Because If An Actor Doesn’t Toe the Line, It’s Clearly a Journalist’s Fault

Myles Mcnutt has a thoughtful, detailed response to Sons of Anarchy showrunner Kurt Sutter’s latest outburst, this time targeted at Fred Topel from Screen Junkies:

While I think that Sutter could criticize the interviewer for pissing off his star, even if that still might seem a tad bit overblown, to then position this smaller site as the cause rather than the symptom of his larger problem is highly unrepresentative. Sutter’s kneejerk responses are rarely particularly nuanced, often lumping together large swaths of individuals (often critics) when only a small subsection are actually at fault, and this seems another example where the real story gets buried beneath a larger crusade.

There are problems with this interview. There are problems in entertainment journalism. However, the problems with this interview are not necessarily the problems which exist in entertainment journalism, and they are not grounds on which to suggest any sort of malicious intent on the part of the individual in question.

AOL Acquires The Huffington Post

This should go well. Because Arianna has consistently demonstrated that she’s interested in supporting high-end premium brands like Cinematical, a support demonstrated through the Post’s lavish payments to its multitude of talented bloggers, right? Right?

Om Malik has a take that I agree with:

AOL’s moves are much like the ending scene from Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid. Surrounded by the Bolivian Army, Dos Hombres have no choice to make a gallant dash to their horses, guns blazing, hoping against hope as thousand guns blaze around them. The ever-increasing web inventory is like the Bolivian Army firing on AOL and others who have not yet come to terms with the futility of chasing page views…

In a chat with The New York Times, charming and always quotable Armstrong quipped “I think this is going to be a situation where 1 plus 1 equals 11.” Let’s not get ahead of ourselves, for in this case one plus one ends up equaling none – as we might soon see!

Time will tell.

Requiem for the IFC News Podcast

One of the wonders of our modern age is that it allows for fairly intense, asymmetrical digital relationships. That is, we can all have personalities online that we follow and listen to and read, but these people may have no idea who we are. One of the means by which this takes place is through podcasting, where every week, voices and conversations and personal moments are piped through to our ears from thousands of miles away. These strangers we listen to may not know us, but in some small way, we know them. And maybe knowing them makes us feel slightly less alone.

This week, Matt Singer and Alison Willmore announced that they would no longer be recording the IFC News Podcast (Alison will be moving on to greener pastures from IFC, and I wish her the best. She’s an amazing, thoughtful writer and I can’t wait to see what she does next). I’ve previously named the IFC News Podcast as one of the podcasts I can’t live without. Back then, I wrote that “this podcast is a movie geek’s dream come true, with tons of thoughtful references to movies past and present.” I am really going to miss this show, as it has kept me company on many a car ride and through many a long walk. It was a rare episode that didn’t cause me to rethink a classic movie formula/trope, or inform me of some amazing film gem I had yet to see.

The show’s sudden departure is a reminder that, for the most part, podcasts are total labors of love, and that many of them only stay on the air through fortuitous circumstance and sheer force of will. (The IFC News podcast joins the Spout podcast, the Film.com podcast, and the Scene Unseen podcast as recent film podcasts that have permanently been downloaded to that great iPod in the sky). It sounds weird for me to say this (especially since I’ve had the privilege of meeting and speaking with Matt and Alison since I started listening to the podcast), but in many ways, losing the podcast feels like losing a dependable friend, one who would always be there to regale me with weekly stories of obscure movies and interesting observations. That their voices have left such an indelible impression on me is a testament to their skill, their intellect, and their likability.

A toast to the IFC News Podcast. You will be missed.

Behind the Resignation of NPR News Executive Ellen Weiss

Like many, I was baffled by the strange circumstances surrounding the resignation of Ellen Weiss, a woman who had made her decades-long career at NPR, in the aftermath of the poorly-executed firing of Juan Williams. Paul Farhi has finally unraveled the mystery:

An internal investigation launched by NPR’s board in the wake of the Williams affair broadened into questions about Weiss’s command of the newsroom. While several employees acknowledged her role in building NPR into a radio-news powerhouse and emerging digital-news player, they also questioned her methods.

More than a dozen NPR employees, including some of its well-known hosts, aired long-standing grievances to investigators about Weiss’s management style, particularly the way she had carried out a series of layoffs and terminations in 2008. Weiss’s decision to fire Williams without benefit of a face-to-face meeting sounded familiar to those who recounted similar episodes, according to people who spoke with the investigating team.

