I'm putting this here and not in entertainment because, though it stems from a feud between Rob Shneider and a couple of movie critics, the point I'm getting at is a more general on realated to our attitudes about criticism.
It started with a front page story by
Patrick Goldstein in the LA times about how indy movies dominated the Oscars last year:
Quote:
|
It’s a funny thing, but today’s movie studios are no longer in the Oscar business. If there’s one common thread among this year’s five best picture nominees, it’s that they were largely financed by outside investors. The most money any studio put into one of the nominees was the $21 million that Miramax anted up for “Finding Neverland.” The other nominated films were orphans — ignored, unloved and turned down flat by most of the same studios that eagerly remake dozens of old TV series (aren’t you looking forward to a bigger, dumber version of “The Dukes of Hazzard”?) or bankroll hundreds of sequels, including a follow-up to “Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo,” a film that was sadly overlooked at Oscar time because apparently nobody had the foresight to invent a category for Best Running Penis Joke Delivered by a Third-Rate Comic.
|
Mr. Shneider took out a full page ad in the times to respond to Goldstein's criticism of his movie and acting abilities:
Quote:
Dear Patrick Goldstein, Staff Writer for the Los Angeles Times,
My name is Rob Schneider and I am responding to your January 26th front page cover story in the LA Times, where you used my upcoming sequel to ‘Deuce Bigalow’ as an example of why Hollywood Studios are lagging behind the Independents in Academy nominations. According to your logic, Hollywood Studios are too busy making sequels like “Deuce Bigalow’ instead of making movies that you would like to see.
Well Mr. Goldstein, as far as your snide comments about me and my film not being nominated for an Academy Award, I decided to do some research to find what awards you have won.
I went online and found that you have won nothing. Absolutely nothing. No journalistic awards of any kind, Disappointed, I went to the Pulitzer Prize database of past winners and nominees. I though, surely, there must be an omission. I typed in the name Patrick Goldstein and again, zippo—nada. No Pulitzer Prizes or nominations for a ‘Mr. Patrick Goldstein.’ There was, however, a nomination for an Amy Goldstein. I contacted Ms. Goldstein in Rhode Island, she assured me she was not an alias of yours and in fact like most of the World had no idea of your existence.
Frankly, I am surprised the LA Times would hire someone like you with so few or, actually, no accolades to work on their front page. Surely there must be a larger talent pool for the LA Times to draw from. Perhaps, someone who has at least won a ‘Cable Ace Award.’
Maybe, Mr. Goldstein, you didn’t win a Pulitzer Prize because they haven’t invented a category for “Best Third-Rate, Unfunny Pompous Reporter, Who’s Never Been Acknowledged By His Peers!”
Patrick, I can honestly say that if I sat you your colleagues at a luncheon, afterwards, they’d say “You know, that Rob Schneider is a pretty intelligent guy, I hope we can do that again.” Whereas, if you sat with my colleagues, after lunch, you would just be beaten beyond recognition.
For the record, Patrick, your research is shabby as well. My next film is not ‘Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo 2.’ It’s ‘Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo,’ in theaters EVERYWHERE August 12th 2005.
All my best,
Rob Schneider
|
Rober Ebert, in his review of
Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo summarized the previous criticism and reaction, ending in this:
Quote:
Reading this, I was about to observe that Schneider can dish it out but he can't take it. Then I found he's not so good at dishing it out, either. I went online and found that Patrick Goldstein has won a National Headliner Award, a Los Angeles Press Club Award, a RockCritics.com award, and the Publicists' Guild award for lifetime achievement.
Schneider was nominated for a 2000 Razzie Award for Worst Supporting Actor, but lost to Jar-Jar Binks.
But Schneider is correct, and Patrick Goldstein has not yet won a Pulitzer Prize. Therefore, Goldstein is not qualified to complain that Columbia financed "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo" while passing on the opportunity to participate in "Million Dollar Baby," "Ray," "The Aviator," "Sideways" and "Finding Neverland." As chance would have it, I have won the Pulitzer Prize, and so I am qualified. Speaking in my official capacity as a Pulitzer Prize winner, Mr. Schneider, your movie sucks.
|
Now while criuising internet sites looking for all the info on the whole affair, I happened upon many discussion threads. Many of them consisted of people congratulating Roger for "bitchslapping" Shneider alternating with people saying they disagreed with Roger's assessment, accompanied frequently by the complaint that Rober spent a substantial portion of his review taking personal shots at Schneider or alternately, taking personal shots at Roger for being fat, old, stupid, or any number of other criticisms that have nothing to do with the quality of his assessment of the movie. Sadly, some criticize him for taking personal shots, then do the same themselves.
I've read the review several times, and just did so again, very carefully, only to find that there isn't a single personal criticism of Shneider in the review. There is criticism of his behavior, and criticism of his movie, but Roger correctly doesn't take potshots at the man himself.
So I'm wondering where such hostility toward Roger's physical appearance or age comes from. Why is it necessary to take note of his size, age, recovery from cancer surgery, in regards to a movie review?
Is it just the culture of the internet where taking anonymous shots is easy, while countering someone's actual argument or reasoning is more difficult? Is it just that it's easier to say things here (the web) than in real life?
Looking back at the original Goldstein article, even he doesn't really take personal shots at Shneider, rather he criticizes his work by calling him a third-rade comedian. If you thought I was a lousy teacher, and called me a third rate teacher, you'd be wrong, but you'd also be criticising my work. If you criticized my physical appearance or age or ethnicity, that would be uncalled for.
Whenever I see someone resort to personal attacks of this sort, I usually just think that they're implicitly conceding the argument. Indeed, this is what I tell my students. Personal attacks reveal a lack of ability to support your side of the discussion.
It also points to something that I've always found confusing. If I criticise a movie/book/artwork you like, no matter how harshly I do so, and no matter how feircely you love it, it isn't a criticism of you. It just means that we interpreted the work of art differently. Why do people so often react to criticism of movies or tv shows as if they were personal attacks? Is it that they cannot tell the difference? Is it that people believe thier opinions to be objective fact? I know that middle schoolers think this way, and have a difficult time developing and understanding that opinions usually reflect the taste of the peson holding them and not the quality of the thing being judged, but why does this persist beyond adolescence?
Gilda