Woody Allen’s SCOOP, Critics’ Tips, CRASH and Burn
by Andre Soares
From
David Segal’s article "Cloud In the Silver Lining" in the Washington Post: "You thought a sit-down with Woody Allen would cheer you up? He is not the anxious, gesticulating quipster he’s played in so many of his movies, a man who bundles his despair with a batch of winning one-liners, a bit of vaudeville by way of Camus. There is little shtick about the real-life Woody Allen, who says that outside of his work, he is rarely funny.
"Instead, he is chatty, rueful and, though he seems vaguely uncomfortable with the setting — an empty reception room at the Mark Hotel, where he is gabbing his way through an afternoon of interviews — he is almost evangelically passionate about a few subjects. None more so than the chilling emptiness of life."
Allen’s latest, Scoop, which he wrote, directed, and stars, opens in the U.S. on July 28.
***
"It is easy, perhaps necessary, for a film critic to forget that every film is a human endeavor, one that represents a substantial investment of time and money for all involved (and there are invariably many involved). Critics traffic in opinions, and they are not beholden to anyone in this regard. But we do owe it to the filmmakers, to our readers, and to ourselves to make sure that our review is reconcilable with the film we’re reviewing."
That’s Andy Horbal’s "The Cardinal Sin of Film Criticism," found in blogcritics.org. Horbal’s article provides a thoughtful insight into the responsibilities of film critics.
***
Proof that people can hate each other for reasons that have nothing to do with ethnicity or nationality:
From Sharon Waxman’s "Crash Principals Still Await Payments for Their Work" in the New York Times: "When a movie costs $7.5 million to make and takes in $180 million around the world, it seems logical to think that the people who created the film would have become very rich.
"With Crash, this year’s Oscar winner for best picture and last year’s sleeper hit at the box office, that has not been the case.
…
"But the pace of payments on Crash has especially disappointed those who deferred and reduced their salaries in 2004 to get the movie made."
Comments
2 Responses to “Woody Allen’s SCOOP, Critics’ Tips, CRASH and Burn”
Leave a Reply
Note: All comments are moderated. Different views and opinions are welcome, but abusive/bigoted/flaming comments will NOT be approved. Also, please be aware that the Alternative Film Guide has NO contact information for the talent mentioned in this blog or any information pertaining to or access to distributors'/producers' film prints.
Giving a critique of anything is not hard to do but hard to do with thought and consideration. However it is all too possible to overthink and over consider every little detail, even details that do not actually happen or are confused with other films. I think over thinking a film happens much more frequently than confusion. Why was the old man in the Louvre in the middle of the night? What was his motivation? Sometimes it’s just to propel the plot and that’s all. Hitchcock made an art of the nonsensical or even not really important plot element. No one really cares what’s in those wine bottles in Notorious, only that there’s danger inside of them. Was the money Janet Leigh stole in Psycho important or necessary? No not really, she could have gotten to the Bates Motel another way but rendevous with a lover or a vacation wouldn’t have made her a criminal. Or the missing woman in The Lady Vanishes, yes she was a spy, but that’s not why the audience is supposed to care about her. She’s a nice old lady, with government secrets.
I wanted to also add that being no stranger to criticism yourself Mr. Soares (I came across Regina’s Marler’s unkind review before I read Beyond Paradise) even when you do write about something that you do not like you do seem to take it into consideration what the film maker was trying to achieve and whether or not the met their goal, and not simply getting out that obsidian scalpal that some critics use to dissect every little instance and you admit when something is a personal like or dislike and do not state it as fact that film was terrible simply that you weren’t entertained, a line that many can’t seem to draw because they are so sure of the importance of what they say. In any sort of criticism there seems to be those who are very sure of their authority, what they say is true because they “know” good films or books. Dorothy Parker knew good books but never wrote a good book herself. She wrote films too but even A Star is Born is just short of being a standard or good screenwriting. Ebert and Maltin and others know good films but have never made one themselves. When people put there work out there to be reviewed I don’t think that many people do consider the someone’s soul may have been invested in a project, and not just their time or money.