IN/CIVILITY

...

Following my post on Commodore Palin, and after reading Brian Lowry’s column last week (Variety, January 19, 2011), as well as much commentary on Armond White being literally the devil (http://www.nypress.com/blog-8067-connect-the-dots-how-to-criticize-a-critic-when-he-doesnt-play-the-game.html; thanks Joe), I thought I should opine—because my self-aggrandizing, flabbergasted self thinks such things—on the idea of ‘incivility’ in film reviews. I’m talking about the bitchy, caustic climate of online reviewing, altered indelibly as “amateur” film buffs worldwide have access to (however poorly-read) platforms for their ideas.

Twitter gives Joe the Plumber a voice after he belched his way through FURRY VENGENCE (‘genius!’), and lo if I had a blog back when I realized BOYS AND GIRLS: SEX CHANGES EVERYTHING (starring Freddie Prinze Jr, 2000) was the first portend of the prophesized end of human society. Friends have recently given me shit for switching to the Jets (a decision three years in the making, assholes), but I’ve long received guff for a perceived negativity in my movie reviews. When I admitted to someone I hated BLACK SWAN, another friend issued the caveat: “but that’s okay, because you hate every movie you see.” Aside from its outright inaccuracy (don’t make me enumerate, again, the list of movies I ‘liked’ over those I did not like from last year --the ‘likes’ far outnumbering), I always fail to understand these sorts of comments: there is just simply a lot of shit out there and I know what I like and what I don’t.

I guess, though, I do understand a perceived negativity but I think it comes not only out of rhetorical style but also a particular psychological bias on the part of many moviegoers. Starting with rhetoric, yes, I’ll be the first to admit: there’s a certain annihilating flamboyance to my writing: at it’s lightest, a penchant for hyperbole; at it’s most hyperbolic, a douchebaggy cockiness that thinks it knows better than everyone else. After all, it’s not like I directed TITANIC, who am I to say AVATAR is a partial birth abortion of a sapphire fetus? Filmmakers, even bad ones, contribute SOMETHING – a ‘work of art’ or at least a reel of moving images – that didn’t exist before. Criticism, at least chronologically, comes after the abiogenesis of the “something” -- and so, because it doesn’t stand on it’s own, it is more reflexive to societal trends, individual tastes, and general a priori deductions than filmmaking is itself.

As an example: as my friend Adam pointed out to me yesterday, a few early reviewers called TRUE GRIT “good but not one the Coen’s best” and this stance has been subsequently bequeathed onto the critical community, and its readers, at large (until, perhaps, today -- with the Oscar nominations giving credit indeed where it is due. Winning’s a different story.) Maybe, and this is certainly up for debate, this is true -- but the truth is wholly besides the point. To repackage all this: critics comment not only on a particular piece, but the entire EXISTENCE of that thing, its coming-into-being, its “hype,” its historical significance, its ‘worth,’ its flashes of nudity. This isn’t the crucible of art, but of journalism, and thus there is a level of discourse that can definitely seem hostile, inhospitable, even ‘bitchy.’ It’s true, as Lowry points out, “On the internet, it’s often difficult to get noticed without raising one’s voice” and while that is a timely and dulcet lament, I’d counter with what I tell my parents when they can’t work the ionic breeze we bought at Brookstone – deal with it. This is the way of things, this is how communication sounds right now, so we either whine about how great the record player picked up those deep tones or we talk about how to maximize and learn to operate under the latest dispensation. I’m not dogmatically for “Out with The Old,” I’m just pointing out that a LOUD VOICE doesn’t necessarily mean one without points to make. It may be a bit grating, or self-congratulating, but being ebullient or dismissive doesn’t necessarily mean being uncivil. It CAN mean this, for sure, but doesn’t have to. And even if it’s a bit uncivil, in the sense of being a bit brasher than ‘polite society’ generally permits, so what? Even though I think BLACK SWAN is the most egregiously overrated, actually-shitty movie of the year, I don’t think all the people who liked it are moronic assholes. I’d never say this. Loudly saying my opinion on the film, even obstinately in an aghast state, isn’t an attack on you. Feel confident enough in your own tastes to not let the taste of some douche on Facebook offend you so personally.

So we are dealing rhetorically with a problem of “mood” – modern English, lacking a working subjunctive, doesn’t suitably moderate “I believe this movie sucks!” in the way that, say, Spanish would. But we are also dealing with (I mean ‘I believe we are dealing w-- – oh fuck it) a psychological bias, whereby people seem to LIKE more than they DISLIKE things they spend time and money on. I know that’s offensive and ego-dystonic, but I happen to think it’s true. It’s a bad habit – and one I’m often guilty of myself – but (relax) it’s also understandable. Being of limited resources, and desiring generally a state of happiness, I want to feel my purchases are wise and time well-spent. But often I go to the movies and only eat half the large popcorn I paid for; often I have high hopes that are dashed by a mediocre film. This doesn’t make me a fool for having high hopes, and it doesn’t make me a snob for not “just going with it” because (‘after all’) it’s “only a popcorn movie” or it “was just supposed to be fun”. Popcorn movies are fine, fun is fine, not everything needs an elaborate and cerebral metaphor, in fact I wish LESS movies had central metaphors, but there is nothing to be ashamed of to acknowledge that BLADE TRINITY was BAD. X3 was BAD. MARIE ANTOINETTE was BAD. BLACK SWAN was BAD. I don’t regret seeing any of these in the theatres, because I try to only regret things that affect other humans, but I still think they blew major dick. Sue me.

Lastly, turning back towards Armond White (NY Press’s infamously contrarian, but also ruthlessly intelligent film critic), there is the idea that amateur film criticisms somehow harms Criticism with a capital C because it lowers the discourse to that of a unmannerly fracas -- necessitating LOUDER VOICES, as we discussed, to rise above the fray. Granted, I speak from a defense position – and thank you for reading my blog by the way – but I think of it more as an affirmative defense. I think there’s something inexact with the pro-professional viewpoint: Tom Shales, Pulitzer Prize winning former Washington Post critic, points out amateurs lack of “training” and “standards” in Lowry’s piece – though I remember taking more than one film course in my fancy-person college and turning down more than a few sketchy Thai hookers in my travels (no standards-hah!). The question of course is WHAT IS AN AMATEUR (I do not get paid per se for my criticism, but I do get paid by the greater film industry, and writing opinion is part of my job), but this is only half of it. I also think there is something more sinister with the argument that Joe the Plumber should stop tweeting and I should stop wanting hurricanes. It’s something even a bit totalitarian that limits speech because of what it does to other speech. If my thoughts are worthless, don’t read. Armond White is a big fucking asshole, but he’s smart, and even though I only agree with him 50% of the time, I read his column whenever I can. Mr. Shales, delightful for you and your four decade career as a professional critic, but I think the “great equalizing” effects of the internet/Facebook era should be regarded as a good thing, not just for finding an audience, but for advancing THOUGHT. More voices is never bad, until one of them forces you to listen. Be discerning with the opinions you read, not simply because you agree with them, but because you RESPECT them. Sure, this puts the responsibility on the individual consumer, and maybe that’s a lot for many of us to handle, but I’m not sure responsibility is a bad thing either. Think, act, vote, don’t complain.

The word civility, commonly understood today as ‘politeness’ comes from the Latin civilis, which means ‘relating to citizens’. Relating, exchanging ideas, building thought from the ground up. Why would we ever denote which of our civilians should be the ones to speak? Thus, it is in the name of civility itself that incivility has its place – being a bit rude but not purposelessly rude, confident enough to shout, wise enough to listen.