A question for Eddie

Hey Eddie,

I've noticed from your DVD reviews and comments on the message board that you you focus a lot on the actors' and filmakers' personal histories...to a point that I find rather excessive (or is it obsessive?). You defend that with your favorite "films aren't made in a vacuum" comments, and yet you refuse to address, say, the connection between books and their film counterparts. For example, in your LOTR reviews you make it clear that you don't care what the books contain, because the film should work and stand for itself.

Why?

Books and movies are different mediums. They function differently. A book depends on how readers understand and process words. A movie depends on how viewers understand and process images.

People who make movies are directly responsible for how the movies turn out. They shape how their movies are perceived when they give interviews, when they suggest script changes, etc. It's not possible to judge a movie without interrogating what important members of the cast and crew did (just as it's not possible to judge a book without wondering how much of it was actually written by the credited author, how much of it was shaped by an editor's feel for the language, how much of it was shaped by a publisher's desire to court/avoid controversy, etc.).

It's rare that a movie adaptation of a book (or vice versa) is in dialogue with its source. From instant recall, the only recent movie adaptations of books that challenged their sources were "Starship Troopers" (the book was an honest expression of its author's fascist beliefs while the movie mocked fascism) and "American Psycho" (clearly, Mary Harron was on a different wavelength than the book's author). Most movie adaptations simply try to be "faithful" to their source books, which is a really routine and even boring exercise. (From what I can tell, the only book adapation of a movie that tried to stand on its own as a work of art was Clarke's "2001". Most "novelizations" are rote, inane, banal recounts of what happens in movies.)

Heehee, I realize this discussion would go around in circles :D

Carry on, everyone. Good game, Eddie.

attacking a movie for bad color timing is a valid criticism because movies are a visual medium. thus, a person would be making note of the fact that the moviemakers did a poor job presenting their images.

just about every review of "mission: impossible" is indistinguishable from each other. everyone talks about a "labyrinthe plot" that is "merely an excuse for cool stunts". i focused on the industrial reasons for paramount's decision to pander to tom cruise even when he chooses to produce financially/artistically risky projects. i chose to edify my readers rather than to write the same things that everyone else wrote.

there are people who do write movie reviews with blinders on. those are the worst kinds of reviews.

"roman polanski had direct experience with the holocaust. his personal life helped him ground various aspects of "the pianist" in haunting realism. for a reviewer to consciously avoid any discussion of polanski's suffering when discussing "the pianist" is for the reviewer to admit that he doesn't pay attention to much in general.

does not liking a celebrity color a reviewer's acceptance of a movie? sure it does. why is this a "problem"? do i have to like a movie in spite of my dis-like of a celebrity? that's actually illogical."

Sure, considering a filmaker's history should be part of a film's examination. But writing a whole film review focusing on a certain actor is :/

I'm not arguing whether or not you should like a movie based on a celebrity. Read my posts again? Did I complain that you didn't give film X a score of 8/10 because you didn't like actor Z? No.

Now I'm not stating that your reviews concentrate on only celebrities, but the Mission Impossible DVD review, for example, is particularly weak. It reads almost like a tabloid. It's rather clever, though, that you write a review on a Tom Cruise vehicle focusing purely on Tom Cruise...but there are so many films like that and it would probably degrade your writing if you kept on that path.

EDIT: BTW, this is slightly off topic, but I know you've said that disliking a movie because of one's dislike for a certain celebrity for whatever reasion and thus coloring the review is ok, and by extension, basically, anything goes for a film reviewer. I guess then Mr. Joe's harsh review of The Pianist on the grounds that it had bad color timing would be just as valid as a painstaking examination of Roman Polanski and his history with regards to the film. And similarly, if one prefers to judge a movie in isolation, isn't it just as valid as your claim that movies should be reviewed in close connection with the filmakers? Looks like you got caught in your own reasoning.

let's re-orient this discussion around important issues rather than "who's dating whom".

roman polanski had direct experience with the holocaust. his personal life helped him ground various aspects of "the pianist" in haunting realism. for a reviewer to consciously avoid any discussion of polanski's suffering when discussing "the pianist" is for the reviewer to admit that he doesn't pay attention to much in general.

does not liking a celebrity color a reviewer's acceptance of a movie? sure it does. why is this a "problem"? do i have to like a movie in spite of my dis-like of a celebrity? that's actually illogical.

S_Coaster and Eddie, it's easy to see where you are coming from, and I've actually run through all that in my head but I didn't want to post anything more so as not to put words in your mouths (these things tend to happen in conversations and postings).

