I believe Kevin Smith has said all this before, but now he's got another movie to promote (called "Red State," due in 2011), so he's evidently saying it again. WorstPreviews.com reports that Smith is "taking to Twitter and radio" with this message:
Smith says that he doesn't hate critics, but simply disagrees with the fact that they get to see movies for free in order to write a review. His argument is that critics are just doing their jobs and sometimes don't want to see a certain movie, which means that they probably go into the theater hating it. He adds that he would rather show his movies to 100 fans and let them write reviews even if they don't have a newspaper.
Makes sense to me. Smith would prefer to have his movies reviewed by his fans -- those who've seen his other movies and who are predisposed to like them -- rather than by critics who have seen his other movies and therefore may be predisposed to not like them, so that sounds like a good proposition for him. (And I agree he should let the fans write reviews even if they don't have a newspaper, or a blog or a keyboard or a napkin and a Bic.) Not screening his movies for critics (or making them pay) also sounds like a pretty good deal for the critics who don't want to see or write about his work. They could watch or write about something else instead -- and not have to worry about all the ethical dilemmas involved in paying or not paying to see a Kevin Smith movie. The world would be a cleaner and more orderly place.
Not that I think critics who honestly liked one of Kevin Smith's movies would be hesitant to say so. They certainly haven't been so far. Hell, critics made his career with "Clerks," which was sold as a raw, vulgar, uncensored indie comedy. And it worked. He built his fan empire on that success, and received mostly positive reviews from mainstream critics for "Chasing Amy," "Dogma" and "Clerks II," and mixed-to-positive reviews for "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" and "Zack and Miri Make a Porno." He has no one but himself to blame for "Mallrats," "Jersey Girl" and "Cop Out" (even if he didn't write the latter).
But it's true that Smith's is a special kind of fan-world celebrity, combining social media, a network of web properties, podcasts, personal appearances, comic books, t-shirts, bobble-heads, inaction figures and lots and lots more merchandising.... Critics don't treat Smith as if he's their pal or their idol, the way his fans do.
WorstPreviews.com further elaborates:
Smith says that any exposure that critics create for his movies is unnecessary, since he can reach his fans on his own through channels like Twitter. He says that he probably has more readers than most newspapers. [Smith currently has more than 1.7 million followers on Twitter.]
More than anything, Smith would like to see his movies not be screened for critics, but if it's absolutely necessary, to charge critics a ticket price at the door. He says that this comes from his experience on "Cop Out," which was screened for critics, who ended up bashing his movie.
Smith has made almost 20 movies in the last 16 years, so he knows better than this. It's never "necessary" to screen movies for critics -- especially comedies and horror movies (like "Red State"). That's something he simply needs to work out with his distributor and his financial backers. If he doesn't need the publicity, there's no reason he should court it. I will be very disappointed if Smith fails to stand on principle and allows "Red State" to be screened for the press. Review embargoes don't mean a thing these days.
I hope this also means Smith will not attempt to show his films at festivals like Sundance or Slamdance, which would be an open invitation to any dufus with a press pass not only to write a review, but an early review. Better Smith should hold private screenings for his fans.
So, I will do my small part. Should I ever learn about any kind of advance screening of a Kevin Smith movie, for fans or the press or in a film festival, I hereby promise not to attend it. (Come to think of it, I don't think I ever have. Only seen them at public showings.) If I decide to see one of his films in a theater, I will buy a ticket like everyone else, as I previously have, and then decide whether I want to write about it or not (since I'm under no obligation either way).
And I'll be honest: The only Smith movie I've ever seen that I kinda liked is "Dogma," and that was so long ago I don't remember it at all. (I think it had Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Chris Rock, Alanis Morissette and Jesus in it.) I think parts of "Chasing Amy" were funny, too, but I can't be sure. You know, critics are people with experience and expectations, just like everybody else. I know from past encounters with their work (which I've written about extensively over the years) exactly why I am not likely to find movies directed by, say, Alan Parker, Danny Boyle, Christopher Nolan, Henry Jaglom or Kevin Smith to be good work. That's because they are who they are, and they're fairly consistent in the way they make movies. I've also found exceptions that were more interesting or less aesthetically offensive than others ("The Commitments," "Memento," "Dogma").
