Breathless reports have swooped around the web about John Anderson, film critic for Variety, pounding the legendary publicist Jeff Dowd (aka The Dude) at Sundance. There was a jab to the chest! One to the shoulder! Dowd kept his guard down! A punch to the head! Anderson turned and walked away, then came back and threw his best right to the jaw!
I have this blow-by-blow account from The Dude himself. Park City Police Officer Bob deBotelho responded after a call from the Yarrow restaurant, collected eyewitness testimony, and offered to arrest Anderson. But the Dude declined to press changes, magnanimously explaining his forbearance:
"I like John, I think he is a good journalist and critic and a person who is a dad and someone who cares about our planet and future. And I don't think he is a danger to society or would inflict violence on women."
Why didn't The Dude, who is a towering giant, fight back? He explained in his e-mail: "I stood there with my hands at my sides. I am a wrestler and an activist and we are trained to keep our hands down so as a wrestler we can tackle someone if necessary and as an activist so our hands raised won't be mis-interpreted as a possible attack position."
The Dude at Sundance 2006 (All photos by Ebert)
What was the fight about? A documentary named "Dirt! The Movie," which was explained to Spout.com's Karina Longworth by one of its makers, Bill Benenson: "[It] tells the story of humans trying to re-connect to Dirt--the living skin of the earth. For thousands of years we humans got along very well with this magical matrix of all life on land. Then we grew apart."
In the Sundance online description, the film "possesses both a cosmic perspective that reaches into the vastness of time and space, and the kind of warm, earnest energy that inspires small revolutions inside human hearts."
As a friend of The Dude over the years, I must say that description sounds uncannily like something he might himself have written. Jeff Dowd, I must tell you, is
perhapsthe most enthusiastic and passionate film publicist on earth. Dowd was hammered in the forge of 1960s radicalism, and if he accepts a film, it becomes a Cause. He is rivaled only by Mickey Cottrell and Bobby Zarem (who was played by Al Pacino in "People I know"), but they are handicapped by better manners. When The Dude is publicizing your film at a festival, that film gets PUBLICIZED! Steven Spielberg could be having a premiere at the same festival, and all you'd hear about would be "Dirt! the Movie."The Dude got his nickname because he worked on behalf of the Coen Brothers on their first feature, "Blood Simple," and it's said that in their film "The Big Lebowski," the Jeff Bridges character (aka The Dude) was inspired by him. The Dude's friends might consider the Coen version a little dialed down. The Dude operates like a tout at a race track. One year at Sundance I was still getting my car from Hertz and I heard his voice in my ear: "The biggest film here is going to be 'The Blair Witch Project'." He describes himself as a Rep. It's not always clear if he's Repping a producer, a director, or what. Often he will even Rep a film he is not the Rep for, just like a tout will tip you to a sure thing just to improve his rep.
Dude and Duder: Jeff Bridges, who played "The Dude" in the Coen Brothers' "The Big Lebowski," with the original Dude at Toronto 2000
Now you might well ask why John Anderson, a respected critic, would walk up to Dowd and start pounding him in a Park City restaurant--and at breakfast, not late at night. I have deliberately not sought out Anderson's side of the story, because I do not require it. Having The Dude's version and knowing Anderson a little, I will supply Anderson's thoughts myself. After all, Ronald Reagan started by improvising play-by-play broadcasts of baseball games while reading off the Western Union ticker, and he went on to be President. Why can't I recreate the ringside broadcast from this fight? I will quote from Dowd, and then add my fictional "Anderson" in italics.
We begin by knowing that Dowd had somehow already learned what Anderson's opinion of the film was. Did Anderson tell him? I don't know, but I doubt it. Did someone at Variety leak it? Treachery! (When someone asks my opinion of a movie, what often works for me is, I say, "I write in a trance. I never know what my opinion is until I read it in print.") Now the blow-by-blow begins:
Dowd: My disagreement with John was not over his critical reaction, which he has every right to and I very often find enlightening, but his statement that the film wouldn't appeal to the public. I suggested he come back into the theater for the Q&A and he would observe what we had seen at all four screenings--that audiences felt the film had all kinds of new information and practical solutions. It wasn't homework, but hope made pragmatic on how we can change the planet in keeping with Obama's Inauguration speech.
Anderson: He followed me out of the theater and wanted me to follow him back in. I said I was going to an appointment. He followed me for a block across a snow-covered parking lot and we had to climb that mountain of snow the plows always leave at the edge of the Yarrow parking lot. Then we had to walk another block around to the front of the Yarrow. He was talking the whole time.
Dowd: It should also be said that a vast majority of audience members liked the film not just because they "support the cause." We have heard scores of comments about the quality of the filmmaking and storytelling as well. In the spirit of John Waters we even had smell-o-vision at one screening where you could smell the sweet earthy scent of dirt and mother earth.
Anderson: What am I supposed to think? How could any sane man inhaling that aroma dislike "Dirt! The Movie?"
Dowd: What especially bothered me is when I told John how well the audiences were reacting, John said: "They are just sheep."
Anderson: Maybe that's why they fell for the sweet earthy scent of dirt. My job at Variety, a trade journal, is to predict for buyers, distributors and exhibitors whether a film might draw gratifying numbers of ticket-buyers. If I based this opinion on Sundance screenings, I would be fired.
The Dude and the superpublicist Bobby Zarem at Toronto 2004: Time for a long, quiet talk
Dowd: I told John Anderson one of scores of examples of this was when John Densmore of The Doors stood up at our first screening (after a sustained audience applause at the end) and said "I have my own film here--which I clearly care about--but here is my ballot which I marked 4 stars because 'Dirt!' is the film that should win the Sundance Festival."
Anderson: You can vote after every film you see. Densmore is also likely to award four stars to his own film. If Variety wanted to poll the John Densmores of this world on their movie opinions, Variety would be standing on the red carpet between E! and Entertainment Tonight.
Dowd: We are at a historic time when information and dialogue are the life-blood of democracy and are essential to the future of the planet. At this time when we are at 'THE CLIFF'S EDGE,' gratefully informative and hopeful movies like 'Dirt! The Movie' deserve discussion, not the simple dismissal John was unfortunately giving it.
Anderson: Perhaps my right to my opinion is part of the life-blood of democracy. How can a movie be gratefully informative?
Dowd: After a couple minutes of calm discussion with John Anderson as we walked from the Holiday Cinemas to the Yarrow he decided to cut off the conversation because he had a breakfast meeting (ironically with Diane Weyerman formerly head of Sundance Docs and now at Participant Productions which is all about progressive films like "An Inconvenient Truth" and grassroots follow-up. I had also spoken with Jeff Skoll founder of Participant about "Dirt!" and he was interested)."
Elvis Mitchell, Chaz Ebert and The Dude at Toronto 2004
Anderson: As I said, when I didn't return to the theater, he followed me across the parking lot. Maybe he was afraid my opinion might get back to Skoll and harm the film's chance of a sale.
Dowd: So after John left I had a choice: Do I let John write a review which I felt at best was half the story and would be the first review out of Sundance or do I try to re-engage him? What would you do? What would Gandhi or Martin Luther King or Rosa Parks or Michael Moore do at that moment in time? What was my responsibility to the filmmakers, the sheep who loved the film, my two daughters and the future of the planet? Should the Dude say fuck it and just go bowling or should I not let this intellectual aggression stand and try to re-engage John?
Anderson: His responsibility was to leave me the fuck alone. There would also be reviews from the Hollywood Reporter, Screen International, and dozens of other print critics and web sites.
Dowd: I went into the Yarrow dining room and sat down next to John and Diane and said: "John I think this is worthy of more discussion." He responded: "I am trying to have my breakfast and if you don't leave I am going to punch you out." He then rose and screamed "Throw this riff raff out of here."
Anderson: The asshole followed me in to breakfast and sat down at my table during my interview. I admit it. I lost it.
The Dude just happening to run into me on my way to the screening of his movie at Toronto 2000Dowd [leaves dining room]: At that moment Jackie "The Joke Man" Martlin of the Howard Stern Show came up to me and said: "Jeff what a great film DIRT is. I learned so much and was so inspired." As we walked into the dining room I introduced Jackie to John Anderson who was about 8 feet away on the other side of a table for six and said: "John here is one of those people who liked Dirt!" John said, "Are you a friend of Jeff's?" Jackie responded: "I know Jeff, but the point is that this is a very important and inspiring film." John said: "I am trying to eat my breakfast." Jackie said: "I understand but this may be more important than you continuing to eat your breakfast for a bit."
