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.