As a critic (even a semi-inactive one who pretty much does what Smith recommends these days and buys tickets to see what he wants to see), I think it's only fair to be truthful and above-board about my previous exposure to filmmakers' bodies of work. That doesn't pre-determine my response, but none of us views movies in a vacuum, either. In fact, the George W. Bush Rule of Low Expectations may work in the movie's favor, because there's nothing more gratifying than discovering a breakthrough in previously unexpected quarters -- like Heath Ledger in "Brokeback Mountain," Colin Farrel in "In Bruges," Elizabeth Shue in "Leaving Las Vegas"... or "L.A. Confidential" from Curtis Hanson, "Three Kings" from David O. Russell, "Tender Mercies" from Bruce Beresford -- or, heck, "A Christmas Story" from Bob "Porky's" Clark.
But by all means: Kevin Smith and other filmmakers who don't want to show their movies to critics for free at advance screenings, be sure to get your publicists to notify critics and editors that you don't want them to cover your movies. Really. I'm on your side. It might be better for everyone.
P.S. If they do pre-release press screenings for "Red State" we should all realize that they're trying to bribe us with free admission to a soon-to-be-released movie and refuse to attend. It's only fair to Kevin Smith.
40 Comments
I've thought that the hardest thing for a critic would be the expectation of seeing and reviewing every film. I, for example, avoid horror films as much as possible, because I can't stand seeing the characters suffer, so even if I were otherwise qualified to review movies, I doubt that I could ever have made it as a film critic.
It makes more sense to me for a critic to choose which movies to review, especially given your earlier post on this topic. Kevin Smith seems to have a point here. On the one hand, most people probably don't need critics to tell them whether or not they should see a new Kevin Smith movie. And on the other hand, even people who like Kevin Smith movies (I do) probably don't see them as objects of criticism. I'm not sure if anything can or needs to be said about the directorial style employed in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. So especially if a critic doesn't like Kevin Smith movies to begin with, it seems reasonable for the critic to devote more time to films that the critic wants to see and can review meaningfully.
Ha!
I wonder how he'd react if his fanbase didn't love his movies? Ya know, the ones that download his movies for free online? Would he listen to them and try something else because they "understand him", or would he decide he doesn't need audiences or critics and screen them for his wife and pets, making them pay as well. When does the absurdity end?
I don't think Smith is a bad guy or the WORST filmmaker in history, but I haven't really enjoyed any of his films, which is to bad as I'd like to...
I will add that his work in comic books, particulary Daredevil has been exceptional.
His Green Arrow run was really quite good, too. His recent Batman run? Not so much.
Kevin Smith is the Dane Cook of film directors. His work's appeal to anyone mystifies me.
"Cop Out" was not screened for critics in many markets, including mine (Salt Lake City). This was a decision by Warner Bros., not by Smith. The studio knew it had a turkey on its hands, but for some reason Smith never got the memo.
I saw the movie because I bought a ticket, and it turned out the studio was right.
Well, I see his point about idiots like Armond White who treat every film as if it were a masterpiece.
Don't believe me; "Nacho Libre" was almost his pick for number 1 movie of the year and the same for "Jonah Hex", just because it has one moment where Megan Foxx looks at the the scars on Jonah Hex's face, which didn't really mean anything...but he just makes stuff up and he also gets facts wrong on probably every movie.
I guess he was hoping for more reviews that were like "if you like Tracy Morgan, you'll like 'Cop Out'" or something, but perhaps, got more idiotic Armond White reviews.
Doesn't Roger Ebert address his concern, at least partly, by often noting that a movie will appeal to people who like a certain type of movie. He also tends to give some credit if a movie successfully achieves what it set out to achieve.
"Smith has made almost 20 movies in the last 16 years"
I count nine.
(Clerks, Mallrats, Chasing Amy, Dogma, Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back, Jersey Girl, Clerks II, Zack & Miri Make a Porno, and Cop Out).
IMDb lists 19 directorial credits, including documentaries, TV movies, shorts and two titles in pre-production.