Anderson: What part of "throw this riff-raff out of here" didn't he understand? Now he wants me to discuss "Dirt! the Movie" with Jackie the Joke Man at a distance of eight feet in a crowded dining room.
Dowd: John then turned red and rose up and said: "Jeff I warned you I was going to punch you out if you tried to talk to me anymore." [Dowd describes the four punches] None of them even fazed me which I think surprised John who works out and has a stance that looks like he has indeed boxed...I only hope John doesn't find himself in a real situation where he overestimates his boxing skills and gets hurt.
Anderson: I turned red and said, "Jeff I warned you I was going to punch you out if you tried to talk to me anymore." I thought for an instant of all the grief Lou Lumenik got when he whacked Roger Ebert with a folded-up program at the Toronto festival. I decided I didn't care. Dowd was bigger than me, but I was pissed off enough to take my chances.
Dowd [after Officer deBotelho responds]: In all fairness, Nick Frazier from the BBC and a colleague told the officer that they felt I was harassing John. They of course hadn't seen the movie or witnessed John's anti-intellectual and un-democratic attitude towards me. And as a Jew and an Irishmen I of course understand that there is an unfortunate tradition of British violence and failure to get to the bottom of the story--Tony Blair! I have faith that when Nick sees 'Dirt' and hears the whole story he will be able to make a distinction between harassment and intellectual engagement at crucial times in history.
Anderson: Nick Fraser of the BBC is lucky The Dude was not also an African, an Indian and an Arab. Down with the BBC 's imperialistic pigs! Nick has produced 50 documentaries, including the recent one on Hunter S. Thompson, and is fairly experienced at the distinction between harassment and intellectual engagement.
Dowd [on why he didn't press charges]: He was just having an overwhelming and busy day which had severely lowered his intellectual capacity to room temperature and was clearly needing food more than ideas and inspiration at that moment. Under other circumstances we might have shared a meal together, had a good conversation and I might have learned from him and he from me.
Anderson: I can think of a reason the day grew overwhelming as early as breakfast. The learning opportunity is an attractive idea, but unfortunately, under present circumstances, I cannot make a reservation at the Yarrow.The Dude just happening to run into me on my way to a screening of his film at Cannes 2000
The Anderson-Dude bout will go into Sundance legend along with Harvey Weinstein's celebrated shoving match, the booing of Bob Dylan after the premiere of "Masked and Anonymous" and Tammy Faye's inspirational Q&A after "The Eyes of Tammy Faye." Only at Sundance do people fight about ecological documentaries that reach into the vastness of time and space.
Now, then. Has this event influenced my opinion on "Dirt! the Movie?" How could it? I haven't seen it. It made the cut for Sundance, which is a good sign. Do I think John Anderson should have punched Jeff Dowd? No, I don't.
I think it was inexcusable, and considering the Dude wasn't fighting back, the fourth punch was just mean. You just can't go around doing things like that. In a way, he was threatening The Dude's livelihood. If The Dude had hit back and it got around that a publicist his size was capable of punching a film critic, he might become unemployable. If you are going to be a film critic and attend film festivals, you are going to have to deal with the Dude. That is a fact of life. Often you will enjoy it. He's better than some faceless intern stuffing your mailbox with press releases.
Two more questions. Do I think Mickey Cottrell should sit down with his pal The Dude and have a long, earnest talk about the most fruitful ways to approach film critics? Yes, I do. Mickey has spoken to me about countless films and I have never wanted to punch him. Next question. If I had a little film at a film festival, would I hire The Dude to publicize it? Yes, I think I would. You can't say he isn't dedicated to his work. There is something heedlessly Quixotic about him.
¶
Anderson talks to Variety colleague Anne Thompson here¶
The Dude explains what happened to Movie City News (sound too low for first 60 seconds)¶
"Dirt! the Movie" official website is here¶
The Dude at work at Toronto 1999, repping "Goat on Fire and Smiling Fish." Ebert article here
Is there a video clip or any information about Tammy Faye's Q&A? I hadn't heard about it until you mentioned it. I love her. What a brave woman, the way she went on Larry King, the day before she died.
Ebert: Don't know of one. Here's my Sundance story:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20000124/FILMFESTIVALS05/40901047/1023
I think this post raises a lot of questions. Is "Dirt! the Movie" the silly New Age nonsense that it sounds like? Does Dowd actually not understand the difference between harrassment and a democratic love of discussion? Is he silly enough to think that Anderson's refusal to come to his Q&A session is comparable to British Imperialism and the oppression suffered by American blacks, or is he just cynically exploiting the names of past heroes? Similarly, was his totally irrelevant Jewish Irishman versus the Evil Empire schtick foolishness or exploitation? Does he really think that Anderson's alleged "anti-intellectual and un-democratic attitude" or the fact that this is "a crucial time in history" (and what time isn't?) somehow makes harrassment acceptable? (Gee whiz Mr. Anderson, normally I don't harrass people, but my movie is just too darn important.)
Of course Anderson shouldn't have punched him, but I would have been sorely tempted to do the same. And now Dowd seems have drummed up a nice bit of publicity for himself and his film, and had the bonus passive-aggressive fun of making some condescending insults about Anderson's fighting ability (thinly disguised as concern for his future well-being). Sounds like a triumph.
Ebert: Excellent questions.
Thanks for the dirt on this sockumentary.
Dude is a captivating story teller. He definitely abides.
Where would we be without life's eccentrics?
In fact, eccentrics are so essential that I don't think they should be classified as 'eccentric' anymore. They should be considered the mainstream that all of us 'normal' folks shoot for. How else can we understand the stream we're swimming in unless somebody is standing on the shore screaming: "Hey, look here! There's a way out of the current! It's not as strong as you think!"
Ebert: That's what we need. More eccentrics and fewer celebrities.
Bonus question: Has anyone seen RHM's sense of humor? It's missing!
The guy sounds funny. He's an endearing goofball. Is he annoying? Probably. Did he harass the critic? Obviously. But lighten up.
Ebert: Jeff is great company. A friend of his just emailed me: "Jeff is a Force of Jeff."
The fact that Mr. Dowd was so calm to think about consequences of raising versus keeping down his hands tells me that it was all premeditated to create publicity. A minute ago I knew nothing about this movie, and now I know that it shows pragmatic ways to be environmentally friendly. He is a very clever rep indeed.
"Dowd was hammered in the forge of 1960s radicalism, and if he accepts a film, it becomes a Cause."
I see what you mean.
Even though he thought the review might hinder the public's sensitivity to what Dirt! is trying to get across, I still don't think you should go around confronting everyone who might give a poor review of a film. And of course, Anderson overreacted too. Both of them just got caught up.
As someone with a perverse and all-abiding fondness for those willing to march to the beat of their own drummer (or in this case, their own rhythm section), I am glad to see that someone like Jeff Dowd still exists, especially in the movie business. On the other hand, as a critic who can hardly go to a screening these days without being asked by publicists what I thought of a movie even before the end credits have finished rolling (the same people who, in their invites, essentially threaten the rack for anyone who dares to publish or even suggest their opinion before the film is released), I will say that while I don't think that Anderson should have hit him, I cannot entirely fault him for doing so.
I say that we get the two together and settle things over a couple of White Russians. If that doesn't work, how about a duel--vicious marmots at 20 paces?
I'm just grateful that The Dude wasn't holding a beverage at the time of the aggression, man.
"Dowd was hammered in the forge of 1960s radicalism, and if he accepts a film, it becomes a Cause."
Are you sure you need more than the first three words of this sentence?
Yet another instance of a lone voice for the environment being beaten down by the status-quo of the mainstream media. Or, so it could be spun. As a publicity stunt, it's obviously worked. Is this Andy Kauffman and Andy Lawler redeux, or is it a genuine Hatfield/McCoy experience? Will we ever know? When the movie is distributed (at this point, it seems a given), will we say "it was(n't) worth getting punched for?"
