In a reply to what he feels is a misleading (nay, delusional) review of his essay film "Poliwood" by New York Times TV critic Alessandra Stanley, Barry Levinson offers this sound advice:
To reiterate, criticism is a part of a filmmaker's journey. Any time you attempt to tackle a subject that is complicated, one is open to criticism. It comes with the territory. A WARNING: to any thin-skinned filmmaker, get out of this line of work quickly or you'll die a hemophiliac. But when one's work is used as fodder for a critic such as Ms. Stanley, then I feel I must speak up... and throw caution to the wind. [...]
The New York Times is known throughout the world as one of the leading newspapers in this country. It has excellent film criticism and book reviews. And a very strong op-ed page. Where Ms. Stanley fits into this strong lineup is questionable at best.
As a filmmaker, all you can expect is for your work to be examined for what it is....
6 Comments
Didn't Levinson famously accuse Lisa Schwartzbaum of anti-Semitism in her pan of "Sphere"? That Schwartzbaum is also Jewish apparently was irrelevant. Maybe he should scrap letter writing and stick to making movies. When was the last time he made a good one?
Hell yeah! What IS with that nonsense about filmmakers needing to remain silent about criticism? Start a DIALOGUE, people! I'm not saying whether or not Levinson is doing it the right way. But forget all this nonsense about how when an artist responds to criticism, he or she is just being a complainypants. It has the potential to be so much more.
Thanks to Barry Levinson, I think I'll start reading Alessandra Stanley's reviews. I certainly respect that she doesn't like Walter Cronkite. How many people remember his hawkish attitude about Vietnam? He was pro-war, baby, until 1968 when he famously changed his stance in a CBS news special. Of course, he really had no business doing that since he was supposed to be an impartial reporter who kept his views to himself. Walter claimed he did that, but fact is he never did.
As for Levinson's criticism of critics, well, now he's being a critic, isn't he? I think Truman Capote had the right attitude about an artist's relationship to critics: never explain, never complain.
Craig-
Just because someone is Jewish doesn't mean that they can't possibly be an anti-Semite. That's not to say that Levinson was accurate in such an accusation, nor is it a defense of his recent cinematic output (Bandits was back in 2001, and that's about the most recent work of his that any reasonable soul could claim to be worth watching, regrettably).
And Brian W. Fairbanks is onto something; by entering into the dialogue, he's subjecting himself to further criticism, but I would disagree with him about that being a bad thing. Everything's made better through discussion.
For me personally the best thing that Levinson has produced would be "Homicide:Life on the Streets" but there he was just being the show's executive producer not the director.
Call me crazy, but it doesn't seem Levinson really responds at all to Stanley, except to dig up a phrase he remembers from years ago that annoyed him. Stanley's arguing that the film's obsessive inwardness (it puts celebrities and media at the center of a process they didn't impact nearly as much as they thought) becomes narcissistic in context: Levinson's saying he didn't follow the election itself because the film is about celebrities/media and not the election. But... that means Stanley's assessment is correct, no?
I haven't seen it so I can't make any kind of value judgment here, but I found Levinson's response strangely inappropriate.
Leave a comment