I guess it's not important at all, but I would guess that when people consider the experience from making movies and the necessity (or lack thereof) of critical response, one wouldn't consider a two minute "Aren't New Yorkers Great" segment in a 9/11 tribute concert, or a never-released film school project, or a never-released documentary that's locked in a vault in Minnesota somewhere, or a short broadcast on the Tonight Show, or a short animated segment used as an extra on a DVD to have contributed much to that experience.
But I know it has nothing to do with your larger point and is simply an example of pickiness on my part.
Love your columns.
Passive-aggressive much? I don't really like Kevin Smith's work, but I like whiny critics even less.
Passive-aggressive? I am aggressively supporting Smith's stated desires.
[]iDon't believe me; "Nacho Libre" was almost his pick for number 1 movie of the year and the same for "Jonah Hex", just because it has one moment where Megan Foxx looks at the the scars on Jonah Hex's face, which didn't really mean anything...but he just makes stuff up and he also gets facts wrong on probably every movie.[/i]
Armond White is the Sarah Palin of the film critic world. Both are master comedians whose satirical witticisms are often mistaken for sincere idiocy.
Sarah Palin is just out there trying to make some money from what I see, and I can't really think of one satirical witticism by her off the top of my head.
As far as Armond White. Everything I said was true.
He gets facts wrong. Two that I can think of off the top of my head, and these are straight factual errors, is from the movie "Salt" where he says she has fun killing Americans, but she doesn't kill one, and also in the movie "Machete" where he says the scene with him with the machine gun on his motorcycle from the Grindhouse fake preview (from which the movie was based) wasn't in the movie: and it was in the movie.
Then I've read that he said that movies are supposed to be art. This is something that I agree with. Any genre can be art. But he takes this view way too literally, so much as to take one little scene from a movie that might merely seem a little artistic, and then he hails the movie as a masterpiece, even though the rest of the movie didn't build from that scene or on that scene; it was really just a kind of self-contained moment that may not even really exist as a moment of depth except in his mind; if it did, that was the only moment of depth in the movie: and then he calls it a masterpiece when it was MAYBE a moment of depth (probably not, as he gets so many factual errors wrong).
And a lot of his stuff I don't really understand what he is saying.
But his writing aside, I already know how he reviews movies.
Here's how he gives a positive review:
Ooh, this movie is pretty; I'm 80% the way there to giving it a positive review.
Ooh, the movie beats a moral message into my brain that I agree with; I'm now giving it a positive review.
Then if it MAYBE has a moment of depth, he'll write about that one little moment even though it may have only existed in his mind or really had nothing to do with the rest of the movie.
Then he'll write about some moment, which again, exists all in his mind and say about it, "this is a criticism on hollywood."
Just about everyone of his reviews bashes Hollywood, positive or negative reviews.
And who are the two filmmakers that he gives some extremely high praise? Year after year Steven Spielberg makes his number movie of the year (also number 2 one year) and he feels Michael Bay is also a great director. How are they anti-Hollywood; I don't know or care, because if they are what he deems to be great art, then he has no taste in movies.
I already outlined his taste above. As far as writing and witticism or what have you: that's not why I read movie reviews; but like I said, I don't really know what he's saying, except that he is a terrible critic. Relatively maybe not so much, but his problem is that he really does treat every movie as if it were a masterpiece, and the evidence of that is how he takes one little moment of POSSIBLE depth and accredits it to the movie as a whole, when it is clearly not the case.
Kevin Smith is just not a filmmaker, at best he is a pretty good dialogue writer, I mean if you have a film that has geeks talking about their own self-debauchery and how utterly meaningless the world is, then Kevin Smith is the guy to hire as a writer. Other than that, Kevin Smith has no visual game and his ideas are outdated. The 1990s are over, why he still has a career is beyond me.
The problem with Smith as a dialogue writer is that he doesn't really have much of an ear for different types of characters. He can write some stuff that's maybe intelligent or thoughtful or funny, but I never feel like his characters have a unique voice.
That said, it's definitely true that he's a better writer than director.