You're absolutely right about getting Dowd as your Rep. It seems he's worth his weight in newsprint.
Great Story Roger! Although, a certain quote comes to mind when I think of what The Dude's response would be if he read this:
"Roger, What is the point? Look, we all know who is at fault here, what the fuck are you talking about?"
- The Dude
Thanks a lot. My husband asked me why I was laughing my ass off, and for once I could not explain just by reading excerpts.
BTW, have I mentioned I was friends with Jeff Skoll in high school in Toronto? Ah, my little slacker buddy. I asked him to the prom but he already had a date. Oh, what might have been...
Ebert: You would have met The Dude, that's for sure.
Paul wrote:
"Bonus question: Has anyone seen RHM's sense of humor? It's missing!
The guy sounds funny. He's an endearing goofball. Is he annoying? Probably. Did he harass the critic? Obviously. But lighten up."
I have no doubt Dowd is an endearing goofball, and perhaps if I met him I would be utterly charmed. But I have not met him, and I am frankly offended by his efforts to rhetorically harness the battle for Indian independence, the Civil Rights movement, and the sufferings of the Jewish and Irish people to the grand cause of getting a movie critic to come to the Q&A session for his Very Important Movie. Am I the only one here who finds these appeals faintly obscene? Or at least arrogant? If I said that Paul's response above offended me because (say) I'm Jewish and I understand the irrational hatred of anti-Semitism, wouldn't it strike anyone that I'm trivializing and exploiting a rather serious issue, as well as making a rather vicious accusation? Although maybe if I were a big jolly guy it wouldn't matter so much. Or if I hadn't had that humour-ectomy.
Roger:
Your description of these two quirky characters reminds me of the "Thin Man" movie where Nick and Nora Charles are at the racetrack. A shady little man tries to steal Nora's pocketbook, but politely returns it when he discovers that Nick Charles is her husband. He even gives up his seat so that Nick and Nora can have a better view of the track.
"Spider Webb," Nick explains to Nora, as the man departs. "One of New York's greatest pickpockets. When I was a police detective, I sent him up to Sing Sing for three years. But I also cleared him of a murder charge, so he owes me a few favors."
"Darling, you know the nicest people," says Nora.
I had to attempt this piece three times before I could even comprehend it, being a far, far outsider from all things Sundance. I don't think you could pay me to see the dirt film, especially if your name happens to be "Dude". I like films which are people-centred and morose. Convince me to live otherwise.
I love drama, and this should prove to everyone that films are serious business.
Kudos on writing John's pov; I don't see how he could complain. I felt very sympathetic for him.
Forgive me, Roger, but after your great write-up on Steak 'n Shake, I was hoping this entry would be about your favorite breakfast joints. :)
Fight or not, I am now looking forward to this movie I never heard of. I've recently read Michael Pollan's last two books, "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and "In Defense of Food," and other literature that has made clear how we are poisoning ourselves with our industrial agriculture practices. Most Americans do not know that our food supply is now awash with unlabeled (by law) genetically modified crops, mostly corn and soy (and soon, sugar), that most of our food comes down to two ingredients (corn and soy) doctored up in different ways, or that our staple food crops are just as dependent on volatile foreign oil as our cars. Unfortunately books do not draw anything approaching a movie audience, and films can be shown as well as quoted on the news. If this film does well to wake people up, it may help to save us all. In that case, may the Gods bless "Dude Quixote."
Dowd sounds like a hell of a publicist (and something of a lovable jerk). How many reps would pick a fight for a movie, and then not fight back?
A tale well-told as usual. But Roger, I must say that this story reminds me of the vapid, celebrity catfight journalism that you have frequently criticized. Sure there were points discussing the merits of film criticism and Sundance's lore and importance, but if Lebowski wasn't modeled after Dowd, I wonder how intriguing this story would be to people. I myself felt somewhat guilty for reading the blow-by-blow, but made my way through it thanks to your entertaining presentation. Dowd seems like a fascinating character and is perhaps ripe material for an interesting documentary himself.
Ebert: I couldn't prevent myself. It cried out for an eyewitness from afar. Don't you have a slightly better feel for Sundance now?
"At my challenge, by the ancient laws of combat, we are met at this chosen ground (the Yarrow), to settle for good and all who holds sway over Sundance: us critics, born rightwise to this fine industry, or the publicist hordes defiling it."
I like your fictional representation of John Anderson's side of the story, but I didn't want to be left out of the fun.
I choose to believe Mr. Anderson was being altruistic to the film - he knew that popping the Dude would bring the film much more publicity.
Now there's a phrase DYING to become part of urbandictionary.com: Popping The Dude.
There is something heedlessly Quixotic about him.
Great word.
One of my favourite cartoons feature the inimitable Don pointing out a giant to Sancho Panza, as the caption reads: "See, Sancho, that's what they call a windmill."
For the sake of accuracy, it was in an issue of Playboy from the eighties. I was a precocious kid (and read Playboy for the cartoons, natch).
Nikki Finke says Variety is on the verge of letting some of its people go, and she thinks John Anderson shouldn't be allowed to write for Variety anymore.
I hope this dissuades her:
Here's the The Dude's video of his experience:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZUbAbo5uvY
I know I'd have felt very threatened if Dowd sat down at my table,
whether he were speaking to me or I were a guest at the table or one
nearby. Aren't restaurants supposed to throw people out who are
harassing customers not twice, but thrice? Can't someone defend
themselves and/or their guests if the restaurant doesn't?
It is good to see there are still people that are this passionate about what they do and what they'd like to do. It's even better that some of them are still involved in cinema, despite the mechanical commercialism inspired by the big studios. Stories like this are what make movies great and entertaining, and I am surely going to watch Big Lebowski again tonight, definitely in a different light.
"Gandhi or Martin Luther King or Rosa Parks" probably wouldn't be so worried about film promotion; they had bigger things on their mind. What a silly thing for him to say.
ROTFLOL! I love him! The world needs eccentrics, it needs enthusiasists. Down with the buttoned-downs, up with The Dudes!
Seriously, Mr. Anderson - it's breakfast. Not the War Room, no Doomsday Machine. Lighten up.
I don't know what sort of box office a movie about dirt will do, but personally, I love dirt. Loved it when I was a kid, still love it as an adult. Very useful stuff.
How about John Goodman to play The Dude in the film version?
I loved this article, especially the italicized quotes of what John Anderson "said." This article is funny an informative. The incident itself has to do with something that I have felt since film school. Some movie lovers are snobs. Some critics are elitists--NOT Roger Ebert! Film snobbery and film elitism annoy me more that anything else having to do with cinema. I love intellectualism. I love film theory and criticism. I detest film snobbery. Seems to me like John Anderson gave in to some sort of personal film snobbery wherein his breakfast became more important than the future of Dirt the Movie. Anderson can talk about his role at Variety an so forth, but if he's not a cinephile, first and foremost, then he's not much use to me. Besides, audiences often like whatever they're told to like, whether they be told by marketing, word of mouth, their own personal taste, or the critics. I like what I like, but I like to read the critics' takes as well. Bravo to Jeff "The Dude" Dowd for taking it like a man while doggedly, tirelessly touting what is very likely a good film that will be seen by many, many people.
How about John Goodman to play The Dude in the film version?
I came across this, and though it lacks the eloquent dialogue you provided, I at least got my first glimpse and gist of the legend that is The Dude. Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZUbAbo5uvY
(Previous to this, my only exposure about this guy was Jeff Bridges take via the Lebowski film. And after seeing this youtube, you were right Roger. Jeff's version was really dialed down.)
Oh, come on! First, I missed the chance to go to Sundance because of the submission deadline. Now you're telling me that, had I gone, I would've enjoyed a scandal. Involving the Dude!
Unfair.
Has a gardener, even a guerrilla gardener at times, I do think a lot about dirt and ways of improving it.
As a critic who barely makes any money at all, I do know a thing about publicists. The worst was the one who caught me before the stage show, sat down with me at intermission and almost followed me to the restroom and was heading for me at the end of the show. Luckily, I am very small and can cut through crowds quite easily, even in Tokyo (except during rush hour).
As an advocate of non-violence, I'd say hitting is unproductive and typically a man's way of settling an argument. Maybe because they grow up reading too many comic books? I read them too, but at my height and weight, I don't think a threat from me to punch anyone would inspire fear. It might inspire laughter.
