WHAT WOULD TOTO WATCH? » Film criticism

WWTW Interview: Film professor and movie critic Barry Wurst

cftoto — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:10:50 +0000

Film professor Barry Wurst filed his first movie review at the age of 10 … at his father’s urging.

The pair had just seen “Allan Quartermain and the Lost City of Gold” and the younger Wurst couldn’t stop talking about it. So his dad said, “you should write a review…”

He does that now for the Maui Time Weekly Magazine in addition to his teaching duties at the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs. WWTW caught up with him for a Q&A that explored just what kinds of movies are today’s film students buzzing about.

WWTW: Can you talk about your introductory class assignment – ‘what’s your favorite movie and why?’

BW: The first film class I ever taught was in 2000 and I began that class and every one after it the same way: after a brief introduction about myself, I say “… but if you really want to know someone, you don’t ask them what their favorite color is, or where they’re from, or what their favorite food is. You ask them what their favorite movie is.”

At this point, I either see their eyes light up or notice how nervous they become, so I say, “if you don’t know what your favorite movie is, here’s how you know- it’s the first film that came to mind when I said ‘your favorite movie,’ so yes, guilty pleasures count, too.”

WWTW: What films resonate the most with students? What common reasons do they give for their choices? Any surprises?

BW: The titles they reveal are sometimes surprising, though most of the films are 15-years old, tops. Among of the ones I’ve heard repeatedly over the past couple of years include “American Beauty,” “Diary of a Mad Black Woman,” “Fight Club,” “Boondock Saints,” “The Lord of the Rings,” “Goodfellas,” “The Fountain,” “Scream,” “You’ve Got Mail,” “Donnie Darko”, “Gladiator,” “Hocus Pocus” and “The Matrix”.

Essentially, they’re the movies they grew up with and had a personal response to and/or a memorable experience when seeing it for the first time. It also varies from reasons like filmmaker technique, great storytelling, nostalgia, originality or what the film “means” or means to them.

My classes often pride themselves on liking especially “edgy” films, but, when it comes to class time, they tend to shrink away from “challenging” works like “2001- A Space Odyssey” or “The New World”.

Other films I’ve shown to various classes that my students have frequently vocalized that they hated include the original “Cat People,” “The Birth of a Nation,” William Friedkin’s “Sorcerer” and Spike Lee’s “Girl 6″.

On the other hand, the films I’ve shown my classes that have received the best responses have been “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” “Wait Until Dark,” “Singin’ in the Rain,” “Malcolm X,” “Dogfight” and “Cop Land.”

WWTW: Do students embrace older films, or even (gasp) black and white features?

BW: While some of my students are impatient with older films, particularly ones with a “leisurely pace” (the polite way of saying its slow), many of them have found the works of Charles Chaplin, Walt Disney and Alfred Hitchcock to be engrossing and state that they grew up with those films. I myself once found older works to be “boring” until film courses showed me the value and quality of “older” masterpieces.

I find myself stunned by the negative response the 1942 “Cat People” always elicits from students, though the film’s genteel approach probably clashes with it’s notoriety as a “horror classic”. I typically show “Wait Until Dark” the following class, to provide another essential horror film and one that, without fail, always makes my classes literally scream and jump in their seats.

James Dean’s charisma has little effect on my students, but Gene Kelly’s brilliance as a dancer still thrills my classes, even the ones who say they hate musicals.

WWTW: Thoughts on the current state of movie criticism … is the web helping/hurting film critics, and how?

BW: I don’t think that film reviewers will ever be obsolete, just as sports writers, book reviewers and political analysts will never be unnecessary. I think the “service”, if you will, that film critics provide is extremely valuable. The best reviewers open your eyes to a film that may go unnoticed, approach film criticism as reporting instead of spoiling a good movie and write reviews that, at best, can be as entertaining as the film itself (which is why so many bad reviews are so much fun to read).

With the Internet giving many more individuals the opportunity to declare themselves a movie critic, I’ve come across writers, like yourself of James Berardinelli, who are wonderfully engaging, intelligent film critics who offer reviews that are as insightful as they are fun to read.

The worst of the Web critics are the ones who declare a movie to be a “crap sandwich”, have the writing skills and life experience of an 8-year old and have knowledge of film history that isn’t older than 1995.

