Criticwatch

Much of the time from the mainstream media we hear of interviewees complaining how their comments were taken out of context and didn’t reflect their true thoughts. Sometimes its true. Other times its just a smokescreen to cover up a huge gaffe while misplaced outrage travels the airwaves for three days or so. With film critics it’s a little different. Roger Ebert, more than most critics, frequently found a negative review of his translated into positive adjectives by the studio trying to sell their movies in ads. Remember when the single word “Funny” was taken out of his Little Nicky review? In an interview with Shawn Edwards recently, the 2007 Whore of the Year alluded that some of the things he said would be condensed in just the same way. Like when I said “I think Shawn Edwards is a critic…” Sure I said it, but my full quote would actually have been “I think Shawn Edwards is a critic who should be flushed through the shit-stormed sewers of Kansas City and see how his taste is then.”

The frequent bridge between the professional, trusted film critic and those of the junket whore media is in their ability to write. The whores don’t do it. They speak in adjectives and frequently don’t think before they do. Something to do with brains being needed. So when someone like Shawn Edwards complains that he’s taken out of context, he’s no better than the guy with a dick in your woman saying “this is not what it looks like.” I am someone who does his best to keep up on the written side of criticism, including covering film festivals like last year’s CineVegas where I saw a film called Careless. Now, I didn’t like the film but if you saw the magazine ad for the film’s forthcoming DVD release this June you would see the following quote:

That’s rather positive for a film I couldn’t even remember saying anything positive about. You can see the entire review here but I’ll save you some time and just expand on the quotes that Image and Thinkfilm chose for the ads. “A three-movie-in-one experience…” it begins, just as it did my review which read “Peter Spears’ Careless is a three movie-in-one experience with the one never developing a dominant presence.” Did it seem like I was TRYING to get quoted with that sentence? Because of whores like Shawn Edwards, Earl Dittman and dopes like Peter Travers I’ve consciously found myself ignoring uses of the various adjectives they wield like the first model of the Terminator. How about the second part? “Blanchard is cute and sweet.” OK, I flat out said that. In the context of the film, “Blanchard is cute and sweet. Hanks is insecure and aloof. Shalhoub is indifferent but caring,” referencing how simplistic the characterizations are. Maybe if Miss Blanchard was taken enough with my words to extend a dinner invitation it’d be worth it. Otherwise I hope readers will find my full review instead of just reading the ads. Hopefully they will do the same and look for reviews by Edwards and Dittman and James Thomas to match what they say on the ads. When they don’t find them, they’ll begin to understand what I’m trying to do here at Criticwatch.