On the other hand, it's sort of funny so learn how easily legends are born at festivals.
To the Dude and Ryan,
We need to mandate all cars sold here be flex-fueled vehicles, which can run on gas and/any alcohol fuels--ethanol and methanol (the easiest to make) being the main ones.
Buy the book "Energy Victory: Winning the War On Terror By Breaking Free Of Oil" and set-up a meeting with your congressman or woman and give them the book to support The Open Fuel Standard Act http://www.energyvictory.net/images/Summary_of_the_Open_Fuel_Standard_Act.PDF , which will make every new car internationally capable of running on alcohol fuels. Here's the website for the book
http://energyvictory.net/ and you can buy a paperback on Amazon.com for about 12 dollars.
This will create the economic incentive to increase agriculture worldwide (Ryan, we can then drop subsidies on corn--yay healthy food! and real sugar in our food too!), which will make people want to take care of their dirt, or soil, and create further research into cellulosic ethanol (fuel from non-food parts of plants), but methanol can already be made from any kind of bio-mass without exception (recycled urban trash, including trash that clogs drains or water hyacinths that are clogging African lakes (Lake Victoria) and waterways and that float atop water shading the ecosystem below which needs the light, but can also be used as a fertilizer http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?fr=1&si=70, plant residue as well(the parts of plants that get thrown away--worldwide enough to replace OPEC oil, who caused this recession (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/we-can-solve-the-financial-crisis-by-destroying-opec/), and plants cool the planet through evapotranspiration which is good for global warming not just being global warming neutral as the first examples I listed--also methanol from flared natural gas that has no use, or regular natural gas that can be created from solar, or wind etc--green technologies. This is the way to create change and help countries like Africa and 100 others out of starvation--give them a piece of the action--and reduce pollution through alcohol fuels.
Of everything I heard and read at Sundance this year about this incident, this is by far the most entertaining. It was pretty much all everyone wanted to discuss -- on the shuttles, at the Marriott, in the music cafe -- for about two days.
But still, I ask myself, why on the final day of the festival would our most valuable filmculture thinker-writer-observer chose this incident to be his primary journal piece on the 10-day event? It seems there is so much else to talk about with respect to the 2009 installment. With a bit of though the answer occurs to me. While flimbloggers everywhere will fill the electronic equivalent of pages and pages dissecting the paucity of deals and dealmakers at this year's festival and whether Harvey departed on Monday at 7:45 p.m. or Tuesday morning, Ebert has once again nailed it. He has taken essentially a gossip story, but elevated his journal well above the salacious, to capture in one event the essence -- the heart and soul -- of Sundance. And of course, he reminds us that it's not necessarily what his column is about, but how it's about what it's about, that matters.
My understanding is that the film really held the festival together.
My beautiful friend Roger,
I really enjoyed reading your book of interviews "A Kiss Is Still a Kiss" a few months back and this article reminds me of your style there. I think you do a great job of really capturing personality in articles, as well as the mood of films. I also enjoyed the peek into Cannes in that collection. I'd love to go to one of the big film festivals one day, but in the meantime your articles help me get something of a glimpse into that world.
Mlke S wrote
Now there's a phrase DYING to become part of urbandictionary.com: Popping The Dude.
Ah yes but, what could it mean?
Wheres Roger?
Hes home popping the dude
the mind boggles'
Love stories of larger than life eccentrics. The Dude would certainly qualify. I'll rewatch The Big Lebowski with a new perspective now.
And by the way, your wife looks radiant. And not just because she's wisely chosen to be bracketed by Elvis Mitchell and The Dude. (Not that Elvis and the Dude couldn't be radiant, but apparently not on this day.)
Regarding "the booing of Bob Dylan after the premiere of 'Masked and Anonymous'"…
When did this supposed booing occur? I was at the premiere screening of "Masked and Anonymous" to which you refer, and have a few observations:
1. Bob Dylan was not present at the end of the film. He made a brief appearance before the projection started, then ran off, leaving director Larry Charles to fend for himself. Certainly no one booed him before the film. In fact, they gave him a very enthusiastic ovation.
2. The film was not booed. I have never witnessed a booing in what must be at least 500 Sundance screenings I have attended. The crowd was certainly not as enthusiastic as they were before they suffered through the film was, but they still applauded.
3. Many audience members probably didn't want to admit to themselves that the movie stunk, as the screening had been THE hot ticket at that year's festival. It was a privilege to have a ticket, and members of the public who weren't guaranteed a seat felt very lucky to be there.
Few people stayed to watch the following premiere, Campbell Scott's "Off the Map," a far better film that didn't even fill the house.
No, RHM, you're not the only one, but I think it's clear we are in the minority. This entry read to me like one of a million other defend-the-friend blog entries that clog the tubes of the Internet, where we're told that because someone is "an endearing goofball" it excuses some startling behavior.
No matter how large and physically capable Dowd is (something we were reminded of several times in this post), no matter how just his causes are, the fact remains that he stalked and harassed someone. He interrupted them during work and while they were eating. He brought along a friend famous for being rude, belligerent, and occasionally disgusting to help him harass the person at breakfast. Dowd was asked to leave the guy alone and he refused, repeatedly.
I don't find Dowd to be magnanimous, lovable, eccentric, calm, endearing, or any of the other adjectives applied to him in the post and comments.
"You just can't go around doing things like that" is applied to Anderson, but not to Dowd? Why? It sounds as though Anderson's punches are being used to retroactively justify Dowd's lengthy public harassment of Anderson, and that just doesn't fly. There may be a legal distinction between assault and harassment, but we're clearly not discussing the legal intricacies of the situation here. We're being told that morally it's perfectly fine to stalk and harass someone into changing their opinion, and I find that rather alarming.
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."
Yes, I must admit that I absolutely do. Makes me want to check it out sometime.
What's amazing about the Dude is that he looks different in every picture. I love how he talks too.
I don't know why you and Siskel hammered the Big Lebowski so much, the writing is top-notch. It's not Fargo but as pure, witty dialogue - not as an overall movie, but purely dialogue - I think it surpasses it.
Let me explain something to you. Um, I am not "Mr. Lebowski". You're Mr. Lebowski. I'm the Dude. So that's what you call me. You know, that or, uh, His Dudeness, or uh, Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
Raymond Chandler would be proud.
I honestly can't say that I blame Anderson all that much. Should he have hit Dowd? No, probably not. Still, even from Dowd's description it comes off as harassment from someone who does not know when to go away. It seems pretty clear that Anderson was not, nor had any intention of going to the Q&A. At some point in time Dowd should have let it go, no matter how passionate the film he was. Again, Anderson should not have hit Dowd, but I do wonder how long he was expected to deal with this individual who would just not leave him alone before he lost his cool?
Hello Mr. Ebert,
I know this has nothing to do with the Dude, but in your experience, what film festivals are notable for having a good--or even any--selection of Russian films?
Ebert: None in particular, except of course Moscow. Depends on what's on offer. But all the big festivals show Russian films. Toronto is always a good choice.
Is there going to be a new Ultimate Fighter category: Publicist v. Reviewer!
/Maybe it would be better if we just solve these problems by using Wii Boxing instead.
Roger, this is totally unrelated, but have you read about the controversy surrounding M. Night Shyamalan's latest movie?
http://derekkirkkim.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-day-in-politics-same-old-racist.html
http://aang-aint-white.livejournal.com/
Honestly, you should all stop worshipping The Dude and start caring about the movie and read the only review I believe the movie will ever get --
http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2009/01/the_recreation.html
I'm glad he didn't hit back. You're right -- Anderson should polish up on his boxing skills. Next time he may pick the wrong guy to sock. I remember how Jeff hounded everyone -- including you I'm sure -- to see Goat On Fire at Toronto. It was at once humiliating and inspiring. I had no idea if he was handling it properly when he was saying "these guys are Scorsese's proteges..." it didn't matter if he was talking about me, my brother or Kevin. He just continued to say whatever it took to get people to the theatre. And it worked. I remember seeing you there before the screening and I actually stood in the back and stole a few long glances to gauge your reaction. I remember you writing a lot without looking down and thinking: how the hell does he do that?! Well, he's Roger Ebert, that's how. And here he is at my screening. It was at that moment when I forgave all of Jeff's half-truth's, cajoling of critics, comparing any one of us at any given time to Martin Scorsese etc...it was a moment of realization -- I have a small film with no names in it and this guy has done his job better than any of the other reps I met would have. I made the right choice -- for better or worse. With Lymelife I felt comfortable enough with the film to allow my agency to rep it, although I still sought Jeff's opinion on where we should premiere, the cut etc...