However,

"s_coaster touched upon a very important point. if one has to have read a book to understand a movie, then the movie has failed. knowledge about a book can enhance one's appreciation of a movie, but knowledge about a book shouldn't be necessary for one to "get" a movie"

This is actually part of the core of my question. Yes, I understand that a book source isn't the same as the actors, crews and suits that made the movie. But, If it isn't necessary to read a book to get the movie, then it shouldn't be necessary to delve deeply into the personal lives of the actors. By concentrating too much on a certain actor or filmaker, you risk making some very big assumptions about people and their motivations.

For example, I'm going to cut and paste an excerpt of Eddie's comments from another thread:

"People choose to do certain things for specific reasons. Tom Cruise chose to produce and act in "MI3"; therefore, his narrative and acting choices for the movie are extensions of his beliefs as well as his total being. Look at how he's changed from "MI1" to "MI3". In "MI1", he was this nice, jolly, happy-go-lucky young man with bright prospects. In "MI2", he was a slightly older man who tried to appreciate the finer points of life. In "MI3", he seems to want to be the poster boy for extreme everything, from killing people (including himself) in order to save them to running and screaming in a bid to beat back the effects of aging. It is a very frightening transformation."

Okay, so I admit there is a chance that Eddie is correct, and that it is his right to express his opinions all he wants. However, thoughts like this make me question whether all the celebrity news and info has gotten in the way of his enjoying a movie (in this case MI:III):

"P.S. Cruise wearing a priest's vestments was a nod to his once considering becoming a priest in real life."

How do we know that for sure - is it helpful if we did? Does it enhance or detract from the movie experience? Is this but one small facet of constantly keeping up with celebrity lives?

Anyway, the point is I like reading DVDtown reviews. Thanks to very different reviewers, I often get to read a larger palette of reviews than from a usual review site. And so I'm in two minds about implying that Eddie or anyone else should stick to a more "traditional" approach to reviews. That said, drawing from celebrity news, rumors, and assumptions and making them the core of a review is not something I'd like to see in a review often.

Or perhaps I should just continue enjoying DVDtown for it's diverse approach to film reviews. I can't keep my mouth shut :p

Tim,

Obviously, I'm not speaking for Eddie (he's a big boy and can do that on this own), but when I read his say that, this is where my mind goes:

None of us are immune to the celebrity news on television, online or on line in the supermarket. Even if we don't want to know, we know that Tom Cruise jumped up and down on a couch on national TV. We know that Winona Ryder stole clothes. We know that Matt Perry likes to crash his cars.

All of those things, consciously or not, play into our perceptions when watching a movie. We see a face or hear a name and associate it with certain things. Good or bad, that's the way it works. I love LOST and every time Michelle Rodriguez came on screen, all I could think about was her drunk driving arrest. Was I not emotionally invested in the show? Of course not. It was something that got so much print and time that it was impossible not to have it creep into my mind.

Did I necessarily like the Ana Lucia character? Nope, not from day one. So I can't say it changed my outlook on the character she played. But once the news broke, I always thought to myself "Lord, she's on a hit show; doesn't she understand she needs to mind her P's and Q's?".

"Eddie's comment "movies are not made in a vacuum" is quite accurate if you ask me. " -- S Coaster

Personally, I don't get this little metaphor Eddie created. Everytime he has mentioned it, I picture the big spaceship in the movie "Spaceballs" that turns into a giant maid with a vacuum that sucks all the air out of some planet. So, honestly, I'm not quite sure what he means by his statement and I wish he'd explain it a little better.

s_coaster touched upon a very important point. if one has to have read a book to understand a movie, then the movie has failed. knowledge about a book can enhance one's appreciation of a movie, but knowledge about a book shouldn't be necessary for one to "get" a movie.

I think that eddie's comments on actors/filmmakers should not be taken as hard.
It is quite naive not to consider the actors/filmmakers personal lives, since studios selects most of them based on that. Tom cruise for example started as a great actor, he evolved into a frenzied "crazy" action boy who arrives on the red carpet with a motorcycle or jumps up and down on oprah's couches. Studios know that by putting "cruise" on that poster means a certain box office number. the more the buzz around the actor, the more his/her marketability.
Eddie's comment "movies are not made in a vacuum" is quite accurate if you ask me.

Hollywood has finally reached the point in the cgi era (which was triggered by T2 and officially started with JP) where anything new an ambitious is simply scrapped because it cannot guarantee box office success. The only things hollywood produces are sequels and known titles from comics or video games. I think we are going back to basics again, away from the visual famboyance and down to performances and plot. And since we talk about LOTR, i think not considering the books at all is essential. As a viewer, i want to be able to walk into that theater and understand the whole plot/world without reading a single word from the books. And LOTR did just that, it was a good adaptation. As for peter jackson, good director but got a bit overhypped and king kong was a 3 hours spielberg homage.

