Now Playing: Stephanie Zacharek's Video Review of Inception
So you might have heard Movieline's chief film critic Stephanie Zacharek had some problems with Inception. Along with a few other pans heard round the world (literally), the review has provoked more than a little discussion among fans of Christopher Nolan -- and that discussion will only advance this weekend as the film opens in theaters. With that in mind, let's talk!
And: Let's keep it civil! It's just a movie, people.
<embed
type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
id="player-241949"
name="player-241949"
src="http://www-movieline-com.vimg.net/_/jw/player-licensed-viral.swf"
width="500"
height="282"
allowscriptaccess="always"
allowfullscreen="true"
flashvars="autostart=0&playlist=none&config=http://www-movieline-com.vimg.net/playlists/config.xml?2010-08-24-08-25-00&file=/sz_videos/movieline_sz_inception.flv&image=http://www-movieline-com.vimg.net/images/sz_inception_screenshot.jpg"
plugins="acudeojw,gapro,viral-2&viral.callout=none&viral.onpause=false&gapro.accountid=UA-1915907-26&gapro.trackstarts=true&gapro.trackpercentage=true&gapro.tracktime=true&acudeojw.progId=4af229940e9cc"
/>
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
No, no, NO Guardian UK! I was "too dumb enough"! "Too dumb ENOUGH!" I know, I was there, I lived it.
In support and celebration of Ms. Zacharek's review of Inception I will be coordinating a group screeing of her favorite movie of 2010, Jonah Hex for this Saturday at the Arc Light in Sherman Oaks.
Immediately after the viewing there will be a Q&A with Ms. Zacharek wherein she will answer questions about movies she has praised and loved in her reviews, Battlefield Earth, Howard the Duck, Town & Country and Freddy Got Fingered.
Good try Stephanie!
Jonah Hex probably had a much better structure and plot.
http://www.movieline.com/2010/06/review-dont-hate-jonah-hex-for-being-leisurely.php#more
Let's show a couple clips that don't make sense unless you've seen the movie.
You give Inception a 3 because it didn't live up to YOUR expectations.
I really share the point of view of this Guardian piece. I am mesmerized by the continuing flood of invective concerning Zacharek's review. The vitriol and fury freaks me out. All she did, in her usual eloquent, snappy way, was explain why she thought the movie was pretentious and kind of silly. One would think she had suggested the film should be burned because it was too stupid to be viewed. Now that's something I could get agitated over.
And the level of argumentation supplied by her critics is mind boggling in its lack of logic, something along the lines of "Anyone who would hate this movie is an ignorant fool." I guess Movieline will keep her because she is certainly drawing a crowd. I wish, though, the crowd had her brains. I don't care if it has her taste or not. I don't consider a difference in taste to be a threat to my existence. And for the record, I loved "Dark Knight." Zacharek didn't. Big deal. I don't want to see her drummed out of town on a rail for having the audacity not to agree with me.
Guys, guys, guys..... Calm down! Do you have any specific responses to Stephanie's points? Do you care to discuss Inception itself on the sacrosanct terms you seem to insist it deserves? Or is this just about drawing irrelevant parallels and being abusive? Not very Nolanesque, I gotta say.
Welcome to Movieline, where a movie ... really is just a movie, people.
To put to rest this "Jonah Hex" thing>
Stephanie is saying Jonah Hex is so bad it's good and that Inception tries so hard to be good that it's bad. Apples and Oranges there.
Trash can be fun but pretension isn't...
Note> I haven't seen Inception or Jonah Hex.
Howard The Duck is hideously underrated. Nowhere near as bad as ANYONE says it is.
Inception, which I admittedly have not seen, is an in-depth psychological thriller. When Stephanie says, "It's not about clear visual storytelling..." "Nolan has to use a lot of dialogue to move the plot along, storytelling with explaining and not showing." These statements lack logic, what psychological thriller doesn't involve explaining, Nolan's Memento, for example, was purely 'explained' to the viewer as we walked from scene to scene.
What is irritating:
Stephanie's rating is insulting; how could Variety and HR give the film amazing reviews? While somehow Stephanie see's through the bullshit and gives it a 3. Sorcerers Apprentice received a 6.5?
Regarding the clips, I don't find it fair to purposefully use clips that involve Leo explaining the situation to support your argument. Any film can be negatively reviewed while playing clips to support it. I can say how 2001 is dull and boring and slow, and then show a clip of one of the many very long scenes, it's completely out of context....
Making a film is very difficult, let alone dealing with BO results, critics, fans, press, etc, etc. But it comes with the territory. If someone makes a shitty movie and then makes another shitty movie, critics and audiences will rail them like no other. Why should critics be treated differently? Her opinion is a public voice, which in turn will be judged.
