In Contention

Tag: Patrick Goldstein

  • McWeeny on film critics who want you off their lawn

    Peter O'Toole (voice) in RatatouilleBoy I really need to get on the  ball when an idea crosses my mind these days.  Earlier in the week, Guardian writer Paul Harris beat me to the punch on an article I was spinning around concerning Hollywood’s attraction to post-apocalyptic narratives as of late.  Now HitFix’s Drew McWeeny has penned exactly the same kind of curious exploration of mainstream media critics’ views of the American film-going public that I was hoping to get to this week.

    McWeeny nails it.  In a nutshell, what the hell is it with the amount of hot air being blown by the self-important film criticism and journalism establishment toward audiences that have a right to go see what the hell they want lately?  Roger Ebert, Jeffrey Wells (no surprise there), A.O. Scott and Patrick Goldstein have all recently tossed around the idea of a coming “dark age” of movie intelligentsia, arrogantly dismissed the preferences of American audiences, bemoaned an overall lack of interest in what critics have to say and, effectively, as McWeeny puts it, declared that you all get off their lawn.

    I think there is a conversation to be had about American distaste in quality cinematic entertainment.  I don’t think it begins with insulting working people with higher concerns than what to see on a Friday night, however.  And I think the entire situation has pushed me that much further into an opinion I’ve held for a long time but never really had the guts to say in a public forum: Film criticism does not matter.  Yours, mine, the next guy’s.  It’s not precious, it’s not a commodity and it has slowly ruined the art of filmmaking by establishing a criteria of sorts and a hierarchy of perceived quality, boxing in what it sets out to celebrate.

    (more…)

  • Important

    Since it’s a level-headed assessment of another journalist’s work and not the bitching and shouting that has come to color similar exchanges, I think it is important to pass along two links: Bill Wyman calls foul on Nikki Finke’s re-editing of a story that got the facts wrong, and Patrick Goldstein links to same, giving more from his side of the story and giving Finke the chance to comment.

  • Blah, blah, blah

    UPDATE: I’ve been on a plane and then in a bed for the last however many hours, so I’ve come to the table late on this.  But Finke has responded in full and dropped the bomb that Variety wanted to buy Deadline Hollywood Daily, takes some cheap shots at Anne Thompson, etc.  No more posts on this from my end because it’s all so…pathetic.

    EARLIER: This is going to be going on for a while, but you might as well stay up to date.

    After the trinity attack on blogdom (and Nikki Finke specifically), David Poland finds irony in Variety’s anemic ad revenue while Kim Masters can’t contain the estrogen (nor pass up the chance to promote one of her old books) in a recent Daily Beast article.  Poland then lands this money shot on Masters today:

    Masters , like Finke before her blog, is without full employment as a journalist and is writing this piece as a freelancer for another blog that aspires to trafficking in gossip as “breaking news.” Slamming Variety instead of reporting on whether the accusations are factual fits the profile of the person she is defending.

    Patrick Goldstein, by the way, has responded to the weekend’s pieces at The Big Picture.  Like I said, it’s going to get ugly.  Let’s hope we can make it about the movies again real soon.

  • Waiting on the blog-o-rage

    BloggingI’ve been kinda, sorta keeping up with some Twittered reactions to the recent blogger smack downs by Cynthia Littleton, Michael Fleming and editor-in-chief Peter Bart, but curiously, no reaction from the peanut gallery…yet.  It’s a lazy Sunday, after all.

    In a nutshell, it seems with this trinity Variety has called for us all to get along.  The usual names are brought up in connection to incessant, unbearable cyber-squabbling: Jeff Wells, David Poland, Nikki Finke, Patrick Goldstein.  Sharon Waxman’s name is tossed into the hat as well, but why can’t anyone just say it?  Finke and the traffic she has generated as a result of questionable (and certainly grating) practices has put the fear into industry professionals and competetive journalists.  She is the 21st Century bad apple and she’s spoiling the bunch.