More damning was the suggestion – hotly disputed by people close to Weiss – that Weiss had preempted her boss, Schiller, in telling Williams that he had to go.

Good Old Fashioned Detective Work

Mark Bowden’s “The Case of the Vanishing Blond” unfolds like a television police procedural, which is why it’s all the more impressive that it thrills you even in print form:

From the start, it was a bad case. A battered 21-year-old woman with long blond curls was discovered facedown in the weeds, naked, at the western edge of Miami, where the neat grid of outer suburbia butts up against the high grass and black mud of the Everglades. It was early on a winter morning in 2005. A local power-company worker was driving by the empty lots of an unbuilt cul-de-sac when he saw her.

And much to his surprise, she was alive. She was still unconscious when the police airlifted her to Jackson Memorial Hospital. When she woke up in its trauma center, she could remember little about what had happened to her, but her body told an ugly tale. She had been raped, badly beaten, and left for dead. There was severe head trauma; she had suffered brain-rattling blows. Semen was recovered from inside her. The bones around her right eye were shattered. She was terrified and confused. She bent English to her native Ukrainian grammar and syntax, dropping pronouns and inverting standard sentence structure, which made her hard to understand. And one of the first things she asked for on waking was her lawyer. That was unusual.

In Which /Film Disappoints Roger Ebert

A couple of years ago, I wrote a lengthy reflection asking readers of /Film why they read “Top 10” lists at the end of each year. Here’s what I wrote back then:

We read these lists because we have strong feelings about films and as social creatures, we like to see our opinions validated. When allegedly respectable people disagree with us, we label their views as inferior. We express mock outrage because it’s fun to rip apart a writer on a message board or comments section. But ultimately, I think all of that misses the point. Lists, reviews, even news items: We should all read these things to be informed, not only about objective reality but also about subjective opinions. How else can our own opinions be refined and improved except in the presence of those that are opposed to ours? As the old adage goes, “Variety is the spice of life.” How boring, monotonous, and oppressive would it be if everyone just had the same opinion on every single film out there?

I still agree with this sentiment completely. Perhaps when I was younger and more foolish, I read lists to make sure that critics agreed with my own picks. But these days, I celebrate the fact that people have different choices. Maybe they’ll give me an idea for a movie to check out on the festival circuit, or maybe I’ll have more fodder to add to my ever-lengthening Netflix queue. Whatever the case, diversity in film opinion should be celebrated, not quashed. And when someone picks a film that you hate on their “Top 10” list, that should be more motivation to read their reasoning. Considering opposing opinions sharpens the mind, rather than dulling it.

I thought about that piece recently when I learned that legendary film critic Roger Ebert had commented on an article over at /Film. Ebert set the film blogosphere on fire when he tapped 24-year old writer/blogger Ignatiy Vishnevetsky to appear in his new At The Movies television show. Scrutiny of Vishnevetsky escalated shortly thereafter, a phenomenon exemplified by the comments in our piece listing his Indiewire ballot best films of 2010. Vishnevetsky’s choices were certainly unorthodox, but as I’ve already tried to explain, one’s justifications, reasoning, and criticism are more important than some arbitrary numerical ranking of favorite films.

Here’s what Ebert had to say about Vishnevetsky’s list:

I think it’s a good list. “World on a Wire” is a rediscovered Fassbinder. “The Father of my Children,” “Vincere” and “White Material” are on my Best Foreign Films List. I gave “Vengeance” 3.5 stars. Loved Jane Birkin in “Around a Small Mountain.” Didn’t see “Eccentricities,” but it was good enough for the official selection at Cannes. Do these posters know who its director is? I wager not.

The Romero I didn’t see. Every critic is allowed one weirdo title out of 10. It’s a tradition. All depends on *what he said about it.*

Bear in mind Ignatiy wasn’t seeing all the mainstream movies last year. Not his job. He went voluntarily to movies he wanted to see. This list suggests the extent of his knowledge and curiosity.

Some of these Slashfilm readers disappoint me. They criticize this list for (1) not rubber-stamping other lists, and (2) for, gasp, including films they haven’t seen! Typical of that conformist group I call the List Police.