I think Kevin Smith has every right to refuse to pre-screen his films for critics. But his logic is pretty faulty, to say the least. It sounds to me as if all he wants is good press, and not bad press. He wants his movies, whether good or bad, to be marked as good regardless. The best way to do that? Employ fans, who won't judge his films objectively, or compared to anything outside of other Kevin Smith films.
If Kevin Smith can't live with criticism of his films from more than just his biased fans, I suggest he just stop making films. When you put something out in the public, like a film, or a song, or a book, you have to be open to fact that whether you like it or not, scrutiny and criticism, from more than just the people who love and adore you and your work, will happen. I guess what I'm trying to sum up here is: Kevin Smith needs to stop being a crybaby and live with the fact that he can sometimes (or often?) make a crappy film. He really needs to just get over it.
Smith's work has gotten absolutely horrible (I recently caught J&SB Strike Back on TV after not having seen it since I was a teen - it was astonishingly, almost painfully bad, the kind of bad that's so bad you have to take to your Facebook immediately and post an update about how bad it is so others can join in and say that they, too, find it bad), and his fights with critics are dull by now and were dimwitted from the start, but this does bring up a good point without meaning to.
Why *do* critics see every movie? Every movie isn't art, and relatively few are even aspiring to be art. And a movie critic is an art critic - a critic of the art of film. Film criticism is very strange compared to something such as lit crit. Occasionally in literature a book or a series will become so popular that so-called legitimate critics will weigh in (negatively, rudely, resentfully, 99% of the time). But for the most part, this isn't the case, and in literature, a book is apt to be reviewed according to its intended audience and its level of ambition/ purpose for being. So in people magazine you'll see, ya know, People Magazine type books reviewed. And in the NY Times you'll see those kinds of books reviewed. But with movies, the "best" critics and the worst critics, all critics, are stuck reviewing many of the same films. So you'll get the People Magazine review of it and then you'll also get Salon's deconstruction of it. And in the vast majority of such cases, Salon is the one who doesn't belong.
I dunno. I know it isn't up to you guys, but it just seems like somewhere along the way the whole nature of film criticism got messed up, and film critics made a deal with the devil in order to remain viable. It's too often like a food critic being forced to review fast food with a straight face.
So Smith is right - and not for the reasons you think - in saying his fans, or potential Smith fans, ought to be viewing and reviewing his movies, instead of the professional critics. Smith is making abominable movies anymore. They are AWFUL. And they aren't artistic or artistically serious (ultimately it'll be arguable that ANY of his films are), they aren't meant for people like you, or for those who see film as an art, or even for posterity. They're almost deliberately non-artistic endeavors. In the fast food analogy, Smith's films are the little longtime hamburger joint in town that makes food just as unhealthy and probably just as crappy as the fast food chains, but with a personal touch. Who better to judge that food than the regulars?
I wonder why you didn't think "Three Kings" would be good? Did you see David O. Russell's first film "Spanking the Monkey"? I thought that was an excellent film. I just saw it recently actually. And it came out the same year as "Clerks" too. Everyone talks about "Clerks" (though I am a Kevin Smith fan), but no one talks about David O. Russell's great directorial debut. After seeing "Spanking the Monkey" and "Three Kings", I'm really excited for "The Fighter".
I didn't think it wouldn't be good -- I very much liked "Spanking the Monkey" and "Flirting with Disaster." What I meant was I didn't expect, from those small-scale comedies, that he would next make something as ambitious and political and philosophical on the scale of "Three Kings."
Which begs the question, what is Kevin Smith trying to achieve?
Don't get me wrong, I thought the original Clerks was a funny movie. Then again, I was 21 or 22 years old, so the appeal of it may have come from somewhat immature sensibilities. I found Clerks 2 just gross and disturbing. I just felt very sorry for the actors, and in particular for the donkey.
You know a movie is a turkey when you turn to your significant other and say "I sure hope they were paid a lot of money."
The thing is, critics aren't there to serve the director, or even fans of the director. I would say they are there to serve the readers. I don't think I've ever seen a Kevin Smith movie - I have no bias for or against him. I don't trust Kevin Smith or his studio to give me an unbiased description of his film that I could use to make a decision as to whether I should spend my money on it. Nor would I use the opinion of someone who only watches, say, Transformers and Twilight movies.