I consider him a good friend and, as I mentioned earlier, I'm just glad he didn't strike back. Could you imagine?
Great article!!! Some great laugh out loud moments in there.
Best,
DM
Ebert: Derick's "Lymelife" was very well-received at Toronto and Sundance, and his (co-written and co-staring in) "Goat on Fire and Smiling Fish" was invited by me to Dusty Cohl's Floating Film Festival, after The Dude ordered me to attend. Netflix it.
One part of the proposed (internal) dialogue for John Anderson appears missing. What was he thinking between punches? Of course, I don't know either character like you do, but I suppose that if I actually ever grew angry enough to haul off and whack somebody, it would make me a terrible combination of embarrassed and angrier and more determined if it simply didn't seem to phase him.
I was actually at a nonviolent intervention training session today and had to role play. Everyone on my half of the room was asked to verbally threaten the people on the other side of the room when they approached us and asked us a simple question. I gave it my best try and the woman across from me started turning a little red, but then when I tried to escalate by telling her I knew which car in the parking lot was hers, she laughed, shrugged, and told me that didn't bother her. For a moment, I felt like such a failure that I wished I could come up with something to really make her angry. I can only imagine that John Anderson kept thinking, I can't even get this guy to shut the hell up if I take a swing at him. I'll take another one and another one and, oh no, I've made a total ass out of myself and that guy's still got that stupid grin on his face and hasn't even lifted his hands up to block my punches.
I have nothing really to say about the article that wouldn't be a Big Lebowski reference, although it's quite a fascinating story.
I simply must comment on this: The fact that Elvis Mitchell is 51 years old and has the stones to rock nearly waist length dreadlocks should be applauded and celebrated. The fact that he is no longer a New York times film critic should be mourned, but damn, if someone with that kind of hair came in wanting to review movies for my paper, I would hire them in about four seconds.
That's all.
The first time I met Jeff, I thought - oh man, here is some guy that is living off of the Coen Brothers.... But then I realized - that's just me being an idiot.
This guy is out there for sure - but not in the way you would think... He's out there in the right way. He means well, he's articulate and passionate, but most of all, he cares... Which, by the way, has also become sort of a "throw-back" in our business... Remember when people used to care about a film, or get behind something because the message that was being sent would have reverberations through many mediums? Probably not, because most of those people have left the business or have been forced out... But not the Dude! He lives on - like Godzilla coming out of the ocean, The Dude stands tall, taking punches and verbal attacks from 310 Hollywood critics that don't have a Directing, Writing or Producing credit to their name... Breathing fire and (pot) smoke...
Anyway, I'm not hear to slam John Anderson (although he does remind of one of the cute Oompa-Loompas from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory - the original one by the way...)
Well, I guess we will have to continue to endure critics (no offense Roger - as you happen to do your research)... Funny enough, it was Siskel and Ebert that actually legitimized the modern age of film critics... See what what you created Roger... A Monster!
God Bless ya...
Hi there Roger.
This talk of confilct about passion and film made me think.
Have you ever felt this way?
Someone has an opinion, (An Obviously wrong one of course!) that is so erroneous and, well, incorrect, and they're just so stalwart and certain in their wrongheaded defense of said opinion that you just wanted to kind of get a wee bit physical with them. Both because the argument had grown into such heated debate, and also because this was someone whose judgement and intelligence were a usually reliable source for reason and wisdom.
(Politics, Movies especially, etc....)
I'm sure you've never gotten into such a fight of course, because you are civilized folk.
But did you ever feel the tiniest, small, wee, tingling urge to lose your cool for a moment, and just shake some sense into someone about a truly egregious error in judgement?
Someone whose Incorrect opinion angered you, and you had to take 5 deep breaths or something?
I'm asking because you must have had, oh, only about a million or so debates about all things film, and all else I assume.
Just Curious.
(By the way, feel free to Lie and talk about an Ebert v. Siskel showdown in some Chicago alley outside a TV studio late one night)
(Smile)
Thanks for this blog, by the way.
A daily must stop-by for me and many others I'd wager.
Take Care.
Ebert: I can truthfully say I haven't wanted to hit anyone since high school, and haven't hit anyone since about the fifth grade, when I got in a fight with Larry Lutala, but he was asking for it.
While I don't advocate Mr. Anderson's violent behaviour at all (unless he suddenly became one with the Matrix and realised The Dude was an Agent - see what I did there? Huh? Huh? See?), that doesn't excuse Dowd's actions, which would've probably made even me, a fairly placid man who just boils with rage inside every time someone harasses him, raise my voice and call him a word that rhymes with firetrucker. Also -
"And as a Jew and an Irishmen I of course understand that there is an unfortunate tradition of British violence and failure to get to the bottom of the story--Tony Blair!"
As someone who is half British and something like a quarter Irish, I'm confused. Should I hate myself for my tradition of violence and my inability to get to the bottom of any story, or should I ignore it? Should I treat following around someone when they disagree with me, trying to win them over despite their repeated pleas for me to bugger off, as harassment, or should I treat it as democratic discussion? Such is the vicious divide in my heritage. I may never reconcile those two sides of me (of course, the quarter of me that's a New Zealander would just sit back and laugh at the motherland in me being silly).
And finally:
Brooke E. Seems to me like John Anderson gave in to some sort of personal film snobbery wherein his breakfast became more important than the future of Dirt the Movie. Anderson can talk about his role at Variety an so forth, but if he's not a cinephile, first and foremost, then he's not much use to me.
Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't a critics job to present their opinion of the film, rather than to ensure that every little indie could-be from Sundance is nurtured enough so that they can all succeed? I appreciate that Anderson's comment about the audience being "sheep" is a tad ill-conceived (if that's the word for it), but it's clear that he's just angry about Dowd trying to tell him that he should give it a favourable review because everyone else likes it. It's not Anderson's, or any other critic's, obligation to make sure certain films fail or succeed if they don't like them. Obviously, he preferred breakfast to Dirt! The Movie.
This agression will not stand, man!
I don't mind telling you that I've just googled "Larry Lutala." Alas, the search yielded no results. Is there something you're not telling us?
This is the first time I have taken the time to read anyone's "blog"...it doesn't produce the guilt that wasting time in my life playing solitaire does, but I see that it falls into the same category. Back to a good book for this reader.
Ebert: You'd rather read a good book? Have I got a blog entry for you!
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/perform_a_concert_in_words.html
The first rule of the Sundance Film Festival is - you do not talk about the Sundance Film Fesitval.
Once more, an irresistible force (The Dude) meets an immovable object (Anderson). The Force seems as much in love with his own powers of persuasion as he is with movies, while the Object, intent on assessing films primarily in terms of their potential at the box office, would rather have breakfast than change occupations. Only chaos or balance can result from such a meeting. Or maybe first one, then the other--you know, to tie the room together, so to speak.
On a less cosmic note, Anderson's ineffectual battering of The Dude put me in mind of the hysterical dancer during the finale of Blazing Saddles, raining blows on Slim Pickens' chest. But that ended in tears and sympathy. Ah, if only the movie business could be as cute as the movies themselves.
Love the blog entry, Roger, as always. You know, I myself dabbled in pacifism once--not in 'Nam of course....
There's one way to solve this -- Dowd or Cottrell sends Roger a cut of the movie shown at Sundance, and he determines the best way for him to write an honest review and shares it with us.
I'm working on a project and trying to come up with people's favorite movie scenes that feature a marriage proposal. Since all the commenters on here are so passionate about movies, I figured I'd get some great responses. Scenes that take place outside would be preferred. Thanks in advance for any responses!
Cannot understand single word.
Ebert: That may be just as well.
I was there! It was hilarious. But, it does beg the question Roger, why weren't you at Sundance this year?
It was my first year covering the festival as a member of the press and was hoping to see you in some of the screenings, and being able to read your daily updates.