S Coaster,

I really don't get where you're going with your argument. I know I have not posted anything to challenge Eddie's approach to the way he reviews, and in fact, I've defended his side. So what's with the "come on people" thing?

Geez dude, either give yourself a little less caffine or a little less booze before you post. trust me, I know this from experience. ;) lol :D

Tim ;)

C'mon people, let's be realistic. We live in an extreemely materialized society. For f*cks sake, let's not pretend we are visitors from mars.

Like mr.Jason said, nobody is immune to the publicity that some stars get (including Tom Cruise). We are being bombarded with "gossip news" and tabloid attacks all the time. Even if you don't want to, you will eventually be up-to-date with all the brake-ups or all the "happenings" in the show biz world. Subconcsiously, that adds to the marketability of a movie. Mr.Eddie's comments on movies or subjects as such makes me feel that at least a person in this site has a "third eye" if you like...observing the world outside the "scheduled brake up announcement" or the "super bowl titty show-off" plans of some marketting advisors.

Yes! Movies should help you escape reality, but unfortunately the movie industry takes advantage of some elements (such as star publicity) to promote its products.

And as for the book comments, like i said before, a movie is a movie. The director should never feel free to exclude information just because a great majority of the audience read the book that the movie is based upon. It must be able to tell the story visually and via dialog 100%. It really comes down to the question "iS Really a picture worth 1000 words?". Lord of the rings was a great adaptation because it served the original storyline even though the director had to exclude some elements from it. I never read LOTR and i fell in love with the films.
Take DaVinci code for example. It's an OK book (actually, it reads like a screenplay. It seems that dan brown was aiming for a movie deal from the get-go) but the movie lacks the elements that define a movie. It's full of cliche's, ike the flashbacks that explain everything, or the heavily dialog depended movie screenplay (not to mention the totally miss-casted tom hanks). And all that comes from a director that has no artistic identity whatsoever. I'm not saying it's bad, Ron howard can direct anything, from dramas like beautifull mind to Apollo13 to cinderella man and finally to DaVinci.
My point is that if the book didn't create such a buzz it would've never turned into a film. The existence of films as such really explains why hollywood was allways been, and allways will be, all about the "buzz"

(P.S. sorry about my syntax)

Yes, I AM the devil >:) And I have a plan.

But no, I wouldn't like you guys to stick to a boring template like many review sites do. I mentioned that in one of my posts above.

YCH,

You're a little Devil and I'm not quite sure what you're up to. lol :D

If you're thinking there is some kind of rule that a critic must follow when writing a review the answer is yes and no. Sure, there is a standard guide of creating a review which includes an introduction, then a product body and finally a commentary conclusion. However, is this a cardinal rule that everyone should follow? Absolutely not! If we all did then how would there ever be originality?

There are times that any writer needs to break the rules in order to find their own unique style. However, I do agree that if it goes too far it can tend to confuse or disorient the reader. Nevertheless, breaking the rules, or twisting the guidelines, is also completely experimental of the writer and it does take comments from the readers in order to know if the attempts of the writer are working.

I have read a comment from some people around here that you shouldn’t let your personal feelings get in the way of your review. Or was it your personal feelings should not reflect on your review? I say horse crap to that! The entire foundation of a review is based on how I *felt* about what I saw. If a film reflects on a topic that I find personal, well guess what, those feelings are going to show up in the review. I feel I would be doing the readers discredit if I held back my emotions, mainly because I feel *emotion* is the base foundation in writing a review.

Personally, I have no issues in the way that Eddie writes his reviews. After all they are *his* reviews and I admire him for making the attempt to be original. If he wants to go on a rant over Tom Cruise in a Tom Cruise movie, then I say go for it! Hell, nobody else is doing it and that's what makes it fun and original. If you require a review to be more in the tastes of following the common guidelines, then let me assure you there are hundreds of critics out there that will deliver you the “MI” review you’re looking for. As for Eddie, his review may be more of a personalized perspective, but at the same time, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Face it, you have to admit, it was an entertaining review.

Tim ;)

Tim,

I think S_Coaster is referring to me mostly, but he didn't get the finer points of the discussion then.

I started this thread to question and prod Eddie for his approach to writing reviews, and I came away understanding his stand better. It's helped me understand my stand on this as well. This debate could go on and on; I don't want to make it a "you're wrong, I'm right" thing, especially on such a subjective issue.

Tim:
It was actually booz. Vodka to be more exact :)
I've seen sober people (including my self) post worst stuff in the past! So i'm not worried.

Pizza+beer+sunshine+GermanyWolrdCup=Love.
Out.