It's most useful to have the observation of those who are familiar with good films, and unbiased. Maybe a family member or friend whose taste is similar to mine. But often it will be what I read by critics that will most influence my decision.
Pat C. wrote:
I can understand Smith's belief that his fans think critics irrelevant, and maybe he will always get by like that. Or maybe he'll end up like the Star Trek franchise, bereft of anything interesting to put in the small or big screens, with a small intellectually inbred core fanbase that would watch anything with the Star Trek logo on it, but otherwise falling to the law of diminishing returns.
If Smith or any of those kinds of critic-allergic filmmakers can make lots of money then all the power to them, but at some point these guys will inevitably start whining about how they can't get no respect, and then will start blaming the very critics for not putting their movies on their Top 100 Greatest Movies Ever Made lists, blah blah blah.
Mark my words, in 20 years Smith will be moaning and groaning about how Zack And Miri Made A Porno isn't on the Greatest Movies lists.
I didn't take the time to read through all of the comments so I'm not sure if this has been covered, but why did you feel the need to write so much about Kevin Smith? To me, this entry felt like an angry and amateur rebuttal to a statement made by a guy who usually fills ninety minutes of screen time with dick and fart jokes.
All I'm trying to say is, maybe you should try to be a little more decisive about what you choose to write about. This came across as a rather shallow, and pointless entry on what is normally a very informative and entertaining blog
You're right that I probably shouldn't pay attention, but I picked up on this when Roger Ebert tweeted it because it was about film criticism, the foremost topic of this blog, and Smith's campaign to keep critics from seeing his movies for free struck me as hilarious. So, I just wanted to follow his argument to its logical extreme. To me it was only incidentally about Smith (I apologize for that photo, but I didn't know what else to use) -- just another filmmaker's perspective on the role film critics play in the marketing and reception of his movies.
I've come to this party late and I have nothing intelligent to say, but I will say this: I, personally, will always trust the critic that pays out of their own pocket. It's a risk. I get the feeling there's be a lot more negative reviews flying around if a critic had to pay out of their own money. They'd have to ask himself if something was really worth the time and money.
Just a thought.
I watched most of his movies on TV or through a VHS copy or maybe in a rare case a DVD.
I wonder if his fans are going to pay. I am not a distributor, promoter, or in the movie business, ect...
I'm with Smith to an extent, but I don't buy his entire point. It does seem like a raw deal for the movie if a critic walks in thinking "Oh God just another Kevin Smith movie" and treats it harshly from the start. Rogert Ebert could have walked into The Straight Story saying "Oh God just another David Lynch movie" and been predisposed against it from the start, but he didn't, did he?
I also think there's a point in the idea that people who spend 7-10 dollars on a movie ticket could be more disposed to like the film since they put down some money against having a good time. Critics paying for a ticket could perhaps help them empathize with both the film, and with mainstream audiences.
For Smith to say his fans should get to see advanced screenings of his film is great, its nice that he would do that. For his fans to make up the bulk of the press for the movie, however, is cheap and dishonest. Smith would have a better case if he'd call for picking 100 random people and offering them an advanced screening.
Exactly. Let Kevin Smith make movies to be adored or rejected by Kevin Smith fans. Real critics, if they want to write about them, can pay to see them later.
I enjoy Kevin Smith's work occasionally and find much of his web based stuff funny. I listen to his podcasts and find the way the author of this piece reacted to a simple and honest concept telling. Seems to me that the writer here is doing what he can to call Mr. Smith a whiner and in so doing has come off sounding worse than his intended target. You sound like a spurned lover who now denies ever loving the one that hurt them. To whine that reviews made him and now he is turning his back on them is almost infantile. Mr. Smith has a good reason for his stance and you sir are simply afraid that reviewers will all be exposed for the jock sniffers that vie and large they are.