See all the stuff you missed?
Ebert: I still didn't feel quite equal to the weather, but was at Toronto and plan to go to Cannes. As I have said for many years, the only thing wrong with Sundance is that it's not held in Santa Barbara.
What, no collateral damage? No grape juice spilled on Armani shirts? Ruined Prada bags? Darn. There must be an array of ‘celebrities’ or ‘celebrity critics’ for that matter (take a wild guess), that could have been in perishable shrapnel proximity. Then again, it was morning, so most of them were either still sleeping it off or getting ready to pose for pictures.
And correct me if I’m wrong, but attendance at Sundance these days seems to have a built in harassment factor. So, I would opt for the humor-them, blow-off, route rather than confront-them, blow-up option. But that’s just me.
Ebert: Sigh. I remember the days when it felt indie, and the awards banquet was held in a meeting room at the Holiday Inn. Room for everybody.
To understand Anderson's point of view, it's important to understand the grueling exercise in physical and mental endurance that is the Sundance Film Festival. You see films from 8am to 11pm—or maybe 2am. You try to make it quickly to theaters via shuttles that take twice as long as they should. You live off snacks. You put up with a series of annoying rules and festival goers. Most of these annoyances are minor, but become more and more intense through a combination of repetition and sleep deprivation, until finally you snap. Now, my version of snapping is a little tamer, and generally amounts to telling someone what they can do to themselves. But I'd be lying if I said that during 10 years of attending Sundance, I never lost my pleasant demeanor.
Also, I wrote a comment yesterday challenging the report that Dylan was booed after "Masked and Anonymous," because (1) Dylan left the theater before the film started and (2) the film wasn't booed (not that it didn't deserve to be) I guess it got lost in the tubes.
Ebert: I'm running behind on comments. As I recall it was booed afterward, but in re-reading my report of the evening I find the Dylan got a standing ovation before the movie, which was awful almost without precedent. Here's what I filed from Park City:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030124/FILMFESTIVALS05/40901012/1023
I think you may simply have projected the appropriate audience reaction onto your memory of the "Masked and Anonymous" screeing. If the film were at Cannes, I don't doubt it would have been booed, but Sundance audiences tend to be more polite. I remember that while usually the cast comes up at the end of the film at Sundance, for M&A they showed up at the beginning, then made a run for it, leaving Charles alone for the Q&A.
My most vivid memory of the night is getting the film out of my mind by watching Campbell Scott's charming "Off the Map" after it. It was a reminder that the size of the media circus doesn't reflect the quality of the movie.
Sorry to be a stick-in-the mud, Roger, but may I observe that your journalistic standards seem to be slipping.
First you review a movie without seeing most of it. (Good on you
for apologizing.)
Now you write a blow-by-blow account of a fight that you didn't witness, and that you made no attempt to contact one of the combatants. In fact, you ENTIRELY MADE UP the comments of the
combatant (John Anderson) whom you didn't contact.
Ebert: Ah, did you miss the paragraph where I explained what I was doing and "justified" it (the graf with Ronald Reagan in it)? Did you miss the word fictionalized? Did you think I was trying to get away with something? Could you detect my sense of humor?
In the video, did Jeff Dowd mean to imply the genocide in Darfur was because of agriculture?--because it's not, even though there probably are some wars being fought over cropland, but it didn't lead to genocide. It's being backed by Saudi Arabia's faith: wahhabism, the most violently intolerant form of Islam. They have over 20,000 madrasses, 1500 mosques, 210 Wahhabi Centers, and 200 Wahhabi colleges around the world, that teach young boys the way to get to heaven is to kill non-Wahhabi's-- including 9/11. The death toll from high oil prices is actually higher--in the hundred millions. Colin Powell received a Jaguar a week after he retired, which would have been illegal a week earlier, from Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar. President Bush could have stopped it, but the Saudi's have this kind of influence in Washington. President Obama can stop it as well with one call to the Pentagon and have them bomb the Sudanese air force and have b-52's bomb most of the Janjaweed leaving the Darfurians able to fend for themselves.
Love "The Big Lebowski" but The Dude comes off as a pompous know-it-all in this story. "What would Ghandi or Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King do?" Come on, seriously. Invoking the three most notable non-violent protesters in history over a film. I love movies and they're all I think about most days but to harrass someone over a silly doc? Get real.
My, how exciting it all sounds.
What a pity that no one from GreenCine was on hand to offer The Dude mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.
Or didn’t he require it?
Wouldn’t a more fun ending to this story be if publicist and critic linked arms and lip-synched a duet of “Glitter and Be Gay”?
I have known Jeff "The Dude" Dowd for over 20 years. I have put him up in my house, we have many friends in common. Most people would not know that Jeff has had a long, successful history with the Sundance Film Festival and this story just adds to his legacy.
Ebert: Jeff tells me he is now writing a lengthy reconsideration of the whole incident, which I hope to publish.
No one who knows him will be astonished by this story. I remember when he and Cottrell were making it clear I would be a flawed human being if I did not see "Tarnation," the movie made on a Mac for how much? $180 bucks? But they were right, and it ended up at Ebertfest. The thing about them is, they only rep what they believe in, and clearly they're not in it only for the money, if any. I imagine the entire p.r. plan for "Tarnation" was: Hope Dowd and Cottrell are already there on their own, enlist them in the Cause.
My husband and I met The Dude for the first time at the Second Annual Lebowskifest in Louisville five (?) years ago. There were at least 800 people there and The Dude was drinking heavily the whole time. (Full disclosure--so was I.) Anyway, the next time we had any contact with him was nearly a year later at the first Lebowskifest in NYC. We saw The Dude at a White Castle near the bowling alley that was the venue for the event. He took one look at us and said, "Jon! Carolyn! You came from Vermont?" We were both stunned. This is a man who knows people and cares about people. He knew that Anderson is a father. It would not surprise me if he knows the names of the guy's kids. I'd be shocked, though, if Anderson knows the name of The Dude's kids. As far as I'm concerned The Dude is a class act and anything that's important to him should be important to everyone.
Clearly, Jeff Dowd is the perfect salesman:
If somebody meets those criteria, it is inevitable that they are going to be attacked from time to time. I'm sure this isn't his first incident, let alone his last.
"....and if he accepts a film, it becomes a Cause."
"No movie is good or bad, its our thinking makes it so." In movies as in other things it's the stand one decides to stand by. I decided to like Slumdog....because for all the nits one might pick, it pulsates with life and spirit,its as Indian as the Godfather is American even if it is'nt Indian....is honest to life...the fecal scene I find disgusting, only a situation as serious as the one in Schindler's List could justify downloading all that on an audience.....it's one scene that betrays it's British antecedent.
This was hilarious. The only thing missing was a photo of Anderson.
In the YouTube clip that one reader posted The Dude's forehead is above the chandelier! I want to see the man who had the nerve to punch that guy more than once.
The "good book" I'm dodging by reading this blog once again (now I "get it", the reason for reading blogs is to gain notoriety by seeing ones own words displayed)....the book in question; The Age of Lincoln...it's an incredible piece of work by Orville V. Burton. Worth the time. By the way Roger, I wonder if you've ever gone down to Springfield to see the Lincoln museum there...talk about a better-than-a-movie experience! Well worth the journey, I'm still impressed two years later.
ps, I also looked at the Green Bay Packers "blog" and I think the same people are writing to yours.
Ebert: Haven't been to the museum but Chaz certainly has. She's on the board of the Lincoln Museum, and was instrumental in Archbishop Tutu's visit there last year to be honored.
If Anderson really wanted to get back at Dowd, he could have simply peed on his rug.
Ebert: Now, now. It's not a rug.
The Dude is lucky he didn't try to get breakfast. The Yarrow doesn't take Ralph's cards. I've tried...
Santa Barbara is beautiful, isn't it? I saw it for the first time last year for a couple concerts at the SB Bowl (http://flickr.com/photos/jackknife_juggernaut/2544675353/sizes/l/, from the furthest vantage point), a great little venue cut into the side of a mountain in a residential neighborhood. If you've never been to the Bowl and you're in or near SB, catch a show there; you won't be disappointed.
Ebert: Jeff tells me he is now writing a lengthy reconsideration of the whole incident, which I hope to publish.
