Tarantino To Critics: Screw Off

Written by Chris YogerstcloseAuthor: chrisyogerst Name: Chris Yogerst
Email: chris@parcbench.com
Site: http://twitter.com/chrisyogerst
About: Chris graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee with a BA in film studies and English. He is pursuing a master's degree in 'critical studies in film and television' and is the editor of the Parcbench movies section. He is also a contributor to Breitbart's Big Hollywood and Frontpagemag's Newsreal.See Authors Posts (74) on July 15, 2009

Quentin Tarantino has a bone to pick with a different set of Basterds.

The LA Times recently discussed how Quentin Tarantino was bashing critics of his new film Inglorious Basterds.  Apparently the Cannes film festival didn’t go well for Tarantino, and he dismissed the bad reviews to crappy journalism.

According to Tarantino,

I know more about film than most of the people writing about me. Not only that, I’m a better writer than most of the people writing about me. And I can write film criticism better than most of the people writing about me too.

Some would sure believe that those are fighting words!  The LA Times piece insinuates that there is no question that his new film will get pounded by critics across the country due to this comment.

I don’t agree.  We know Tarantino is a huge film buff who knows a great deal about his craft.  He puts his body and soul into his films, so don’t be surprised if he is offended when someone can dismiss something so quickly that took years to create.

Of course we can’t expect film critics to know everything there is to know about film.  However, scholars like David Bordwell and Rick Altman give us reason to try.

In this age of technology, anyone of any background and education can post their thoughts on the internet.  This is both a good and bad thing.  Having worldwide accessibility is great, but it makes it difficult to navigate the massive amount of content out there.

Anyone can become a film critic, despite their knowledge of film (or lack thereof).  This creates the problem of journalists who like movies and decide to write about them.  This is where I generally have issues.  Too many journalists call themselves “film critics.”

For example, Tom Charity wrote a review for CNN about the new Transformers film.  The film had many faults, but he decided to axe it for its “reactionary militaristic politics.”  Is this guy serious?  That is the best he can come up with?  Some films have overt political messages, this one doesn’t.  He obviously decided to hate this film before even watching it.  It is a worthless review.

A review of Public Enemies from Eclipse Magazine is equally thoughtless.  They give a grade of a C, but never really explain why.  This film has mixed reviews, but in a genre with the longevity of the gangster film, why not talk about the iconography?  What about how Depp’s Dillinger differs from iconic screen icons of the past like Cagney and Robinson?  The review even says that Michael Mann’s Heat had little substance, did they even see it?

There is a reason people study film formally.  There is a lot to learn!  I have been studying film for years both undergraduate and graduate.  There is an overwhelming amount of information out there about film.

We can never be too prepared for our response to art.  Therefore, why not be as educated as possible?  My years of studying left me a huge basis of comparison that continues to grow.  I’ve watched too many films to list off in a week and read enough theory to make a rocket scientist’s head spin.

Plenty of journalists who usually write about politics or celebrity gossip feel they can give great readings of films.  Instead, they give us shallow worthless insights.  I highly doubt these folks are well read on the theories of Sergei Eisenstein, Christian Metz, Peter Wollen, or Robin Wood.  They probably also haven’t seen a film that dates before 1970.

Being a journalist, even a respected one, doesn’t automatically qualify you for film criticism.  I’m not saying everyone has to go the scholarly route like I did.  There are plenty of people out there who are extremely enthusiastic about film and make it a serious hobby to expand their knowledge of the art.  Roger Ebert is one of these critics; he sure made it work for himself.

For anyone who wants to get into film criticism, I suggest you start by reading a lot of it.  Also pick up a copy of Timothy Corrigan’s A Short Guide to Writing about Film.  This should get you started.  Watch a healthy amount of TCM to build your knowledge of the history of film and supplement that with a book about the studio system.  Once you get this far, I will get you into the good stuff!