If only I were a spurned lover. I hated Smith's first feature ("Clerks") as utterly phony and stupid and said so when asked to fill out a Miramax survey at the Laemmle Sunset 5 after paying to see that moronic abortion of a movie. I admit he's gotten marginally better over time. But not consistently and not by much. He's one of those douchebags (I feel he's earned the title, on his own terms) whose movies are irrelevant. He's about his carefully crafted public persona. Therefore, I remain interested in his POV about marketing. His movies, as everyone can see for themselves, are crap. But he does have ideas.
I believe Kevin Smith's point is that he knows who his audience is, and reviews don't add any butts in movie seats. Since he makes the same ~$35 million, regardless of reviews, he is in a unique situation where critical review is no longer required, and doesn't really address what his fanbase would want to know about his films. So, he would rather just have the reviewer's $15 since they aren't really adding anything to the film's bottom line.
Exactly. I agree -- why should his distributors screen his films for critics? It doesn't make any sense. He doesn't want a critical response to his movies; he only wants to pitch to his fans. That's fine. Why shouldn't critics ignore his films completely? There's hardly anything to write about that hasn't been said over and over since "Clerks."
Kevin Smith is absolutely right. Critics don't deserve to see movies for free because there full of them selves especially you Emerson.
I will admit to being a tepid fan of Kevin Smith's work (especially lately). I think he has a few really good comedies.
Kevin is someone that I admire for a number of reasons, primarily because in his career he has, for better or worse, made his films exactly as he wanted to. It has been hit-and-miss for sure, but like it or hate it - he does his work and makes a living.
Hello interwebs.
Kevin Smith DID indeed submit to Sundance for 'Red State', this was mentioned recently on his podcast. He also spoke about the budget of the film, around 4 million, and working under those conditions rather than 'Cop One' ones (it's safe to bet Bruce Willis got paid more than the whole budget of 'Red State').
That all said, he seems to be floating in this direction with his films. Anything made for that small of an amount could make up itself back in two weekends (outside of advertising). I think what he's arguing here, and arguing really well, is not that Critics aren't necessary, just that a movies success depends on an audience bigger than them.
Just a thought.
-N
Critics are like Eunuchs in a whorehouse, they know how to do it, but they cant
Mr. Emerson, you are a prime example of the many reasons why "critics" are so often treated with disdain. Lacing your article with blatant sarcasm doesn't mean that you're clever or particularly qualified to judge another person. You seem to think you're right on all your points, and what person isn't whose ego is as large as yours must be? You refer to something you call 'real critics' at least once in the article, and I'm curious to know what you mean by that. Call me crazy, but it seems to me that the only thing critics do is provide their opinions on movies. What I want to know is: at what point in your mind did 'opinion' suddenly become 'fact'? Oh sure, critics' opinions may be "well- informed". But what does that mean, really? They're more well-informed on what should make a good movie (to them)? Now I'm not saying I liked "Cop-Out". In fact, I thought it was stupid. But your complete disregard for Kevin Smith and all of his movies (besides Dogma, kinda) makes you come off as narrow-minded. Now, maybe you honestly don't like any of Kevin Smith's movies, and you've actually watched them. For some reason, the idea of you having actually watched all of them strikes me as doubtful, but anyway. While what Kevin Smith said may be unorthodox, he has a few good points. Critics have the time and luxury to be able to see a plethora of movies, so much so that only the best manage to make an impression. The average movie-goer does this maybe once a week. They don't have the money to see as many movies as they would like. And critics do have a tendency, in my experience, to come off as having a holier-than-thou attitude. The elegant masters and judges, serving verdicts to the ignorant public who don't know any better. My point, hidden among this bloated (yet oddly necessary-feeling) article is: your opinions aren't universal. And you don't know as much about the man as you think you do. So stop acting like you do, because it doesn't increase your eligibility to judge.
I'm trying to figure out what you think I know "about the man" (aside from what he's said in public) or what I've said about him or his work that you're taking issue with. That I don't like most of his movies? How is that an assertion of of "universal opinion"? I'm talking about my own opinion and not attributing it to anyone else. Also, I am endorsing what Kevin Smith has said about press screenings of his movies. He should be free not to screen them if he doesn't want to.
Leave a comment