    Sadly, some smart people seem to consistently be taking her lead when it comes to sand box tactics.  If smart, longtime journalists like Goldstein and Waxman are being pulled down to her level, what can we expect of other naturally competitive and snarky writers?

    I’m in no position to stand on a soap box so I won’t.  I’ve been in my fair share of online spats and felt stupid afterwards.  Usually my bone of contention will stem from a beef on a writer’s representation of a film, hardly a fight for it’s own sake or a competitive drive to amp up the hits.  But I do hate what Finke is and has been doing and it should be brought up in a certain light.

    All of that said, I think Variety is putting itself in a precarious position by unleashing three editorials on this issue in the same day, one of them from an old media type who is widely (and wrongly) known as “hating” bloggers.  So far, no reaction, but I expect it to come soon.  And I don’t think it’ll be pretty.

    (A few greatest hits from the three pieces after the jump.  And click the pic for a larger version, by the way.)

    (more…)

  • Patrick Goldstein falls for ‘Happy-Go-Lucky’

    With “Happy-Go-Lucky” out on DVD today in my corner of the world, it’s odd to think that America has yet to discover its charms. Early Stateside rumblings, however, suggest that’s just what might happen, as Miramax’s marketing campaign goes out of its way to portray Mike Leigh’s unruly, bittersweet comedy as the cutest thing since newborn kittens.

    Meanwhile, advance press, like this preview from the LA Times’ Patrick Goldstein, plays right into their hands. Goldstein likes the film a great deal, going so far as to portray it as a lone ray of hope in a “calamitous year for specialty films.” Right off the bat, he dismisses the comic competition from the indie sector (“Synecdoche, New York” is “murky,” while “Hamlet 2” runs into into comic “dead ends,” apparently), before singing the praises of Leigh’s film:

    So now for the good news. After a four-year layoff since “Vera Drake,” which earned three Oscar nominations, Mike Leigh is back with “Happy-Go-Lucky,” a film about an irrepressible free spirit named Poppy (played by Sally Hawkins) who manages to giddily bounce around London, full of life-affirming good cheer, but without an ounce of cloying or mawkish sentimentality. (After all, it’s still a Mike Leigh movie.)

    So far, so familiar. Anyone who hasn’t seen the film (and indeed, many who have) must be sick to death by now of hearing umpteen variations of the term “life-affirming” in connection with it. Refreshingly, however, Goldstein sees in the film the emotional depth and complexity which is so far escaping the general blogosphere, not to mention the Miramax marketing department (though that’s deliberate on their part):

    It being a Leigh film, the story is chock-full of oddball characters, from a high-strung flamenco instructor to a troubled child in the kindergarten class Polly teaches. But the best part of the film is the way it so casually allows us to grasp how intertwined each relationship can be. No one is easily stereotyped. Mike Leigh’s world, even a world dominated by a character who appears full of way-too-much unquenchable optimism, is always a world full of surprises.

    (more…)

  • Patrick Goldstein joins the fray — honest to blog!

    <<< Not anymore!

    I was told last week that LA Times columnist Patrick Goldstein would be launching a blog of his own, and today I see that The Big Picture has morphed into just that.  I must say, even when I was tipped off to this development, I didn’t believe it.  This is the hater of all things blog we’re talking about.  His own publication agrees!

    Anyway, I’m glad the brass downtown finally dragged Goldstein kicking and screaming into the brave new world, however embarassing it might be for him.  Here’s what he has to say about it:

    But in journalism, it’s time for a change–big change. As you might have heard, this newspaper, along with virtually every other paper in the country, is under siege. Our whole business model is in free fall–circulation is dropping, profits are down and lots of talented people are losing their jobs. We can moan and groan about it or we can try something new.

    Now pick your jaw up off the ground and go give him a look.  Personally, I think he’ll enjoy it.  At the very least, that blogger-induced anger will have a daily outlet, and perhaps we won’t have to endure one of those yearly “they’re ruining everything” columns.  Then again…