I'm not saying we should burn her at the stake, but look at her past reviews, not all are good.... I particularly didn't like this review of the film, whether I've seen it or not...I am judging the review solely as itself.
How ironic is it that critics aren't able to take criticism??
S.T., your comment, "Not very Nolanesque..." - I will tell you, in no way, am I trying to be 'Nolanesque'.
Love the Tyler Perry photo, by the way...
You know what I mean. No movie is grounds to write the kind of vicious, hateful, personal attacks we've seen here this week.
No doubt. I enjoyed Howard the Duck. It was fun.
>>"How ironic is it that critics aren't able to take criticism??"
They can. But you're not thinking critically. Trying to apply the sensibilities of one critic or publication to another -- or, more broadly, impugning a minority opinion strictly on the basis of it being a minority -- is not criticism. It's a witchhunt.
Again, come back when you've seen the movie -- speaking of context -- and make your case.
I haven't heard of Ms. Zacharek before today, but I understand what she's saying and her POV; that is, a movie, which is watched, should progress a story along more through visual stimulus rather than vocabulary. Kinda like how most of us thinking in high school that Shakespeare meant his plays to be watched, not read (with a bit of age on me now, my theory of all that is the high schools were trying to create another Shakespeare).
I've got to say I agree with her to a point. I think the stories and scripts Nolan works with are good ones, and those stories have somehow translated into him becoming a great director, but I don't think he is on a level with say, Orson Wells (who just might be the best director of all time), or Quentin Tarantino. His telling of the story through his visuals could easily be accomplished by many others.
Another question is, how much do you tell through the picture and how much do you let the watcher's imagination take care of? Tarantino didn't how the jewel robbery in "Reservoir Dogs", he left that up to the watcher and had the characters tell about it, which is kinda ingenious. Dogs was more about character development and what happened after the heist.
I will see Inception. And I will likely enjoy it and recommend it to others. But I agree with Stephanie that Nolan isn't the great director he's heralded to be. The stories are pretty good though.
My favorite current filmmaker is writer/director Maurice Devereaux. from Canada. For a different take on horror films, check out "Lady of the Lake" or "End of the Line." Don't expect anythimg mind-blowing, but I'd like to see what Devereaux could accomplish with a budget and a more accomplished cast.
Well of course.
A car is just a car. A house is just a house. Money is just money. Art is just art. Blogs are just Blogs.
You bring up valid points, I'm interested in having this discussion with you. Especially considering Movieline is a blog that has funding, unless everyone on here does this for free. Critic's get paid to write reviews. Filmmakers get paid to make movies. Studios get paid if the movie makes money.
Here is something I learned in Middle School:
-If you buy a product and tell everyone how amazing it is, there is a good chance they will buy it too.
-If you buy a product and tell everyone how bad it is, there is a good chance they will NOT buy it.
-If my job is buying products and then writing about how good/bad they are, and a certain amount of people trust and take my word on it, it will be good or bad for that product.
Considering both you and S.T. are in the blogging business, does it not affect you when people say Movieline (or your Blog) is a good/bad blog? Your work is just work?
Don't say things are just things, especially when they cost millions of dollars, thousands of hours of labor, creativety, TIME....
Really? You think a blockbuster with hundreds of millions of dollars, an army of publicists and Leonardo DiCaprio behind it really needs you or anybody else to personally attack a stranger in its defense?
It's art, but it's not war. There really is such a thing as taking this stuff too seriously.
I think the venom against StephieZ's review is just part of a vast, anti-ginger conspiracy.
You must've overlooked Body of Lies....
We are all strangers to each other. I did not 'personally attack' anyone; in no way did I say anything insulting or demeaning. If someone makes a comment that I find illogical, I have the right to comment on it.
Hence the whole, 'Post a Comment' section.
I agree with you. There's never a reason to resort to personal attacks when you disagree with another's opinion.
But at the same time, coming from the perspective of a daily reader who lives in a flyover state (and is therefore immune to most of the omnipresent marketing for films/television/etc), it seems like you guys have been chomping at the bit to slam Inception for months now and it's been pretty perplexing to witness. It's not right nor logical for people to come here and attack Stephanie for her opinion, especially on a site that is at least 50% tongue in cheek at all times, but at the same time, I don't think Movieline is blameless in this.
From the perspective of a completely impartial reader (moi) it honestly seems like Movieline had an axe to grind against the film, and if -I- think that (someone who like Nolan's work, but isn't a "fan" per se, and can acknowledge all of the problems with his direction/films) then what would be the response from a "Nolanite"?
You reap what you sow, and you guys have been throwing out an awful lot of negative energy in Inception's direction for a while.
Can't be too surprised when that energy gets re-directed at you.