WWTW: If you could bend the ear of a Hollywood producer, what would you tell him/her about today’s young movies audiences and what they want to see in a movie?

BW: I’d say to take more chances on original material and to put aside easy sequels and remakes before they become box office poison. “The Matrix” was a terrific movie and we didn’t need a follow-up.

Some say “Iron Man” had an open-ended finish, but I thought it provided a satisfying climax for that character’s journey. I don’t think we need a sequel to provide Bigger and Better further installments every time, and am grateful that films I love and grew up with, like “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” and “E.T.” have a definitive ending and are sequel-free.

Can you trust a movie ad quote?

cftoto — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 03:08:28 +0000

The case of the conjoined movie quote appears to be resolved.

Miramax, the studio behind “Doubt,” combined two quotes from New York Post writers to fashion one whiz-bang movie blurb:

“This is what movies used to be and should be. ‘Doubt’ is heart-stopping. A feast of great acting.”

The quote was mashed together from comments by New York Post film critic Lou Lumenick (who gave the film a mildly positive review) and the paper’s gossip guru Cindy Adams.

Miramax is no longer publicizing the film with that quote, according to LA Times film blogger Patrick Goldstein. Lumenick told WWTW that the studio “appears to have stopped using the ads with the mashed-up quote,” though he isn‘t sure if this was due to his complaint or the fact that the ad cycle had run its course.

But is such chicanery common practice? WWTW asked a number of noted film critics for their take on the matter.

Most said film studios do a solid job of lifting quotes for their ad campaigns. But a few have had issues with the practice and fear the recent “Doubt” imbroglio could become more commonplace.

The Denver Post’s Lisa Kennedy says movie publicists know they have to check with her before approving a quote.

“I often shoot ‘em down,” Kennedy says, adding she figured film studios would be on their best behavior following a 2001 incident in which Sony’s publicity team made up quotes to accompany several of their film’s ad campaigns.

Kennedy suspects the latest quote-gate could “reflect an erosion to come,” she says, since most anything goes when it comes to an Oscar season without a clear frontrunner.

St. Petersburg Times film critic Steve Persall says he’s never had a problem with being misquoted. Dan Webster, film critic with The Spokesman-Review, offers the same response.

The Oregonian‘s Shawn Levy contends his quotes may have been finessed over the years, but nothing more.

But it wouldn’t surprise Levy if it happened to him or a peer.

Joe Leydon, a veteran film critic who writes for Variety and MovieMaker magazine, got his first misquote at the tender age of 16.

Leydon was a high school student reviewing films for The Clarion Herald, a weekly Catholic newspaper in New Orleans. He gave a “mixed-to-negative” review of “The Heart is a Lonely Hunter,” saying Alan Arkin and Sondra Locke gave “Oscar-caliber performances.”

“Imagine my surprise when I picked up The Times-Picayune a few days later and saw myself quoted in a movie ad for the very first time: “Oscar-caliber performances!” – Joseph P. Leydon, The Clarion Herald. I got an early introduction to the method by which even unfavorable reviews can be cherry-picked for blurbs. I’ve remained deeply cynical about the process ever since.”

Some critics, like The New York Post’s Kyle Smith, say their reviews don’t lend themselves to movie ads.

“I think the publicists have given up trying to find anything blurbable in my reviews,” he says, although the folks behind “Step Brothers“ begged to differ. They used his “funniest film I’ve seen this year” line in some of their ad campaigns.

Goldstein says since he’s not an official film critic he rarely lets studios quote his material. But occasionally they do just that, although they’ve always done so fairly, without misquotes, he says.

Newsday film critic Rafer Guzman says he’s had to put his foot down to make sure one of his quotes aren’t used inappropriately.

“Mostly the publicists want to replace the occasional pronoun (like “she”) with a proper noun (say, Marisa Tomei) so it reads better in the ad, and I’m generally okay with that. I’m even fairly lax with ellipses, though again I’m pretty sure I’ve insisted on them once or twice,” Guzman says.

So the next time a film ad blares, “I laughed, I cried …” you can believe it. Just make sure to check out the source … carefully.

Larry King is not a movie critic.