I read the list and rejoiced that we had Ignatiy on the show.

Roger Ebert

Some of them disappoint me too, Roger. Some of them disappoint me too.

I’m obviously crestfallen that commenters displaying the intellect, manners, and capacity of middle schoolers are allowed to hijack such a conversation on our site (and that, on one of the few days of the year that Ebert ventures over to visit us, that’s what he has to see). But there are several factors that counteract my desire to throw my hands up in the air and just give up hope. Because, you see, I know that there are great deal of intelligent people reading our site, people who’ve written me e-mails containing thoughtful, lengthy discourses on the nature of John Woo’s violence, and on the merits of Martin Scorsese, and on the prevalence of chauvinism or masochism or hedonism in this film or that film. Their encouragement has been immeasurable to me.

I also know that we, as writers, can only do our best. And while some of the readers we are attracting may not leave the most respectful comments, we can all aspire to be better than we would otherwise be. It’s also possible, too, that one day our commenters will grow up and realize that there’s a great, big, beautiful world out there, full of people who hold different opinions than they do. Hopefully, we’ll reach that day soon.

[P.S. Mr. Ebert: If you ever get around to reading this, you should really check out The Tobolowsky Files. I think it’d be right up your alley.]

Ricky Gervais’s Remarkable Golden Globes Performance

Ricky Gervais’s performance at the Golden Globes tonight was classic Gervais: incisive, brutal, and loaded with uncomfortable truths [Watch his opening monologue now, if you haven’t. It’s the stuff of legend.]

But it’s a good thing we have reporters like Mary McNamara, writing for the LA Times, to protect the bruised egos of these poor, poor millionaire superstar actors and directors:

This year, [Gervais] was far better prepared, and one would imagine, much sweatier, as it quickly became clear that his material wasn’t just falling flat, it was making many audience members and presenters uncomfortable and even angry…Poking fun at big stars is in the job description. But televised teasing requires a lightness of touch or else it quickly becomes bullying.

For a few short hours, an awards show host wields undeniable power. He or she can make a joke about someone in the audience and that person is stuck between a camera and a hard place — get all shirty about it and you risk looking like Sean Penn defending Jude Law from Chris Rock’s rather gentle ribbing. So most just smiled, perhaps at the memory of Gervais’ own dismal box office record, and prayed for a quick cutaway.

McNamara’s piece is well-written, but sheesh. Here we have a situation where we finally have a comedian who is willing to speak truth to (box office) power and shake things up a bit, and you’re going to argue for the status quo? Take a step back from your job and think about the extraordinary dressing down that Gervais gave everyone, HFPA-included, tonight. Gervais may not ever be invited back again, but for one night, he knocked a few inches off the Hollywood pedestal that the public is only too-willing to place our stars upon. For that, we can marvel and be grateful.

Why We Need To Get Away from CPM Advertising

Tom Hespos, writing on the problems associated with advertising revenue based on pageviews:

When publishers sell advertising on a CPM (cost-per-thousand impressions) basis rather than on a flat-fee basis, the value of content depends solely on the amount of traffic it can draw to websites and newsletters where ads are displayed. This dynamic has reduced too much web content to the equivalent of internet-forum trolling — provocative pieces designed to “go viral” by sparking controversy and outrage. Publishing top 10 lists that few people agree with, politically charged short video clips and other pieces of “link bait” that aim to get people to express a contrary opinion has become a viable online publishing business model. Just ask Cracked.com.

I agree. This is extremely pernicious. But Hespos’ solution?

What’s the content creator’s best bet for generating revenue? The simplest solution involves decoupling the value of the content from its traffic-generating ability. You do that by reaching an audience that’s so valuable to an advertiser that they chuck the CPM model entirely and pay a flat rate to “own” your content exclusively.

We’ll all do whatever we need to do in order to increase the value of our content, but I’d suggest that relying on BT to boost CPMs isn’t the answer. Separating traffic volume from content quality would have a much greater effect.

Uh…yeah. Not terribly practical, especially for certain markets.

Hespos is saying you should write for the audience that you want to have, not the one that you actually have. But there’s no sense here (at least in this column) of how one makes that transition and acquires that desired audience. And for smaller sites, such as the one I write for, having an ad-sales person who can sell sponsorships is not really a feasible option.