Come on, Andrew. "Chomping at the bit"? For "months"? That's just not true. I even went back through the archives. Tell me where you got that impression, because if I'm that jaded to not see it, then that is a problem.
That said, this isn't even really about Inception anymore. The real problem here is that the natural instinct online is indeed toward kneejerk, reactionary negativity. I'm probably stating the obvious here, and you're right -- I'm certainly not immune. We read cynicism and skepticism and snark into things whether they're there or not, muted or overt. Then, when a reviewer comes along with a critical informed point of view (i.e having seen the film), the impulse isn't to defend the movie or point out why it does work. Rather, it's to settle back into default attack mode where we feel most comfortable, attempting to invalidate ideas and the people who have them. Which is what I think is going on here.
I'm not so thin-skinned or naive to think any of this is going to change. But the bottom line in this case is that for all the rationalizing and mobilizing and angst stemming from SZ's comments about Inception, the emphasis of its putative defenders has nothing to do with the film at all. And I don't think it's because it hadn't opened until today. I think -- nay, I know -- it's because lashing out is more natural than attempting to reason with someone. Throw a layer of anonymity on top of that, and it's flat-out irresistible.
I'm not anti-inception, but I am pro-a woman's right to choose.
I agree with that. I also commend the encouragment for civility. This said, this is a site for people who feel passionately about movies -- it's a (albeat intelligent) fan site, FOR MOVIES -- and the essential "what's with you guys!? leave the passion for politics" angle was ill-placed, and a bit insulting. You guys are kinda taking the hit here you surely expected when you hired Stephanie, who you know is going to be unmoved by or loathe a good number of the films people who come here are probably going to love. Point the finger both ways?
No one ever said leave the passion for politics. We cherish all our writers -- including Stephanie -- for their passion. What I said was don't reduce a conversation about this movie to an assaultive free-for-all. That is not passion. That is abuse. So I'm passionate enough (or maybe naive enough, you tell me) to demand a little better quality dissent from readers -- especially those who insist on being empirically right, which makes no sense in film criticism anyway. That's fair, isn't it?
"Months" was most likely hyperbole on my part. (This month, last month? That's kind of months...sort of). But there did seem to be an underlying negative (or possibly hype-deflating) tone to a lot of the past Movieline posts about Inception. To the extent that I thought, "Hrmm that's weird. Wonder what that's about." And being stuck in the middle of the country, in a rural area where I'm not exposed to much of the onslaught of advertising or press for anything, I assumed it was a subconscious backlash against those things. Which is understandable, but not really fair to the movie itself. (I'm a "judge a movie in a vacuum" kinda guy.)
But other than that I absolutely agree with everything you said. That all too often, especially in the age of the internet troll, that the impulse is to lash out and insult anyone who disagrees or has a differing opinion. Especially now when people seem to, more than ever, tie their own identity up with the things they like.
I also think...no...I KNOW that those people are not true fans of film and cinema. They don't read critics to get an informed viewpoint, they read them for vindication. So they can feel correct for liking something. And when they read a critic who disagrees...that means that they MIGHT BE WRONG. Something trolls and nerds cannot abide.
If I tell the theatre where I saw Inception it was all just a dream can I have my money back?
Maybe LaFlemm and the condescending pseudo-intellectual imbecile Van Airsdale should take a closer like at SZ's track record before leaping to her defense.
Since you smart asses have such a high opinion of SZ, maybe you can answer a couple questions for me, 'kay?
1) How do SZ's complaints about Inception differentiate it from a movie like The Matrix? Why is one particular mind-bender tiresome in its trickery, but another is just dandy?
2) Why is it "vitriol" and "abuse" when it's directed at SZ, but somehow NOT "vitriol" and "abuse when it's SZ or her husband, Charles Taylor, doing the spewing? Have either of you read Taylor's piece attacking Harry Potter detractors for daring to depart from the conventional wisdom that HP is great literature? Did you read Taylor going absolutely ballistic, frothing at the mouth rage, on Harold Bloom and A.S. Byatt for not toeing the line regarding Harry Potter? If you have such a problem with attacks on Zacharek, why don't you have a problem with the obnoxious way Taylor conducts himself in print when one of HIS personal sacred cows gets attacked? Answer me that.
Why is attacking J.K. Rowling worthy of being burned at the stake, but attacking Chris Nolan just fine and dandy for you? Or maybe, Mr. Van Airhead, you don't actually know jack shit about the track record of the person you're defending.
SZ is NOT a "let a hundred flowers bloom" type of critic. She wages war on people who don't share her tastes. She's a very aggressive, polemical writer, and her husband Charles Taylor is even more so. So spare us the fucking lecture. This is not Ms. Open-Minded-and-Tolerant you're defending.
Next »