Why?
I gotta say, from this account, if I had been John Anderson in this situation, I might have punched him too, and I've never punched anybody. Dowd, I think, crossed the line between spiritedly advocating his film and harassment when he interrupted Anderson's breakfast -- a professional breakfast meeting at that. If the Dude is going to behave in such a way, he should perhaps invest in some protective pads and a helmet.
Mr. Ebert, though I appreciate your entertaining account, it would be helpful to actually have Anderson's side of the story instead of your best estimation of it. Perhaps it might change my opinion. But from hearing Dowd's account, which seems rather condescending to Anderson even after the fact, I would side with Anderson. Though repeatedly punching a publicist was certainly not the right call, you can only poke someone with a stick for so long before they finally decide to poke back.
Ebert: Anderson spoke to his Variety colleague here:
http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2009/01/sundance-watch-john-anderson-pounds-jeff-dowd.html
Last I checked, those reviews from Screen International and Hollywood Reporter are still MIA, but they're pouring in from other sources (NOT!). Here's one, sounds like the other one. We'll never know how different Anderson's would have been, but I know it wouldn't have mentioned walk-outs; because those are as irrelevant as Q&A's and "testimonials" by the flock. Could there be a future education or festival strategy for Dirt? Probably. I'll consult the book Anderson interviewed Dowd for, (the one Dowd thinks gave him currency).
Excerpted from Sundance Reviews: 'Crude' and 'Dirt! The Movie' by Daniel Fienberg:
If "Crude" starts off well and falters in the end, "Dirt! The Movie" goes the opposite direction.
No movie I've attended at this year's Festival has had more early walk-outs and I can't say I necessarily blame them. "Dirt!" begins with one talking head after another raving about "The Earth's Skin." The early process of raving about soil and its impact on all of our lives is redundant -- Yes, dirt's alive, get it -- and also silly, like the wine expert who explains that really oenology is about the dirt and proceeds to walk around noshing on it.
What directors Bill Beneson and Gene Rosow are doing, though, is the documentary equivalent of the rudimentary five-paragraph argumentative essay most people were taught in high school. They begin with generalities and frivolity, but their focus rapidly tightens. Soon we're learning about how farming and agriculture effect soil. The answer? Badly. That expands to what the destruction of dirt does to humans. The answer? Drought, famine and war. It's reductive, but it's also persuasive. And finally, having painted a persuasive apocalyptic picture, the film closes with a long section on reclaiming the Earth, on things people can do in their own communities to bring dirt back.
And darned if I wasn't moved by the prisoners at Riker's Island talking about how gardening had changed their lives. And darned if I wasn't impressed at the woman in New York City trying to bring patches of green to rooftops and sidewalks. The people making houses out of dung? That touched me a bit less.
"Dirt!" isn't going to win converts with its artistry, though a few animated sequences feature a cute and expressive dirt blob, but it has a clear thesis which it pursues with clarity. At the very least, and this shouldn't be considered an insult, "Dirt! The Movie" should provide teachable moments for high school and college classrooms for years to come. There's nothing wrong with that.
http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-the-fien-print/posts/2009-1-23-sundance-reviews-crude-and-dirt-the-movie?comment_id=510&page=1
By Daniel Montgomery on January 28, 2009 4:02 PM
I gotta say, from this account, if I had been John Anderson in this situation, I might have punched him too, and I've never punched anybody
Lives there an American who never punched nobody?
Ebert: Well, to start with, we have a lot of citizens who came here from India...
I have a friend. He's an idiot.
He's always getting into fights that are almost exclusively his fault. Bothering people he doesn't know, getting into arguments just for the sake of it. He's a nice guy, though. A blast to hang out with. And when he gets into trouble, we'll all stand up for him and get our asses kicked also, and defend him no matter how wrong he is.
We all love him. I love him.
That doesn't change the fact, though, that he's an idiot.
Ebert: Well, to start with, we have a lot of citizens who came here from India...
I thought you saw Slumdog Millionaire.
Ebert: You mean people punch each other in India, too?
"The real struggle of the 21st century will not be between civilizations, nor between religions. It will be between violence and nonviolence. It will be between barbarity and civilization in the truest sense of the word. "
SGI President Daisaku Ikeda
Your post wasn't too exotic for my understanding after all. Fun! Like Laurel and Hardy. At your literary height.
"I write in a trance. I never know what my opinion is until I read it in print.") makes better sense than having an opinion rather than a mixture of feelings.
And Dude cares.
Why should we care about any of this when the world is still going to end from global warming?
Ebert: At least it's not a liberal conspiracy.
Mark would have relished Dude.
Ebert: Your Mark or my Mark?
Anyone familiar with humiliating the victim of a fight with rape-like behavior? Like in the movie "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead" (Roger gave 3 1/2 stars starring Clive Owen)? In the movie Owen's character's brother gets raped by some bad guys who wanted to humiliate him badly, which it did and lead to his suicide--it's a revenge movie--Owen gets revenge.
Well, I had a friend who got into a kind of scuffle (I wasn't there) and this guy made him mad and he took him over to the patio and scared him into thinking he was going to throw him off (he might have, actually) and then instead of doing that he brought the guy back into the apartment and "mounted him" (clothes on, of course) and I guess dry humped him and said "alief style, bitch" to humiliate the guy. I just found that to be a pretty crazy story, so...there it is.
British Mark.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/charlesclover/4317723/Fishing-for-compliments.html
Ebert: Another film about the human scourge upon the earth.
"Alief is a community...in Houston, Texas" says Wikipedia.
My friend is actually an intelligent, funny guy--which made this story even more strange to me--but with a temper--you don't want to make him mad.
In a blog post about someone promoting/defending a movie, I would feel remiss if I didn't mention that your recent review of "The Uninvited" overlooked that it is a reworking of an excellent and acclaimed 2003 South Korean film "A Tale of Two Sisters" aka "Janghwa, Hongryeon" (dir. Kim Ji-woon). If you haven't seen the original film, I highly recommend that you seek it out (luckily it's not hard at all to find). Unlike The Dude who has a professional obligation, my only connection to this film is as a fan of Asian cinema. It's a well known and admired film among the regulars at the Asian Cinema board of imdb. Though it sounds like some changes have been made to it, your review gives me some hope that Hollywood didn't completely drop the ball on a remake of a popular Asian film this time.
The Mark.
Ebert: In other words, *the* Mark? As in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
(The sparks they flewed from grindstone).
The misguided soul of Hollywood is responsible for all these movies made from video games. Just as often, video games are made from movies, even respected stuff like "The Godfather."
So, I ask -- which Mike Leigh movie would make the best video game? I ask mainly since I wanna be the guy who makes you roll your eyes today.
Ebert: You were. None of them, I'd say, although if one ever does, it could be the first video game worthy of consideration as art.
Well, I was thinking of a barrel laughing as it rolls down a flight of stairs.....and words giving birth to words.....the nature of writing as you pui it in your next one...
I should leave the whole thing alone, but it has been 24 hours, and I still haven't decided which Mike Leigh movie would make the best video game. I HAVE figured out that the game players would gain points based on improvisation.
I think I will table that one and move on to my other idea, which is sort of the opposite. I'm now thinking of Werner Herzog creating a video game version of "Pac-Man." He could narrate the game, and Pac-Man could look like Klaus Kinski and players would try to reach the "Ecstatic Truth" level. Shut up time for me now!
Jorge Ossio - I really liked your post so I reproduced it here. It flows with a rhythm as it makes its funny and sweet purpose known.
"By Jorge Ossio on January 28, 2009 7:08 PM
I have a friend. He's an idiot.
He's always getting into fights that are almost exclusively his fault. Bothering people he doesn't know, getting into arguments just for the sake of it. He's a nice guy, though. A blast to hang out with. And when he gets into trouble, we'll all stand up for him and get our asses kicked also, and defend him no matter how wrong he is.
We all love him. I love him.
That doesn't change the fact, though, that he's an idiot."
But after the "They're sheep" and "It's business" comments from John Anderson, I think I have an inkling of who the bigger idiot may be.
I should leave the whole thing alone, but it has been 24 hours, and I still haven't decided which Mike Leigh movie would make the best video game. I HAVE figured out that the game players would gain points based on improvisation.
