of your exclusive country club has the "right" to criticize you.
What's the best word for this attitude? Arrogant? Elitist? Asinine? All of the above? You be the judge, readers.
I wouldn't bother debating Roger Ebert's credentials, DMarks. Clearly Russ's arguments aren't rational. Consider:
Ebert's partner Gene Siskel never wrote a screenplay. I don't think Pauline Kael--perhaps the greatest film critic ever--ever wrote one. Ebert himself reviewed movies for three years before he co-wrote the screenplay for Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.
In short, don't waste your time discussing individual critics. Ebert's background is irrelevant since many film critics (including young Ebert) have successfully reviewed movies without writing a script.
Russ, let's note that you didn't even try to address one of my key points. Therefore, I'll simply repeat it:
As I've said before, you don't have to serve as president to criticize the president. You don't have to fight in Iraq to criticize the war in Iraq. You don't have to fly to the moon to criticize the manned space program. Etc.
You've said many times that "President" McCain is going to bomb Iran. I didn't realize you had served as a US senator or president before. What qualifies you to express an opinion on a subject you've never experienced firsthand? Is it your ego or your hypocrisy that permits you to judge our Mideast policy?
If you're not too yellow, explain how filmmaking happens to be the only endeavor on Earth that you must do before you criticize it. How is it that filmmaking is more intricate and involved than such fields as the US presidency or foreign policy? Are you seriously arguing that Gigli or Pluto Nash were harder to accomplish than the New Deal or the Marshall Plan? Wow.
Good luck with your answer, chum(p)...you'll need it.
Let's note another point you completely missed, Russ:
Again, to state the painfully obvious: The majority of the items I post are excerpts of other people's writings. Do I need to write a screenplay to post someone else's review? Someone who may well have written a screenplay? What's your answer to that, genius?
Don't bother with your usual worthless non-answer. I already have your idiocy pegged. As I wrote before:
The evidence proves this isn't about me. Sure, Russ slams my reviews, but when I post other people's reviews, Russ slams them too. The common denominator is that he can't or won't dispute the reviews themselves. It's a classic case of attacking the messenger when you can't attack the message.
Post a Comment