I think I will table that one and move on to my other idea, which is sort of the opposite. I'm now thinking of Werner Herzog creating a video game version of "Pac-Man." He could narrate the game, and Pac-Man could look like Klaus Kinski and players would try to reach the "Ecstatic Truth" level. Shut up time for me now!
The Dude sounds like a great bit Irish Setter of a human. Fun, but not when he gets serious about a bone. I once did the same to an overbearing Irish Setter when I was a kid. I bet Anderson felt about like I did about it. I was sorry; he didn't mean it, and I didn't hurt him anyway.
Roger, a while back I counted up that I'd watched over 9000 movies between 1986 and 1998. I bet it's been about the same since then, so, maybe 18,000 movies by now. No plans to be even an amateur film critic. Got bored making entries on Yahoo. Anyway, I always get my work done, yet tucked in all those flicks, too.
All these flicks, and it's like I've hardly seen any. Only occasionally do friends and acquaintances recommend a film to me that I've watched yet. I'd never seen "The Big Lebowski" 'til a couple years ago.
How many films do you reckon you've watched?
Ebert: Good gravy! Not anywhere near as many as you. In a good year, I'll write 250 reviews and 26 Great Movies. Add in film festivals and for-fun, and, maybe 400 or 500 a year.
The Dude sounds like a great bit Irish Setter of a human. Fun, but not when he gets serious about a bone. I once did the same to an overbearing Irish Setter when I was a kid. I bet Anderson felt about like I did about it. I was sorry, he didn't mean it, and I didn't hurt him anyway.
Roger, a while back I counted up that I'd watched over 9000 movies between 1986 and 1998. I bet it's been about the same since then, so maybe 18,000 movies by now. No plans to be even an amateur film critic. Got bored making entries on Yahoo. Anyway, I always get my work done, yet tuck in all those flicks, too.
All these flicks, and it's like I've hardly seen any. Only occasionally do friends and acquaintances recommend a film to me that I've watched already. I'd never seen "The Big Lebowski" 'til a couple years ago.
How many films do you reckon you've watched?
I first met Jeff when we were discussing promoting my film STILL BREATHING. Although we didn't ultimately work together, I always enjoyed Jeff, his stories and his passion. Jeff is a passionate guy, and this already legendary event has rightly entered another realm -- Go Jeff! keep punching (or not).
Couldn't disagree with you more, Dowd would have gotten a fair review based on the work, not that Dowd didn't have anything to fear in the way of NOT making a sale to anyone at Anderson's table, or anyone at the festival either, for that matter.
Watch Rostow react to Berenson saying it "could very well be boring for an hour and a half." I think the soul doesn't lie, and they review it best, themselves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8tyPaAjkbE
!!!! Not to get too far afield from the Dude, but... ME??? Watched more films than Roger Ebert? My 12-year total was 2 a night instead of TV, relaxing from a routine workday. 8,760, all for fun. In there are repeated viewings of favorites (most of which you recommended, tho' I didn't object to Gods and Generals' racism-of-the-day, and yes, some of my best friends etc.). Add in days of goofing off watching 4 or even 5, an equal amount since '98, and the total is 'way up there somewhere as mentioned.
Good Gravy to YOU, 250 reviews a year, but that's a feller's job...
Then your average is a flick-a-day, plus heavy days and special projects. (Congrats on the award!)
My friend Merci will be 103 this April, born 1906. She's been to the movies twice: once for the opening of "Birth of a Nation" (she didn't like it, but she was still a kid) and once a few years ago when her granddaughter foolishly dragged her to a cineplex for the one about the dancing penguins (haven't seen that yet either). Merci was a Broadway dancer. James Thurber plopped the very first copy of the New Yorker into her hands as a birthday gift. They'd listen to Fats Waller and Louis Armstrong live at the Cotton Club. She's watched two whole movies in 103 years, plus TV news. (She was on it once, marching with Dr. King into Selma.)
We never spoke of movies (except that Bo Jangles danced at the head of her wedding procession), but all of my friends do. How many movies ARE there that people almost always recommend something I've never seen -- not obscure, and has been out a long time. Not even counting "Tarnation," and only yesterday I watched a bit of Bob Dylan's Narcissistic Adventure mentioned on this thread (Neil Diamond's "Jazz singer" looks dramatic in comparison). Teen-thousands of movies and I haven't even seen "American Beauty"; or "The Titanic." How many? How many?
(mi mi miii) Yes'n hoow many flicks will it take 'til I know
That my old friend Merci-ii was right?
The answer my friend, is we've gone 'round the bend,
These mooo-vies have sent us 'round the bend...
Ebert: Your friend Merci sounds as if Studs Terkel could have made a book out of her oral history.
As an excuse that I see less movies than you, I will offer up my reading. Right now: Kafka on the Shore, by Murakami.
That gorgeous old lady Merci does need a biographer. Her grandkids have about 40 hours of her recorded anecdotes. U name it, she done it -- with class. Classier yet, she hates being written about.
Trying not to reveal my occupation, but, one day I took an autobio of one of the most prominent (and reluctant) "Beat Generation" members over to her for a look. She read the blurb on the back and quipped "I can hardly believe this was the only time America had lost its innocence." She was pinched in a raid for "lewdness" on a Broadway stage in 1920. Her pic, peering out from a big papier mache champagne slipper, wound up on the front page of the NY Herald.
No excuses needed. Movies are more fun than 3 or 4 hours of any other mental vacation. I can't be the only one who watches 2 films a night (besides Hitler); could never keep up writing such quality reviews. They'd all go "pretty darn good" and "pretty darn bad." I doubt the Award you got covers the reality of the matter. With or without Dude in there taking punches for ya.
The best Mike Leigh film in terms of video-game adaptation would clearly be Topsy Turvy. It'd basically be like the Gilbert and Sullivan version of "Rock Band."
Ebert: Extra points for taking out the Grand High Poo-Bah!
Mr Ebert: I eagerly await all of your Great Movies reviews - but every week I'm disappointed that The Big Lebowski hasn't yet made the cut. You've upgraded other 3-star movies - like Groundhog Day - but not the Dude? (Nevertheless, I abide ...) -- David
I've known the Dude for way too long. What a mean spirited bloviator himself is. Wow! How true to form. Have I not heard all of this high-minded blather too many times. This new chapter in the Dude's self-aggrandizing story has been in development over the past year or so (coinciding with the recent presidential campaign.)The Dude standing shoulder-to-shoulder with King and Ghandi -- hah -- for his daughters and the planet. He's delusional and has made some proprietary linkage in his own mind with Obama's rise to the presidency. He is perhaps the most intellectually dishonest person I've ever encountered. And mad as a hatter to boot. He has replaced Mickey Rourke as the "wrestler" of the moment. I can only hope it becomes fashionable for others to start kicking his ass.
I sometimes think that the price of liberty is not so much eternal vigilance as eternal dirt.
George Orwell
- Show quoted text -
I've been reading through some of your blog entrys and this one caught my eye. I love your representation of it, but I have to say my sympathies are entirely with Anderson even if he shouldn't have punched Dowd. Dowd is a big man true, and his harassment might have been more than a little intimidating, plus extremely annoying. What he was basically saying was 'this film is more important than anything you have to say, you do not have the right to have your own opinion, and I am going to make you see 'reason'.' Under those circumstances- tired, hungry and aggravated there is no wonder that Anderson snapped. He shouldn't have punched him, but several warnings appear to have been given, and Dowd should have seen the situation was rising out of control.
Two seperate points
(1) In relation to Dowd's imperialist claims referencing Jewish Irishness. (1) The possibility of finding a practicing Jew in Ireland is very close to zero, Catholicism still holds sway. (2) Dowd is an Irish name yes. BUT the fact that it is missing an 'O as in 'O'Dowd' illustrates that his ancestors dropped it as an appeasement to the British, and became turncoats. So he shouldn't be so proud.
(2) Very separate- but have you read/ enjoyed Private Eye, Roger, the British satirical paper magazine? If you have not, then try to, it is hysterically funny, and very very cutting and witty. Especially the recent Obamaballs column (following on from Colemanballs)
Ebert: I love Private Eye, and was a serious fan of Auberon Waugh's Diary, there and later in the Telegarph.